Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Witness Says Jackson in Financial Trouble
AP ^ | 05/03/05 | LINDA DEUTSCH

Posted on 05/04/2005 1:30:24 AM PDT by raccoonradio

SANTA MARIA, Calif. - A forensic accountant testified in Michael Jackson's child molestation trial Tuesday the pop star was spending $20 million to $30 million more every year than he earned, a deep financial problem the prosecution contends underlies conspiracy allegations in the case.

The prosecution also tried to undermine earlier testimony from one of their own witnesses — Jackson's ex-wife Deborah Rowe — by calling an investigator who said Rowe told him last year Jackson was a "sociopath."

The testimony came as the prosecution neared the end of its case.

Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting a 13-year-old boy at his Neverland ranch in February or March 2003, giving him alcohol and conspiring to hold the accuser's family captive to get them to rebut a damaging documentary about the pop star.

The detailed analysis of Jackson's multimillion-dollar empire was brought into the trial over vehement objections from defense attorneys who said it was irrelevant to the case and was based on hearsay statements contained in memos from various financial advisers.

Judge Rodney S. Melville instructed jurors they were not to consider the accounting figures "for the truth of the matter" but merely to show how the expert reached his conclusions.

Under questioning by Deputy District Attorney Gordon Auchincloss, forensic accountant John Duross O'Bryan traced Jackson's assets and liabilities from 1999 to 2004.

The witness said he obtained only one balance sheet, from June 30, 2002, and it showed Jackson with a net worth of negative $285 million. He said this included assets of $130 million and liabilities of $415 million.

He said the balance sheet was prepared on a tax basis and assets listed might actually have higher values.

"There was an ongoing cash crisis, not enough cash to pay bills," O'Bryan testified.

He said he formed his opinions by reading through boxes of memos exchanged by Jackson's financial managers over the years, and he told of a warning to Jackson that if his overspending continued he might be forced to sell off his two greatest assets, the catalogue of his own songs and the Sony-ATV catalogue which contains rights to the works of numerous other artists including the Beatles.

The witness said even selling the catalogues would be problematic because that would incur a huge tax liability.

Defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. said the catalogue was worth $1 billion in 2003, and there have been estimates it's now worth between $4 billion and $5 billion.

Mesereau clashed with the accountant, suggesting in several questions he underestimated the value of Jackson's stake in the Sony-ATV catalogue and had not considered lucrative offers available to Jackson as an entertainer.

"Wouldn't it be relevant if you knew Mr. Jackson could accept one opportunity and solve (his liquidity problem) in a day," Mesereau asked.

"If it could be solved, why wasn't it?" the accountant replied.

O'Bryan testified as of February 2003, the month a damaging documentary about Jackson aired on television, Jackson had $10.5 million in unpaid vendor invoices and only $38,000 in cash in bank accounts.

He also said Jackson owes Bank of America at least $235 million on a loan and a line of credit.

The testimony was offered to show Jackson was in deep financial trouble when the documentary aired and brought down a storm of criticism on the star for a statement in which he said he allowed children to sleep in his bed, although he insisted it was non-sexual.

Prosecutors are trying to show Jackson had banked on the documentary as a way to re-energize his career, and that it exploded in his face.

They say he then organized efforts at damage control; they maintain he tried to do this by holding captive the family of the boy he allegedly molested and forcing them to participate in the so-called rebuttal video.

The accountant testified he was aware Jackson negotiated with the Fox network to get $7 million for the rebuttal video.

"Let's say he has the opportunity to make a documentary that will generate $7 million," Mesereau said. "That $7 million is not going to make much of a difference" in Jackson's liabilities.

"No, it's not," the witness agreed.

"And it wouldn't be worth committing a crime, would it?" asked Mesereau.

The question was ruled argumentative and there was no answer.

Before the financial testimony, District Attorney Tom Sneddon called sheriff's Sgt. Steve Robel to the stand to undermine Rowe.

Jackson's ex-wife, the mother of two of his children, had unexpectedly praised Jackson as a good father and a generous and caring friend and denied prosecution contentions that her statements in another rebuttal video were scripted by the Jackson camp.

Asked what Rowe said to him in their year-ago interview, Robel said, "She referred to Michael as a sociopath and his children as being possessions."


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: kingofpop; michaeljackson; pedophilia; wackojacko
>>assets of $130 million and liabilities of $415 million

>>Jackson owes Bank of America at least $235 million on a loan and a line of credit

His albums haven't quite been selling like "Thriller" lately...time to sell off the Beatles' catalog and Neverland, Mikey.

1 posted on 05/04/2005 1:30:25 AM PDT by raccoonradio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: raccoonradio

It depends on what the definition of Financial Trouble is.


2 posted on 05/04/2005 1:31:58 AM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raccoonradio

>>Jackson had banked on the documentary as a way to re-energize his career, and that it exploded in his face

Music that wasn't as good as before...telling reporters that it's perfectly fine to sleep with somebody else's children...his appearance...oh yeah, his albums were gonna sell like hotcakes after all that.


3 posted on 05/04/2005 1:33:25 AM PDT by raccoonradio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raccoonradio

'Thriller' was a great album. That was 22 years ago, when Jackson still looked like a normal human being. If Jackson has had a hit since then, I can't name it. Does anybody truly believe that he has any "star power" left?

If Jackson was just a washed-up has-been, he could at least do a nostalgia tour and make some money. But Jackson has made himself into a carnival freak show - - a pariah, in fact. I doubt that he could sell out Bob's Country Bunker at this point.


4 posted on 05/04/2005 1:49:27 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: raccoonradio

Michael Jackson needs to grow up and begin acting like an adult. Many of us had our childhoods robbed from us. For me, it didn't result in living in a fantasy world, but in the effort to do something and make a better life and help others.


5 posted on 05/04/2005 3:40:38 AM PDT by Shery (S. H. in APOland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

Jackson couldnt sell out Bob's Country Bunker at any point. Country music people arent into Jackson.

Just a thought but part of Michael's show was his physical activity, the Moon walk and other dancing. He has a bad back now doesnt he?. Who wants to watch a guy sing while an umbrella is held over his head by a flunky.


6 posted on 05/04/2005 4:50:13 AM PDT by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: raccoonradio
I'll say it as loud as I can -- this prosecution is the MOST SHAMEFUL example of prosecutorial over-reach that I have EVER seen in my entire professional career.

I am FLABBERGASTED that this DA has undertaken this prosecution in the manner he has, violating EVERY legal norm that provides for fair trials, i.e., by building his entire prosecution on prejudicial, marginally relevant, 3rd party innuendo testimony. His main witness is a proven pathological liar and fraud artist -- extortionist.

And the JUDGE -- I don't know where to begin.

This case will be in law textbooks for the next century as the primary case-on-point for the danger in allowing long-standing substantive and procedural rules required for fair trials, to go completely by the wayside.

The fact that some ill-advised California laws provide the opportunity to conduct an unfair trial does not ethically exempt the prosecutor from using minimal discretion in seeking to provide a fair trial.

I am disgusted beyond words.
7 posted on 05/04/2005 10:17:30 AM PDT by WL-law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WL-law
Image hosted by Photobucket.com
8 posted on 05/04/2005 10:22:12 AM PDT by TXBSAFH (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, who's bringing the chips?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson