Monday, August 29, 2005

The Mother of the Young Accuser -- My Thoughts

I think this might be the right time for me to blog about the mother of the young accuser in the Michael Jackson case. I’ve known the family since the boy was nine. He does have an actual name but publicly, he’s “The Young Accuser,” so for the purposes of this blog, I will capitalize it and acronym it, which makes him TYA, or for short, YA. And his mother…? Let’s make her MYA, although, for fun, her kids are now calling her Jane Doe.

After enduring 16 years of spousal abuse, her child’s catastrophic illness, the threats, coercion and strong arm tactics of Team Jackson and the public scrutiny of having her character destroyed while her son bravely confronts the humiliation of telling the truth to a jury who didn’t believe him, TYA is now being charged with welfare fraud, a crime for which she faces up to six years of prison time. There is a lot I don’t know about this. There are a few things I do know and then there are my opinions which are endless.

What I don’t know: What constitutes Welfare Fraud? Did MYA fill out the forms to the best of her ability? Was she confused by the forms? Did she, with malice and intent defraud the welfare system?

What I do know: MYA is a good, kind, loving woman. She is an excellent mother. She has raised three of the most spectacular children I have ever known. Her kids adore her, and she them. They form a tight unit that has been through Hell and back together. She has always wanted what’s best for her children. She is working very hard at becoming a better person. And I can’t state this firmly enough… she is not the conniving grifter portrayed by Thomas Mesereau.

What I believe: She made mistakes. She was under a tremendous amount of pressure when she filled out those forms. She had just extricated herself and her children from a horrific situation involving 17 years of terror at the hands of a physically and emotionally abusive husband and father. She was attempting this escape with no child support payments, while her son was battling Cancer and while all four of them were living in constant fear of her husband’s violent visits. I don’t think she was thinking at all. I think when you’ve been that abused for that long, you just react.

Here’s another opinion. I find it very darkly ironic that this woman who was willing, with her son, to come forward and confront (in my view) a serial child molester is now herself facing prison time after watching the pedophile walk free.

Is it more than ironic? Is it more than a coincidence? Probably. Team Jackson’s defense was built around attacking the credibility of the mother and they spent limitless funds digging up every scrap of paper that was ever printed concerning this woman. Now her mistakes face the light of day while Michael Jackson hides within the folds of a small Arab nation doing God knows what to God knows what poor child.

Should MYA apologize to the State and make restitution? She should and she intends to. Meanwhile, she has turned down every cent offered to her in whatever form, be it from Michael or from the media or from the filing of a civil case.

She is a pregnant mother of three teenagers, and a one-year-old baby. Her mother is very ill and her husband just shipped to Iraq for 14 months. It sounds like a sob story but it’s all true. Maybe I’m far too close to this but I desperately want this family to find peace, learn who they are when it’s quiet and they can think instead of worry, and move forward with their lives.

11 Comments:

Blogger duboisist said...

Louise,

I agree that you just may be to close to see the whole picture. Let me share some observations I've made from a greater distance.

1. A woman can be battered, have a sick son and still be a crook. These characteristics are not mutually exclusive.

2. The trial wasn't to decide if Michael Jackson or TYA and MYA is a better person. It wasn't even to decide if he "did it" or not. It was to see if the prosecution could prove if he did.

That's how it ought to be. Accussations should not mean automatic conviction any more than denials mean automatic acquittal.

3. I wonder if you were friends with MJ might you have used similiar arguements to the ones for MYA to explain and/or deny his behavior?

11:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well said Weezy and I miss you around websleuths. I agree she should pay back the money as would be fair and just, and I think the 50,000 bail proposal is ridiculous, that's not what they do in cases like that; I think it's due to who she is.

As for Mr. Freeman, you are welcome to your opinion. People who commit welfare fraud are not necessarily "crooks" they might feel they are in dire circumstances.

As for Weezy being biased,I think she chose to be friends with the Doe family because of their qualities, for which she listed several. We make friendships based on what we like in others, and perhaps she see those qualites in Michael.

As for Michael and his case, no one said it was to see who is a better person, but, if it did, I'd say the family be a million lightyears.

12:26 PM  
Blogger Louise Palanker said...

I think all of our views are based on our circumstances and our circumstances are the result of both chance and choice. I chose to befriend this family based on the many fine qualities I found in them.

Based on what the prosecution was able to reveal about MJ during the trial, (his choices, his friends, etc.) I don't believe I would be comfortable being his friend.

12:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm glad the mother of the young accuser has someone of note to speak up for her.

the money needs to be repaied, that is certain. and i'm sure she will.

meanwhile my thoughts are with her, as she must be very worried for her husband who is serving his country under dangerous circumstances.

1:02 AM  
Blogger duboisist said...

1. People accused of welfare are not necessarily "crooks," but people who commit fraud are.

2. I didn't follow the MJ trial, so I dodn't really know how you are involved. All I really know is your podcast is funny.
I may be one of only a few people, but I never heard MJ's side of the story. I understand how you feel the need to counter his propaganda and I admire your loyalty, but I wanted to my (hopefully a little more objective) point of view..

3. A prosecution's accusations are no more "facts" than anyone else's. That's true about everyone including MJ and MYA.

4. Feeling you are in dire circumstances doesn't excuse welfare fraud. If it did what else would it excuse? Bank robbery? Murder?

5. Neither MJ or MYA are either a saint or Satan. I suspect those who thinks they are use them as surrogates for their own issues. This doesn't make MJ or MYA supporters bad humans, just plain human. I think we can all benefit from being reminded that we are all only human.

3:28 AM  
Blogger Louise Palanker said...

Clinton, I respect your very well thought out post. I, however, did follow the case fairly closely and my opinion is that Michael Jackson, however human he may be, is a child molester. He is a human who destroys the spirits of children. Therefore, I find him to be a human in need of help before he hurts more small humans.

12:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Clinton, I understand that you associate "crook" with "fraud" my point was, that crook can be a judgemental term. If a person commited welfare fraud at one point during their life, and stopped, doesn't necessarily make them a crook. Even people who've been convicted of crime, have done their time and rehabilitated themselves, deserve not to be called crooks either, in my eyes that is. The MYA gave up the welfare when she felt she no longer needed it, that was 2-3 years ago.

I did follow the trial,and MJ's history, his behavior and it fits the profile of a fixated pedophile.

12:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry but if the mom was "confused" about filling out forms, all she had to do was ask questions. I am sure someone would have been able to assist her.

Having said that I do not wish jail time on her but she should make payment arrangements to pay back the money.

You also say these children are the most spectacular children you have ever known. Guess you don't know too many??? I am sure they have matured a bit but those two boys were out of control as proven by what just happened in the Dentist's office. I don't know any children that can be described as "spectacular" that would ever do what these children did in that office.

As far as Michael Jackson is concerned you are calling this man a pedophile when it has not been proven. I have read the entire transcripts and know there were numerous discrepancies in the children's testimony.

Also the mother was investigated because of her outrageous claims that she was being held against her will. And yet a person who appeared to have no bias against her, Ayja(sp) testified that the mother asked her to take the children back to Neverland. Doesn't make sense to me.

While your stating your opinions, why didn't you call the Police if you believed she was held against her will?

5:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

YOU MAKE A TRULY CONVINCING ARGUMENT, LOUISE. IT NEEDS TO BE HEARD (OR SEEN) BY MORE PEOPLE

8:44 AM  
Blogger sarah said...

Louise, great post. The young accuser was a very brave lad, if Jordan Chandler had been as brave the verdict would have been different for sure. I have come into this since MJ died, I was always a fan, loved his music and for a while thought he was fab. Till he changed the colour of his skin and mutilated his face. Then I forgot about him and moved onto more masculine hearthrobs like George Michael (whoops also a mistake, but I was young!) Joking aside, I now realise that if he had looked like a pedo in his earlier years no one would have bought his records, I guess these guys don't carry a sign stating their preferences! I have a couple of nagging questions that I just want to ask someone who may answer for me. On further examination MJ's desires were fairly obvious, no real attempt at adult relationships as mentioned in Ron Zonen's excellent closing argument, constant boy bed partners, his collection of porn. I read in the court docs that he had a lot of homoerotic books, why? I know the other porn is used for grooming, he had a lot of it for sure.I also read that in 1993 a polaroid of a naked boy was seized possibly of Jonathan Spence. Do you think Robson, Culkin and Barnes all lied, I think they did, but why? I have one other question re Alex Manchester whose evidence was disallowed by Judge Melville. The transcripts say that after an hour and a half he (Manchester) found his son in MJ's bedroom in "circumstances outlined in the brief". but did not clarify what the "circumstances" were. Do you believe his son was also a victim? I realise this is old news for you, but it would really help me to understand if you could reply. Cheers Sarah

5:21 PM  
Blogger Louise Palanker said...

Hi Sarah,
Are you on Facebook? Send me your email there or here and then I can more easily answer your questions.

6:01 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home