PDA

View Full Version : Jackson Trial : Defense gets accuser's brother to admit lies



Jolie Rouge
03-08-2005, 01:52 PM
Accuser’s brother admits lying
Boy admitted false testimony during JC Penney lawsuit

The Associated Press
March 8, 2005

SANTA MARIA, Calif. - A boy who testified that Michael Jackson molested his brother acknowledged under cross-examination Tuesday that the pop star didn't show him a sex magazine that the prosecution introduced into evidence. The witness also said he lied under oath in a separate civil lawsuit.

Jackson attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. showed the 14-year-old witness the copy of Barely Legal magazine dated August 2003. The boy, who left Jackson's Neverland ranch for the last time in March 2003, testified for the prosecution on Monday that the magazine was one of those that Jackson had shown to him and his brother.

Confronted with the dates, the boy said, "I never said it was exactly that one. That's not exactly the one he showed us."

On Monday, District Attorney Tom Sneddon projected the cover of the magazine onto a courtroom screen for the jury to see.

The boy said he had looked at the magazine with Sneddon before it was presented as evidence.

Under questioning by Mesereau, the boy also said he lied under oath in another case when he swore that his mother and father never fought and that his father never hit him. "When you were asked if your dad ever hit you, you said 'never,'" said Mesereau. "Were you telling the truth?"

"No," said the boy, who is the only trial witness so far to testify that molestation occurred.

"Did someone tell you to lie in the J.C. Penney case?" the lawyer asked, referring to a civil lawsuit brought by the boy's mother against the department store company over an encounter with security guards.

"I don't remember," the boy said.

‘I don't remember nothing’

When Mesereau asked him to tell the jury why he lied under oath, the boy said, "I don't remember. It was five years ago. I don't remember nothing."

Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting a 13-year-old boy cancer survivor at Neverland in 2003, giving him alcohol and conspiring to hold the family captive to get them to rebut a damaging documentary in which Jackson said he allowed children to sleep in his bedroom.

Mesereau focused much of his questioning on the lawsuit in which the mother claimed that she was sexually assaulted and the family was beaten by guards after the accuser in the Jackson case left a store with items that had not been paid for. The defense contends the suit shows the family has a history of filing false claims to get money.

The allegations that the father abused the family surfaced later during the parents' divorce.

The 14-year-old boy became a crucial prosecution witness Monday when he testified to actually seeing molestation by walking in on Jackson as he engaged in acts with his sleeping brother in Jackson's bedroom.

Mesereau asked the boy to tell jurors about an alarm system in Jackson's house which alerts the singer when anyone is in the hall outside his bedroom. The boy acknowledged there was an electronic bell and that anytime he was in that hallway the bell went off. "So the two times you claim you saw Michael Jackson touching your brother in bed, that alarm went off?" asked Mesereau.

"Yes," said the boy.

No mention of alarm system

When the boy testified about the alleged molestation on Monday he did not mention any bell or alarm system and said that his brother slept through both incidents, snoring at one point. Mesereau also said that the witness had in the past given a different description of the alleged molestation, including that he once said Jackson touched his brother's bottom during the incidents.

"I never said he touched his butt," the witness aid.

The boy responded to numerous questions about inconsistencies by saying, "I don't know exactly what I said."

Mesereau asked the boy about his testimony that Jackson encouraged him and his brother to use curse words, and the boy said he had never used them before meeting Jackson.

Mesereau then asked him about his J.C. Penney lawsuit deposition in which he described two profane words allegedly used by security guards.

The boy said he spelled out the words while giving the deposition.


The cross-examination began after the prosecution concluded its direct questioning Tuesday by eliciting testimony that Jackson had once issued a warning to the witness and his brother.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7129260


--------------------


Is is just me - or does the woman in this begining to sound like the infamous "Manda" ??

nanajoanie
03-08-2005, 02:29 PM
All I have to say about this case is I feel Michael Jackson is GUILTY! GUILTY!

Jolie Rouge
03-09-2005, 08:55 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7131611

harloo
03-09-2005, 09:04 AM
It's a shame that these kids are being coached by their parents. The mother should be sent to the slammer for what she is doing to those kids.

Even if Michael is proven innoncent of these charges, he needs to be sent to jail so he can realize what he did was wrong. You don't have children sleeping in the bed with you, especially if they are not yours. He needs counseling.

Njean31
03-09-2005, 09:59 AM
he's guilty alright and so is his mother for handing her son over to a known pedophile and letting him get molested so she could sue :mad: they all need to go prison and the boy given some of perv's money to be cashed out at age 25.

Jolie Rouge
03-14-2005, 12:19 PM
Jackson Accuser Says Nothing Bad Happened
By TIM MOLLOY

SANTA MARIA, Calif. (AP) - Michael Jackson's accuser acknowledged under cross-examination Monday that he told a teacher that nothing bad had happened to him at the singer's ranch. Defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. read to the boy from what appeared to be a transcript of an interview of the teacher, Jeffrey Alpert. Mesereau quoted the John Burroughs Middle School teacher as saying, ``Look at me, look at me ... I can't help you unless you tell me the truth - did any of this happen?''

The boy acknowledged from the witness stand that his answer was ``no.''

At another point the 15-year-old boy said, ``I told Mr. Alpert he never did anything to me.''

Mesereau walked the boy through his disciplinary history at the Los Angeles school, and the boy acknowledged he had argued with teachers and been disruptive.


Jackson arrived on time Monday, his first court appearance since a failure to appear last week triggered a threat of arrest by the judge and a race to the courthouse in his pajama bottoms from a hospital where he was said to be receiving treatment for a back injury. The question about the teacher triggered a discussion among attorneys about what exactly the boy told District Attorney Tom Sneddon about the conversation with Alpert.

ABC News' ``Good Morning America'' reported Monday that prosecutors and defense attorneys met during the weekend to interview the former teacher, and that the teacher's attorney, Thomas Forsyth, said he expects his client to be called as a witness.

Citing unidentified sources, the network reported that the conversation between the boy and teacher happened in spring 2003. That would have been after the airing of the TV documentary ``Living With Michael Jackson'' and the time period in which the molestation allegedly occurred, but before Jackson was indicted. Jackson was shown shown holding hands with the boy in the documentary, which set off a storm of criticism.

A telephone message left with the school Monday was not immediately returned.


Mesereau had begun cross-examination of the accuser later Thursday. It resumed Monday after a three-day break. Mesereau quizzed the accuser about similarities between a statement he testified Jackson made about masturbation and an earlier statement the boy attributed to his grandmother. He recalled that the boy testified Thursday that Jackson told him that if men don't masturbate they might rape women. The attorney noted that the boy told sheriff's investigators in an interview that his grandmother had told him the same thing.

The boy said that the context was different. ``She was telling me it was OK to do it and Michael was saying you have to do it,'' the boy said.

Prosecutors allege that Jackson, 46, molested the boy at Neverland in 2003, gave him alcohol and conspired to hold his family captive to get them to rebut the documentary in which Jackson said he shared his bed with children.


On Friday, jurors were not in court as the judge ruled that comedian Jay Leno, an expected witness, can continue to crack jokes at Jackson's expense as long as he doesn't discuss the facts of his testimony. Prosecutors also argued that Jackson was near bankruptcy and sought records to support assertions that Jackson had an underlying financial motive. The judge indicated he had little interest in allowing extensive testimony on finances.



03/14/05 13:54

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-PLS&idq=/ff/story/0001/20050314/1355191884.htm&ewp=ewp_news_jackson


Accuser: Jackson 'Did Nothing to Me'
By LINDA DEUTSCH

SANTA MARIA, Calif. (AP) - The boy who says Michael Jackson molested him acknowledged under cross-examination Monday that he told an administrator at his school that the pop star ``didn't do anything to me.''

The teenager was asked about conversations he had with Jeffrey Alpert, the dean at John Burroughs Middle School in Los Angeles, where the boy had a history of acting up in class. ``I told Dean Alpert he didn't do anything to me,'' the boy said under questioning by Jackson attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. ``I told him twice.''

Prosecutors allege Jackson, 46, plied the boy with alcohol and molested him at his Neverland Ranch in 2003.

