'Scarborough Country' for Jan. 29
Read the complete transcript to Thursday's showUpdated: 10:44 a.m. ET Jan. 30, 2004
Guests: Patricia Ireland, Pat Boone, Pat Toomey, Natasha Lapiner-Giresi, Catherine Crier, Joe Tacopina, Firpo Carr
JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: Tonight in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, devastating details in the Michael Jackson case, as more children say the pop star gave them wine at Neverland.
You‘re about to enter SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY. No passport required, no P.C. police allowed.
The Florida attorney general‘s office slams prosecutors for lying in their case against Rush Limbaugh. And government spending is out of control with no relief in sight. Now George Bush wants $1.5 billion to promote marriage. Aren‘t Republicans against expensive social programs? Plus, Bush wants to boost the NEA budget and go easy on illegal immigration. Is he trying to steal some of John Kerry‘s supporters?
But first, the circus atmosphere continues to build around the Rush Limbaugh and Michael Jackson cases. It‘s time for tonight‘s “Real Deal.”
A shocking “Vanity Fair” article names names and goes into great detail, claiming Michael Jackson took drugs, gave wine to kids, and encouraged his accuser to perform sexual acts. The shocking claims only add to the three-ring media circus that‘s surrounding Michael Jackson. But Jackson‘s camp can hardly complain, considering Michael turned his first court hearing into a tabloid free-for-all.
Now, unlike the prince of pop, Rush Limbaugh has begged for privacy. But Florida prosecutors insist instead on leaking stories to the media and hiding behind state agencies. Now the Palm Beach prosecutor is the one who‘s facing heat from the Florida Bar and the attorney general‘s office.
You know, this overzealous prosecutor has overreached. And like Michael Jackson, he may ultimately pay in court for his high-wire circus act.
And that‘s tonight‘s “Real Deal.”
Now, according to that shocking new article in “Vanity Fair,” Michael Jackson calls white wine Jesus juice, and he serves it to children in soda cans. The article also says Jackson encouraged his accuser to masturbate and claims that he‘s been in and out of rehab for drug abuse.
I‘m joined now by Court TV‘s Catherine Crier, defense attorney Joe Tacopina and Jackson family spokesman Firpo Carr.
Let me begin with you, Catherine Crier.
As a judge that obviously looks at these type of cases now on TV and did before in the courtroom, how serious are these type of allegations to Michael Jackson and his defense team?
CATHERINE CRIER, COURT TV: This 10,000-word piece in “Vanity Fair” is devastating.
But one thing the reporter does is, she names name. She has got the ‘93 accuser. She‘s got parents. She‘s got the maid, the various security guards. She really has talked to as many people as she could get her hands on and presents a pretty damning case.
SCARBOROUGH: Joe Tacopina, is this a devastating blow to the Jackson team, like Catherine Crier says it is?
JOE TACOPINA, TRIAL ATTORNEY: No. Joe, look at the source.
This happens in every high-profile case. We had this here in one of our cases in New York, where we had a “Vanity Fair” wrote a big expose that was supposed to be the end-all, be-all on our case, and it was really dead off.
Here, Joe, you got to look at the source. The “Vanity Fair” reporter‘s source in this article is a former business partner of Michael Jackson who is disgruntled, was terminated by Jackson, and wound up suing Jackson last year, claiming Jackson owes him $6 million. So, you know, you have to look at the source of the information.
CRIER: This is not a single-source item, Joe. People are sourced all the way through here. That is one primary source.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Catherine Crier, I want to ask you about that, though, because it is extraordinarily specific. Do you think this article actually lays out a road map for the prosecution?
CRIER: Well, I think so. And, certainly, the more information we get, the more information I expect the DA has to go forward with this case at this time.
And I also think that they may well get, once this is so public, they may well get the ‘93 accuser to testify.
TACOPINA: By the way, Joe, what happened to the gag order? You see, this is why gag orders in high-profile cases, in this day and age of media frenzy and electronic media, don‘t work. All it does is push the leaks underground.
Now you have this piece here that Mark Geragos, Brafman and the like can‘t even respond to. And that‘s just not fair. They should be able to say something about this.
SCARBOROUGH: Speaking, though, of responding to it, Jackson‘s family has a lot of people that are going to be coming out tomorrow testifying.
