There are common phrases used in professional circles that are not necessarily known to the public. People can use “slang” terms in any profession from truck drivers to lawyers, doctors and law enforcement. The only way these terms reach the outside world is when they are mentioned to “outsiders”.
For example, I worked in a psychiatric prison setting between 1993-2000. “Patients” (as we were not allowed to call them inmates) would often go into crisis. In order to calm patients, they were given what correctional officers coined as a “10-2-1 cocktail”. The “cocktail” was the standard pharmaceutical IM (intramuscular) intervention given in emergency situations (to those with no known allergies to medications). The 10-2-1 refers to the milligram doses of Haldol, Ativan and Cogentin. Nearly everyone working in the facility knew what it meant but it was never said in jest. The point is, you would simply not recognize the term unless someone who was familiar with it said it to you.
The first time I heard “Jesus Juice” was when I worked in forensics between 1993-2000. It was not a common phrase used in the general public. I only knew of it because I had access to crime details in reports on pedophiles and inside some charts, ‘Jesus Juice’ was written, defined and detailed. “Jesus Juice” did not simply mean “wine” or “wine in coke cans” in the forensic field. It specifically meant that alcohol was used by pedophiles to lure their victims. Sometimes they mixed it with kool aid, soda, lemonade or anything a child would drink. So it would be more likely that Gavin picked up this term from the police investigators, rather than Michael Jackson.
Gavin Arvizo claimed in his 2005 testimony that MJ gave him “Jesus Juice” in coke cans. Gavin testified that MJ said “Jesus Juice” meant “wine” because “God drank wine”. However, it is possible that Gavin acquired the term “Jesus Juice” from a forensic or law-type professional. Remember, initially “Jesus Juice” was a term that was familiar to only those working in forensic fields and it did not become public knowledge until Gavin’s accusations in 2003. Here is why I think Gavin acquired the term by a professional: In the 2005 testimony, Gavin had said “Jesus Juice” a lot during Mr. Sneddon’s questioning. When Mr. Mesereau cross-examined Gavin about alcohol and his interaction with MJ and alcohol, Gavin did not respond to Mr. Mesereau by saying “Jesus Juice” at all at any time. It means there is a disassociation within Gavin’s own mind between alcohol and Gavin’s interactions with MJ and alcohol. That is a very important behavioral fact because behaviorally speaking, if a situation truly happened, there would be no disassociation cognitively. It’s really that simple.
Allow me to further explain the implications. When Mr. Sneddon asked Gavin questions about alcohol and about Gavin’s interaction with MJ, Gavin chose certain phrases (Specifically, “Jesus Juice”) only in response to Mr. Sneddon’s questions. Gavin responded to Mr. Sneddon saying “Jesus Juice” very consistently. But when Mr. Mesereau asked Gavin about alcohol and his interactions with MJ, Gavin didn’t say “Jesus Juice” ever, but rather specifically, “vodka, red and white wine, bourbon, and rum”. If it were true that MJ gave Gavin “Jesus Juice”, that Gavin got the “Jesus Juice” defined directly from MJ and that they really did drink together, Gavin would have used the term “Jesus Juice” within his explanation regarding those situations when speaking to Mr.Meserau – he would have responded the same as he did when he answered Mr. Sneddon. But that did not happen. Gavin’s explanations and terminology were different when he spoke to both lawyers. Some may think that is minor, however, Gavin’s speech are worth analyzing behaviorally.
Behaviorally, it demonstrates Gavin had a clear and present cognitive disassociation between “Jesus Juice” and other names of alcohol and between the questions about alcohol and the interaction he claimed he had with MJ. It means Gavin’s consumption with alcohol was NOT in MJ’s presence at all nor could it be possible because Gavin himself did not have the experiences in his mind as co-existing cognitively. If the alleged molestation occurred when they were drinking as Gavin said, there would be NO disassociation naturally in Gavin’s mind. Therefore, Gavin was deceptive about “Jesus Juice” and his interactions with MJ and alcohol. Furthermore, Gavin’s difference of interaction and speech between both lawyers demonstrates that there IS an association in Gavin’s mind with Mr.Sneddon and the term “Jesus Juice”. Gavin only expressed “Jesus Juice” when speaking to Mr.Sneddon. Behaviorally, it proves that MJ never said “Jesus Juice” or that he provided a definition to Gavin, and that they never drank together. This fact alludes that Mr.Sneddon could have expressed the term”Jesus Juice” with Gavin. The disassociation was naturally exposed during the interaction when Mr.Mesereau asked Gavin questions about alcohol.