The pop star, who was threatened with arrest when he failed to show up in court on time Thursday, arrived on schedule Monday. Unlike last time, when a disheveled Jackson finally arrived in a coat, T-shirt and pajama bottoms, he wore a smart red jacket with a black armband and black slacks. His parents escorted him inside.

Mesereau, during his cross-examination of the boy, quoted Alpert as telling the youngster: ``Look at me, look at me. ... I can't help you unless you tell me the truth - did any of this happen?''

When asked when the conversation occurred, the boy said: ``I believe it was after I came back from Neverland.''

It was not clear in court why the dean asked the boy about Jackson. But Mesereau confronted the teenager with school records that showed that nine teachers had complained about the boy's disruptive behavior, events that the boy acknowledged.

Of one teacher, he said, ``I felt as if he didn't deserve respect as a teacher. I didn't respect him as a person.'' He complained on the witness stand about the teaching methods of virtually every teacher mentioned. ``When I would stand up to teachers the other students would congratulate me,'' he said. He added: ``I was argumentative at times. I didn't like the way they taught me. I wasn't learning anything.''

Mesereau also cross-examined the accuser about similarities between a statement he testified Jackson made about masturbation and an earlier statement the boy attributed to his grandmother.

On Thursday, the boy testified Thursday that Jackson told him that if men do not masturbate, they might rape women. Mesereau noted that the boy told sheriff's investigators in an interview that his grandmother had told him the same thing. ``Why did your story change between that interview and your testimony last Thursday?'' Mesereau asked.

The boy denied changing his story. He said that both his grandmother and Jackson had told him the same thing, but the context was different. ``She was telling me it was OK to do it, and Michael was saying you have to do it,'' the boy said.


Associated Press Writer Tim Molloy contributed to this report.

03/14/05 14:49


http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?floc=ne-main-9-l5&flok=FF-APO-1403&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050314%2F1450194751.htm&sc=1403

Jolie Rouge
03-15-2005, 08:13 PM
Michael Jackson pleads for 'fairness'
Armstrong Williams

"...Please, please be fair," Michael Jackson pleaded during a telephone conversation I had with the pop star months ago. Journalist Martin Bashir had just released a documentary containing damaging footage of Michael Jackson sharing his bed with child visitors. He wanted me to tell his side of the story. Instead, I wrote about how regardless of whether he fondled the children or not, he still shared a bed with them, and that was unforgivable. As was the conduct of these kids parents, who were so star-craved that they funneled their own children into a stranger's bed.

Now Jackson is in the midst of a child molestation trial. Inside the courtroom, Jackson's accusers share salacious details about his sleepovers. Outside the courtroom, throngs of fans chant Michael's name in enduring admiration.

One of Jackson's representatives again called my office, pleading for me to treat him fairly in my column. Sure, I'll try. But Jackson doesn't make it easy.

Last week, he showed up to court more than an hour late wearing pajamas. The judge had threatened to arrest him, before Jackson finally limped into the courtroom looking dazed and weakened. It's probably an act, a way to garner public sympathy by giving the appearance of being persecuted. At the same time, he is laying the foundation to plead incapacity. My bet is that his lawyers file a motion next week claiming that Jackson is severely ill, and taking so much medication that he is having difficulty understanding the proceedings or meaningfully communicating with his attorneys. That would buy him time and allow him either to influence the jury pool by playing the part of the victim, or avoid the trial altogether by feigning incapacity indefinitely.

One wonders if it's even worth the effort though. It is hard to imagine a jury sentencing Jackson to jail. Never underestimate the gratification he brings them by putting them so close to center stage. Then there is the sympathy factor. Who wants to send a frail withered Michael Jackson to his final demise? We all know what criminals do to alleged child molesters in jail. Michael would probably hang himself before stepping into a cell.

Meanwhile, the public cocks an eager ear toward the television as Jackson's accusersshare lurid stories about sharing wine, pornography and a bed with the pop star. We read stories about how Jackson's empire is teerterting on eocnomic collapse. We stare with bizarre fascination at Jackson's oddly distorted face—that portrait of self hatred writ in flesh. And then E! television packages it all up into daily reenactments, beamed out for the edification of the star craved.

I guess it's the kind of story we feel we deserve. The public loves to put our heroes up on a hill, then gratify our egos by dragging them down. It's been this way all of Jackson's life. First his father crushed any childhood out of him; then the public refused to even let him walk down the street. He never really had a chance to be a part of society.