But I want to play for you, though, what “Vanity Fair” Maureen Orth, who is the author of the shocking article, told Katie Couric about the similarities between Jackson‘s current legal troubles and his 1993 molestation case.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “THE TODAY SHOW”)
MAUREEN ORTH, “VANITY FAIR”: For one thing, the physical type of both boys. They look similar. They are of similar ages. He had a similar nickname for both of them, strikingly called “Rubba.”
The mothers were always put IN separate guest houses. The mothers and the sisters were always put away off to the side, because he told the boys, allegedly, girls are tattletales.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCARBOROUGH: Firpo, since Jackson‘s lawyers can‘t respond, how will the Jackson family respond to these shocking allegations?
FIRPO CARR, JACKSON FAMILY FRIEND: Well, first of all, I won‘t go into a lot of details. We will wait for the conference tomorrow.
But I will say, two words come to mind when I think about the “Vanity Fair” article, yellow journalism. Unbelievable. This individual, I cannot believe, would do the same thing that “The New York Post” did, that “The New York Times” did, namely “The Post” saying that Michael Jackson had converted to the Nation of Islam.
I had to go before the nation and say, that is absolutely, categorically wrong. “The New York Times” saying things like Grace, the nanny, introduced the Nation of Islam to Michael Jackson. Categorically wrong.
So these things, this falls in that category. We‘ll go into more detail tomorrow at the press conference. But for now, I will just say those two words, yellow journalism. And also, as far as the legality of it is concerned, Michael Jackson right now, still–and can I not say it enough, Joe–is an innocent man, according to the Constitution of the United States.
I don‘t care how many articles or how much yellow journalism is spewed out there for the public to consume.
SCARBOROUGH: Catherine, the Jackson family released a statement earlier today, claiming–quote–“This is the epitome of piling on, which is why I‘ve called it a modern-day lynching. To say that Michael Jackson has supplied wine to children is ludicrous. It is also slander for this writer to say that Michael is a drug addict.”
If that‘s the case, Catherine, let‘s say all of this information, very detailed information is false, and all of these people quoted are lying, how does Jackson‘s legal team keep this information out of court and stop it from affecting a jury pool?
CRIER: Well, it‘s going to be very, very difficult in terms of the jury pool.
But you question them and you try and find individuals who can set aside anything they‘ve read or heard. But the information that is admissible will come into court. If it‘s not, if the witnesses aren‘t there to back it up, if it doesn‘t fall under appropriate bad acts that the judge would allow to substantiate the current charges, then, some of this stuff may not come in.
But that doesn‘t mean it is not worthy of consideration. I think this
journalist, if, in fact, all of these are lies, better look to her
insurance, along with “Vanity Fair”‘s. But I bet this was heavily vetted
by their lawyers before it went to print.
SCARBOROUGH: Absolutely.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Go ahead.
CARR: That still doesn‘t prove anything. That doesn‘t prove anything at all.
In fact, I liked what the Associated Press said about the article, namely that all of this is unsubstantiated, you know, sources that can‘t be named, things that will not prove a thing in a court of law, let alone on television here. I am just surprised that the media has run with this, just like they ran with other articles.
(CROSSTALK)
CRIER: It‘s amazing how many people were quoted specifically by name.
That was what amazed me.
CARR: It doesn‘t matter.
(CROSSTALK)
CARR: It doesn‘t make it true.
SCARBOROUGH: Joe, let me bring you in here.
Let‘s get personal for a second, take it on a personal level. With all of these shocking revelations coming out, with all the specifics, do you think there‘s going to be a move by the state of California to possibly take Michael Jackson‘s children away from him?
TACOPINA: You know, I think, at this late stage–late in the sense that this–Michael Jackson has been under charges, if you will, for almost two months now. To do it at this late stage would look like, as Firpo said, piling on. There‘s been no allegations that he‘s done anything to any of his children. They are in the care of other people. You cannot take his children away from him and act detrimentally to the children.
But let me say this, Joe. I love these articles, because people are so brazen in articles. It‘s a rare individual who will leak something to a journalist or even be quoted to a journalist that will hold up on a witness stand under cross-examination. Now, look, if these people are willing to testify at this criminal trial, and even if they have admissible evidence, some of these people are citing double and triple hearsay.
