Most helpful customer reviews
|
|
10 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A must-read for truth seekers and skeptics, Aug 25 2009
This book is a well-written page-turner. Ms. Jones' matter-of-fact account of the Michael Jackson's child molestation trial in 2005 is a valuable resource for anyone who still have questions regarding one of the most sensational trials in history. The book's content is drawn from actual conversations that took place within the courtroom of Santa Maria, which are also recorded in formal court transcripts, plus observations made by Ms. Jones while she sat through the trial as a media observer.
I give two thumbs up for the merits of this book and to Ms. Jones for bravely taking on this project against all odds. She is the best-selling author of several books, yet when she proposed the writing of this truthful book about Michael Jackson, she was utterly rejected by all the publishers. She ended up having to self-publish.
During the course of the trial, Michael Jackson was pretty much forced to give up every last bit of privacy he ever had. Everything about his preferences and dislikes was laid bare for everyone in the courtroom to see. As the book faithfully documented all the happenings in the courtroom, I as a reader get a chance to learn about the many unknown details in the private life of the superstar. Initially I cringed at some of the revelations, but then I realized these details revealed about him only proves that, besides being musically gifted and wealthy, he is just a normal guy. From now on I'll always take what the media says with a grain of salt, having learned through the book how irrelevant and biased they are capable of becoming.
|
|
|
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Truth about what reallly happened, Aug 18 2009
The Michael Jackson conspiracy (by Aphrodite Jones) gives the inside details of what happened in the court room in the 2005 trial i.e. facts only no fiction. I highly recommend it to all who want to find out the truth.
Unlike Unmasked (by Ian Halperin) who seems to have a big imagination and seems to invent stories:
[...]
For a truthful biography, I would recommend one that is authorized by Michael Jackson himself such as Moonwalk.
|
|
|
2.0 out of 5 stars
Aphrodite's new angle is just as slanted as her old one, Nov 12 2009
Michael's acquittal was the right verdict. The Arvizo family, making accusations against him, were shown to be dishonest witnesses; to have relied on what they said would have been utterly unjust.
Aphrodite Jones competently tells the story of how Michael's brilliant top lawyer, Tom "mesmerising" Mesereau, exposed this dishonesty. For many readers, that is clearly enough, hence all the five-star ratings.
But anyone looking for something deeper will be disappointed. Michael admitted, in his recently published conversations with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, that so far as women were concerned, he was not that interested in either sex or romantic love. We also know he spent a lot of time in bed with many young boys - a whole year's worth of nights with one of them, Brett Barnes - and that he spent millions of dollars, in more than one case, to pay accusers off. Frenzied denials by those who refuse to face the truth will not make the facts go away; nor will the often distorted presentation of the facts that Jones serves up.
She tells us, for instance, that the allegations at age 13 by Jordan Chandler were "full of holes", but she omits to say what those holes were. She says his father, Evan Chandler, was sued for extortion. This was threatened, but did it ever happen? If so, where were the headlines after judgment in the case? If Chandler had been sued successfully, the news would have been around the world in a flash, big-time. There was also talk of a criminal case being brought, but a police investigation left Chandler in the clear (see The Independent, 25 January 1994). Yet Jones persists in smearing Evan by referring to his "criminal defence".
According to the review of Jones' book by L. Power "nlp trainer" (San Francisco), one of the "holes" was mentioned by Michael on Prime Time's Diane Sawyer interview, when he claimed the photographs taken of his genitals did not match up with the description Jordan gave in 1993. But, if that were true, how come prosecutor Tom Sneddon was so keen to get those photos admitted as evidence at Michael's trial in 2005?
As for the allegations by Jason Francia, Jones wrongly says he testified only to Michael tickling him outside his shorts when he was a little boy. Not so: he also testified to his genitals being touched under his shorts for a period of at least a couple of minutes (testimony given 4 April 2005; see official court transcript page 4882, lines 11-19). This could not on its own have resulted in a conviction because Michael was not on trial for an offence against Jason: this evidence related solely to so-called "prior bad acts". Jason was generally reckoned to have been an honest and credible witness, unlike the Arvizos.
The most interesting "mistake" Jones makes, though, is when she distorts the evidence of ranch manager Jesus Salas so much that she makes him appear to be saying something good about Michael when in fact he was making a serious allegation. She described Salas as a sincere, honest, credible witness who testified that in twenty years he had never seen Michael drinking alcohol in front of children. No doubt all this was true. What she does not, says, though, is that Salas also testified to seeing Michael "intoxicated" on a number of occasions. And the worst of it was that he said he saw the star not drinking but drunk in front of his own children on no fewer than three occasions. Michael had been so far gone, Salas, said, that he thought the children were unsafe. Not a peep about this do we get from "honest" Aphrodite, a writer described in one naive review as "completely unbiased".
Jones questions the motives of all those who stood to make money out of the case against Michael. Fair point; but what of her own motives? Just look at all the five-star revues her book is getting. That means a lot of sales, a lot of money from what she must have known would be a huge Jackson fan market. She admits having written "slanted news coverage" against Michael while working for Fox News. Why would we think she is any less slanted after switching to the other side?
|
|
|
Most recent customer reviews
|