Somewhere along the line he freed himself. He got away from his father. He regressed away from an overbearing public and into the childhood he never had, sealing himself off from society in an amusement park fantasy world plucked from a child's imagination. It's a tragedy that he should be rewarded for his talent with such smothering scrutiny. Then again, he regularly slept in the same bed with kids. So who knows, maybe he's just fooling us. Maybe the guy who sagged into court in his pajamas, is just setting us up for plea
of incapacity. Maybe he is just performing. It seems fair to ask.

My prediction: he walks. His accuser's testimony has been riddled with inconsistencies and the jury will be looking for any excuse to let him walk. Still, his life will never be the same. This, not his art, will be the enduring legacy in people's minds.

Jolie Rouge
03-16-2005, 02:50 PM
By TIM MOLLOY

SANTA MARIA, Calif. (AP) - The lead investigator in the Michael Jackson child molestation case testified Wednesday that the accuser told him he was molested five to seven times but could describe only two of the incidents in detail.

Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon asked sheriff's Sgt. Steve Robel about the numbers in order to account for differences that have emerged during testimony in Jackson's trial.

Robel testified Tuesday that the boy twice told investigators he was molested five times. The boy himself testified earlier to only two molestations but said he believed there may have been more.

Robel said Wednesday that the boy told him ``it happened between five and seven times but he could not articulate exactly'' what happened every time. Since the first interviews of the boy in July 2003, Robel said, he has been able to provide detailed accounts of two incidents.


In testimony Tuesday, Robel said he urged the accuser and his family to go forward with his claims against the singer by promising them, ``We're going to try our best to make this case work.''


Defense attorney Robert Sanger confronted Robel with those and other statements from recorded interviews, suggesting that they indicated investigators were biased against Jackson from the beginning.


He quoted Robel as saying: ``One thing I want to emphasize is you guys are doing the right thing here. ... I don't care how much money they have. He's the one who's done wrong. ... We're going to try to bring him to justice.''


Sanger asked: ``That's not the statement of someone with an open mind who's trying to find the truth, is it?''


Robel said he was taught to make such a statement to alleged victims ``to reassure them.''


Robel's testimony came after the singer's accuser wrapped up his testimony by saying he told a school administrator that Jackson had not molested him because he wanted to avoid teasing from classmates.


Defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. revealed Monday in the cross-examination of the boy, now 15, that he had once denied being molested in a talk with Jeffrey Alpert, a dean at John Burroughs Middle School in Los Angeles.


The boy testified Tuesday that he got in fights with other students when he returned from Jackson's Neverland Ranch in March 2003 because they would mock him. ``All the kids would laugh at me and try to push me around and say, 'That's the kid that got raped by Michael Jackson,''' said the boy.

He said fighting got him summoned to the office of a school dean, and that was when ``I told him that it didn't happen.''


The conversation was prompted by the Feb. 6, 2003, TV documentary that showed Jackson with the boy and in which Jackson acknowledged sharing his bed with children, although he characterized it as innocent and non-sexual.


Mesereau concluded his questioning of the boy Tuesday by asking if he realized he could profit by filing a lawsuit against Jackson before he turns 18. The boy said he did not know that.


Prosecutors claim Jackson conspired to hold the boy, his mother, sister and brother captive to get them to record a video rebutting the TV documentary. The family heaped praise on Jackson in the rebuttal video.


Sneddon's redirect questioning was relatively brief. He had the boy talk again about his bout with cancer, how he had become close to God and what he thinks of Jackson now. ``I don't really like him anymore,'' the boy said. ``I don't really think he's deserving of the respect I was giving him as the coolest guy in the world.''


AP Special Correspondent Linda Deutsch contributed to this report.



03/16/05 12:53

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050316%2F1254370443.htm&photoid=20050316CADD101

heartlvrs
03-16-2005, 04:42 PM
truly interesting to me.."lies admitted" i think more like some pressure to say that!