So they wouldn‘t even be allowed to testify. But if they do, they‘re going to what is called cross-examination. And that is the greatest truth finder of all.
SCARBOROUGH: And it also helps the defense team, does it not, to see what the other side may be bringing to court, so you can actually tear that article apart piece by piece, line by line, witness by witness.
TACOPINA: Yes, it does, except the defense team should be getting that in private in discovery, not in some article that could taint the jury pool.
SCARBOROUGH: Yes, not in “Vanity Fair.”
Firpo, let‘s listen to part of a song called “Morphine” that Michael Jackson wrote in 1997.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP, “MORPHINE”)
MICHAEL JACKSON, SINGER (singing): Relax. This won‘t hurt you. Before I put it in, close your eyes and count to 10. Demerol, Demerol, oh God, he‘s taking Demerol. Demerol, Demerol, oh, God, he‘s taking Demerol.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
SCARBOROUGH: Dr. Firpo Carr, there are many people even close to Michael Jackson who are saying this song about Demerol several years back suggests that Michael Jackson was trying to tell America and the world about his drug problems.
What‘s your response?
CARR: Well, it reminds me of the Rorschach test, right, that inkblot test. People look at it and see different things.
I think this is the audio version, if you will, of that test that‘s given by psychologists. They listen to that and perhaps they‘re telling on themselves when they offer suggestions like the one you just did. I will leave it on it at face value. I won‘t say that Michael Jackson was trying to say that he was having a drug problem.
It is well known that, yes, he has had challenges in the past.
SCARBOROUGH: Challenges with drugs in the past?
(CROSSTALK)
CARR: That‘s correct. That‘s no secret. That‘s no secret.
And, of course, he is in the same category with, what, Elvis, Betty Ford and a host of others. So that‘s not unusual for people with high profile or who are high-profile individuals. That‘s not unusual at all. It‘s what you do.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Right. Right, how you respond that challenge.
Well, thank you, Dr. Carr.
CARR: You‘re welcome.
SCARBOROUGH: I appreciate you being with us tonight.
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4107043/
Read the complete transcript to Thursday's showUpdated: 10:44 a.m. ET Jan. 30, 2004
Guests: Patricia Ireland, Pat Boone, Pat Toomey, Natasha Lapiner-Giresi, Catherine Crier, Joe Tacopina, Firpo Carr
JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: Tonight in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, devastating details in the Michael Jackson case, as more children say the pop star gave them wine at Neverland.
You‘re about to enter SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY. No passport required, no P.C. police allowed.
The Florida attorney general‘s office slams prosecutors for lying in their case against Rush Limbaugh. And government spending is out of control with no relief in sight. Now George Bush wants $1.5 billion to promote marriage. Aren‘t Republicans against expensive social programs? Plus, Bush wants to boost the NEA budget and go easy on illegal immigration. Is he trying to steal some of John Kerry‘s supporters?
But first, the circus atmosphere continues to build around the Rush Limbaugh and Michael Jackson cases. It‘s time for tonight‘s “Real Deal.”
A shocking “Vanity Fair” article names names and goes into great detail, claiming Michael Jackson took drugs, gave wine to kids, and encouraged his accuser to perform sexual acts. The shocking claims only add to the three-ring media circus that‘s surrounding Michael Jackson. But Jackson‘s camp can hardly complain, considering Michael turned his first court hearing into a tabloid free-for-all.
Now, unlike the prince of pop, Rush Limbaugh has begged for privacy. But Florida prosecutors insist instead on leaking stories to the media and hiding behind state agencies. Now the Palm Beach prosecutor is the one who‘s facing heat from the Florida Bar and the attorney general‘s office.
You know, this overzealous prosecutor has overreached. And like Michael Jackson, he may ultimately pay in court for his high-wire circus act.
And that‘s tonight‘s “Real Deal.”
Now, according to that shocking new article in “Vanity Fair,” Michael Jackson calls white wine Jesus juice, and he serves it to children in soda cans. The article also says Jackson encouraged his accuser to masturbate and claims that he‘s been in and out of rehab for drug abuse.