**Obviously both Mr. Sneddon and Mr. Mesereau are lawyers, however, Gavin associated talking about “Jesus Juice” to just one of them. I must say Gavin could have heard the word “Jesus Juice” with other forensic or “of the like” personnal- i.e. police, lawyers (as law is an extension to forensics as a profession)**
The power of repetition by media helped shape public perception after the allegations went viral. Repetition of false facts do not make it any more true than initially verbalized (or in this case, written). Maureen Orth wrote more than one malicious Vanity Fair article in 2004 saying that MJ gave Gavin Arvizo and another boy”Jesus Juice” in coke cans. She stated that MJ “prefers Jesus blood”. (The first referring to white wine in coke cans and the second referring to red wine in coke cans.) Orth’s article ensured the public to have an erroneous belief that MJ not only used the term “Jesus Juice” but that his discretion with alcohol meant his intentions were criminal by assocation with that phrase. Several other “Jesus Juice” articles were published and each of them incredibly misrepresented the truth. Each journalist rarely followed up with an unbiased account of the 2005 testimony-by doing so, collectively, they had ensured that previous negative perceptions were embedded in the public’s minds. (http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2004-01-28-jacko-vanity-fair_x.htm) The media certainly had enough time between 2003 and 2005 to ensure that people speculated about MJ’s integrity long before the trial began and this is exactly media bias. When it came time for the trial, the media published testimony selectively. Several reporters in 2005 disregarded the testimonies that explained how Mr. Mesereau exposed lies and distortions in several witness testimony, including Gavin. In combination, these tactics helped shape public perception that MJ was guilty before and the media helped maintain public suspicion after the trial. These reports highly misrepresented the truth by omitting valuable information and it came to haunt MJ for years to come.
As you see in my research, Gavin Arvizo and Maureen Orth claimed that MJ used the terms “Jesus Juice” and “Jesus Blood” and the claim was repeated by other disgruntled former employees as if these were exactly MJ’s words. Taborelli wrote about BOTH Marueen Orth’s accusations AND Gavin’s accusations in one of his books- as if to collaborate one another or at least give the impression that because it is repeated then therefore the information is true. Repetition of false claims don’t make any of them true, it distracts people from the truth. I have no direct quote by MJ himself where HE said HE called wine “Jesus Juice”- it is other people claiming MJ specifically said it. Since Gavin’s testimony was discredited in trial and Maureen Orth has no proof that MJ referred to his wine with that term, it is irresponsible for anyone to insist that it is true and further defame him.
Regarding an example of the ripple effect: In 2005, CBS producer Bruce Rheins covered the MJ trial. Rheins had attempted that year to market “Jesus Juice” featuring an image on the label with a figure dressed in a loin cloth, fedora, glove, and loafers poised as Jesus in crucifixion. There is no doubt the label was suggestive to MJ’s image and likeness and having the phrase “Jesus Juice” on the label was cruel and outright slander. It was reported that MJ wanted to sue them. (http://newsbusters.org/node/2684, http://www.gigwise.com/news/10438/Michael-Jackson-Fuming-Over-Jesus-Juice-Wine) Rheins supposedly said that he and his wife were hobby wine makers and had made “a few bottles for friends” and had “no intentions of marketing” it. However, they had it trademarked a year earlier in January 2004 with the reasoning “so no other could market the idea”. If they meant no disrespect to MJ, why make a bottle of wine, call it “Jesus Juice” and label it with a figure that is representational to MJ’s likeness? Then to say the reasons they trademarked the label was so no other could use the idea? And they want you to think they were protecting him by tradmarking the “idea of ‘Jesus Juice'” when they went through the trouble to make bottles of wine with the image label they created? Really now? It is highly disrespectful to MJ to even make “a few bottles of wine for friends” with that label for starters and it should not matter whether Rheins and or his wife thought the idea would remain between friends. This is an example how people bullied and abused MJ simply in part based on misinformation and it is also representative of how the media (by extension) helped bring more attention to the negativity surrounding “Jesus Juice” and the 2005 trial. The aftermath STILL continues as individuals like Diane Dimond, Maureen Orth and Nancy Grace with others of their kind have made it their life’s work to continue to defame, humiliate and abuse MJ.
The point is this: “Jesus Juice” was not well-known in the public until Gavin’s accusations in 2003, the terminology is known to individuals working in forensics and again, I have no direct quote by MJ himself where HE said HE called wine “Jesus Juice”. The information about “Jesus Juice” definition is known in forensics as something sinister and it is other individuals who claim MJ said it (individuals who lack credibility according to testimony). The public became increasingly misinformed when the media exploited Gavin’s testimony in 2005. Previous to 2003, there are hardly any public references to “Jesus Juice”. By the time 2005 came around, the world’s misunderstanding about “Jesus Juice” would morph into other sinister meanings as “sources” (who informed the media) attached MJ’s name to it. The public reaction was bad: all of a sudden, there were cruel definitions with horrible references to MJ in urban dictionaries. “Jesus Juice” became the subject of harsh jokes at MJ’s expense. “Jesus Juice” became erroneously and mischaracterized to MJ. Several individuals continue their verbal assaults about MJ since then. This has to change or it will just simply continue if ignored.
It’s time the truth is told if we want real justice, peace and integrity restored for MJ. His horrors with the media and allegations should have never happened in the first place. The Media owed MJ and the public the TRUTH then, just as they owe it to him now. It’s time to ensure this happens.
**Since MJJJP addresses media bias and wants to put the truth out there, we must consider content fairly and also with compassion and understanding. I am only part of MJJJP, but this article will have my name at the end, considering I am detailing unique events to my own life than what others in MJJJP have experienced .**