I‘m joined now by Court TV‘s Catherine Crier, defense attorney Joe Tacopina and Jackson family spokesman Firpo Carr.
Let me begin with you, Catherine Crier.
As a judge that obviously looks at these type of cases now on TV and did before in the courtroom, how serious are these type of allegations to Michael Jackson and his defense team?
CATHERINE CRIER, COURT TV: This 10,000-word piece in “Vanity Fair” is devastating.
But one thing the reporter does is, she names name. She has got the ‘93 accuser. She‘s got parents. She‘s got the maid, the various security guards. She really has talked to as many people as she could get her hands on and presents a pretty damning case.
SCARBOROUGH: Joe Tacopina, is this a devastating blow to the Jackson team, like Catherine Crier says it is?
JOE TACOPINA, TRIAL ATTORNEY: No. Joe, look at the source.
This happens in every high-profile case. We had this here in one of our cases in New York, where we had a “Vanity Fair” wrote a big expose that was supposed to be the end-all, be-all on our case, and it was really dead off.
Here, Joe, you got to look at the source. The “Vanity Fair” reporter‘s source in this article is a former business partner of Michael Jackson who is disgruntled, was terminated by Jackson, and wound up suing Jackson last year, claiming Jackson owes him $6 million. So, you know, you have to look at the source of the information.
CRIER: This is not a single-source item, Joe. People are sourced all the way through here. That is one primary source.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Catherine Crier, I want to ask you about that, though, because it is extraordinarily specific. Do you think this article actually lays out a road map for the prosecution?
CRIER: Well, I think so. And, certainly, the more information we get, the more information I expect the DA has to go forward with this case at this time.
And I also think that they may well get, once this is so public, they may well get the ‘93 accuser to testify.
TACOPINA: By the way, Joe, what happened to the gag order? You see, this is why gag orders in high-profile cases, in this day and age of media frenzy and electronic media, don‘t work. All it does is push the leaks underground.
Now you have this piece here that Mark Geragos, Brafman and the like can‘t even respond to. And that‘s just not fair. They should be able to say something about this.
SCARBOROUGH: Speaking, though, of responding to it, Jackson‘s family has a lot of people that are going to be coming out tomorrow testifying.
But I want to play for you, though, what “Vanity Fair” Maureen Orth, who is the author of the shocking article, told Katie Couric about the similarities between Jackson‘s current legal troubles and his 1993 molestation case.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “THE TODAY SHOW”)
MAUREEN ORTH, “VANITY FAIR”: For one thing, the physical type of both boys. They look similar. They are of similar ages. He had a similar nickname for both of them, strikingly called “Rubba.”
The mothers were always put IN separate guest houses. The mothers and the sisters were always put away off to the side, because he told the boys, allegedly, girls are tattletales.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCARBOROUGH: Firpo, since Jackson‘s lawyers can‘t respond, how will the Jackson family respond to these shocking allegations?
FIRPO CARR, JACKSON FAMILY FRIEND: Well, first of all, I won‘t go into a lot of details. We will wait for the conference tomorrow.
But I will say, two words come to mind when I think about the “Vanity Fair” article, yellow journalism. Unbelievable. This individual, I cannot believe, would do the same thing that “The New York Post” did, that “The New York Times” did, namely “The Post” saying that Michael Jackson had converted to the Nation of Islam.
I had to go before the nation and say, that is absolutely, categorically wrong. “The New York Times” saying things like Grace, the nanny, introduced the Nation of Islam to Michael Jackson. Categorically wrong.
So these things, this falls in that category. We‘ll go into more detail tomorrow at the press conference. But for now, I will just say those two words, yellow journalism. And also, as far as the legality of it is concerned, Michael Jackson right now, still–and can I not say it enough, Joe–is an innocent man, according to the Constitution of the United States.
I don‘t care how many articles or how much yellow journalism is spewed out there for the public to consume.
SCARBOROUGH: Catherine, the Jackson family released a statement earlier today, claiming–quote–“This is the epitome of piling on, which is why I‘ve called it a modern-day lynching. To say that Michael Jackson has supplied wine to children is ludicrous. It is also slander for this writer to say that Michael is a drug addict.”
If that‘s the case, Catherine, let‘s say all of this information, very detailed information is false, and all of these people quoted are lying, how does Jackson‘s legal team keep this information out of court and stop it from affecting a jury pool?
CRIER: Well, it‘s going to be very, very difficult in terms of the jury pool.
But you question them and you try and find individuals who can set aside anything they‘ve read or heard. But the information that is admissible will come into court. If it‘s not, if the witnesses aren‘t there to back it up, if it doesn‘t fall under appropriate bad acts that the judge would allow to substantiate the current charges, then, some of this stuff may not come in.
But that doesn‘t mean it is not worthy of consideration. I think this
journalist, if, in fact, all of these are lies, better look to her
insurance, along with “Vanity Fair”‘s. But I bet this was heavily vetted
by their lawyers before it went to print.
SCARBOROUGH: Absolutely.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Go ahead.
CARR: That still doesn‘t prove anything. That doesn‘t prove anything at all.
In fact, I liked what the Associated Press said about the article, namely that all of this is unsubstantiated, you know, sources that can‘t be named, things that will not prove a thing in a court of law, let alone on television here. I am just surprised that the media has run with this, just like they ran with other articles.
(CROSSTALK)
CRIER: It‘s amazing how many people were quoted specifically by name.
That was what amazed me.
CARR: It doesn‘t matter.
(CROSSTALK)
CARR: It doesn‘t make it true.
SCARBOROUGH: Joe, let me bring you in here.
Let‘s get personal for a second, take it on a personal level. With all of these shocking revelations coming out, with all the specifics, do you think there‘s going to be a move by the state of California to possibly take Michael Jackson‘s children away from him?
TACOPINA: You know, I think, at this late stage–late in the sense that this–Michael Jackson has been under charges, if you will, for almost two months now. To do it at this late stage would look like, as Firpo said, piling on. There‘s been no allegations that he‘s done anything to any of his children. They are in the care of other people. You cannot take his children away from him and act detrimentally to the children.
But let me say this, Joe. I love these articles, because people are so brazen in articles. It‘s a rare individual who will leak something to a journalist or even be quoted to a journalist that will hold up on a witness stand under cross-examination. Now, look, if these people are willing to testify at this criminal trial, and even if they have admissible evidence, some of these people are citing double and triple hearsay.
So they wouldn‘t even be allowed to testify. But if they do, they‘re going to what is called cross-examination. And that is the greatest truth finder of all.
SCARBOROUGH: And it also helps the defense team, does it not, to see what the other side may be bringing to court, so you can actually tear that article apart piece by piece, line by line, witness by witness.
TACOPINA: Yes, it does, except the defense team should be getting that in private in discovery, not in some article that could taint the jury pool.
SCARBOROUGH: Yes, not in “Vanity Fair.”
Firpo, let‘s listen to part of a song called “Morphine” that Michael Jackson wrote in 1997.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP, “MORPHINE”)
MICHAEL JACKSON, SINGER (singing): Relax. This won‘t hurt you. Before I put it in, close your eyes and count to 10. Demerol, Demerol, oh God, he‘s taking Demerol. Demerol, Demerol, oh, God, he‘s taking Demerol.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
SCARBOROUGH: Dr. Firpo Carr, there are many people even close to Michael Jackson who are saying this song about Demerol several years back suggests that Michael Jackson was trying to tell America and the world about his drug problems.
What‘s your response?
CARR: Well, it reminds me of the Rorschach test, right, that inkblot test. People look at it and see different things.
I think this is the audio version, if you will, of that test that‘s given by psychologists. They listen to that and perhaps they‘re telling on themselves when they offer suggestions like the one you just did. I will leave it on it at face value. I won‘t say that Michael Jackson was trying to say that he was having a drug problem.
It is well known that, yes, he has had challenges in the past.
SCARBOROUGH: Challenges with drugs in the past?
(CROSSTALK)
CARR: That‘s correct. That‘s no secret. That‘s no secret.
And, of course, he is in the same category with, what, Elvis, Betty Ford and a host of others. So that‘s not unusual for people with high profile or who are high-profile individuals. That‘s not unusual at all. It‘s what you do.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Right. Right, how you respond that challenge.
Well, thank you, Dr. Carr.
CARR: You‘re welcome.
SCARBOROUGH: I appreciate you being with us tonight.
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4107043/