Jolie Rouge
03-17-2005, 09:30 PM
Neverland housekeeper: Kids drank, slept with Jackson
Woman called atmosphere 'Pinocchio's Pleasure Island'
Thursday, March 17, 2005

SANTA MARIA, California (CNN) -- Michael Jackson's former housekeeper described Neverland Ranch on Thursday as a place where children "became wild" during long stays without their parents, drank alcohol in Jackson's presence and often slept with the pop star, instead of in their assigned guest rooms.

But under cross-examination, the woman testified that she never saw Jackson serve alcohol to minors. Additionally, she said she believed the accuser and his brother were staying in guest rooms -- not Jackson's room -- during the time the boy says he was molested.

Testifying in Jackson's child molestation trial, Kiki Fournier said Jackson would focus his attention on particular children -- all of whom were boys between 10 and 15. She said the string of boys included movie star Macaulay Culkin; the accuser in the current case and his younger brother; a boy whose family reached a multimillion-dollar settlement with Jackson in 1993 after alleging molestation; and Frank Tyson, a Jackson associate now in his early 20s, who has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the current case.

The indictment against Jackson alleges that he paid Tyson $1 million on March 31, 2003 -- about two weeks after the accuser and his family left Neverland for the final time.

Fournier worked at the Jackson home for about 12 years before leaving in September 2003. Also Thursday, one of the investigators who searched Neverland, Sgt. Konn Able of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department, testified that he found books with nude and semi-nude photos of adolescents in the restroom of Jackson's office, and the office also contained surveillance equipment that could be used to monitor phone calls.

However, under defense cross-examination, he said he could not say for sure whether it had ever been used and did not know if the equipment could be bought legally. He also conceded it could have been used as part of the security system at the ranch.

The prosecution alleged in its indictment of Jackson that the singer monitored the phone calls of his accuser's mother as part of a conspiracy to intimidate and control the family.

Court recessed Thursday afternoon, with testimony to resume Monday.

However, prosecutors and defense lawyers will be in court Friday arguing over several motions, including an effort by prosecutors to subpoena Jackson's financial records.

b]Kids 'became wild'[/b]

Fournier said she coined the phrase "Pinocchio's Pleasure Island" to refer to the atmosphere at Neverland, where she said children stayed for weeks at a time without their parents and were given "free rein." "With the absence of authority figures, these children became wild," Fournier said. Jackson's child guests were allowed to watch movies, eat as much candy as they liked and stay up as late as they wanted.

However, Fournier said she did sometimes see Jackson discipline the children when they got "too rowdy."

Fournier also said that on three or four occasions, she saw children she believed were intoxicated in Jackson's presence. She described one of those incidents, shortly before she left the ranch in September 2003, in which Jackson and four or five kids were at the dinner table. At least three of the kids appeared to be intoxicated, she said.

However, she said she never saw Jackson give alcohol to a minor. She also said she doesn't remember seeing Jackson's teenage accuser or his siblings intoxicated at the ranch.

Fournier also said that overnight guests at Neverland were given assigned guest rooms, but "a lot of the time, they'd stay with Mr. Jackson."

Defense raises possible contradiction

However, during cross-examination by defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr., Fournier appeared to contradict testimony by Jackson's accuser that he slept with Jackson in his bedroom every night the pop star was at Neverland in February and March 2003, when he says the molestation occurred.

Fournier said that during that period, the guest room that the accuser and his younger brother were sharing was "just torn apart," with garbage and food strewn about, drinks spilled and glasses broken.

She also said that the accuser's younger brother -- who testified earlier in the trial that he witnessed Jackson molesting his brother -- became "ornery" and demanding while staying at the ranch. She said he once pulled a knife on her when they were both in the kitchen and the boy was trying to cook.

Mesereau also asked Fournier whether, given that Neverland was designed to be a fantasy land for children, it would be surprising that "they would go a little wild."

"No, that would not be unusual," she said.

Jackson 'detail-oriented,' maid testifies

Fournier indicated that she was a very reluctant witness against her former employer. "I don't want to have anything to do with this," Fournier said.

Fournier also described Jackson as a "very detail-oriented" person who usually communicated with her through the ranch's manager. She said Tyson was Jackson's employee and the two of them were also "close friends." She said Tyson would sometimes stay at the ranch for a month at a time, though there would also be absences of six months between stays.

Under cross-examination by Mesereau, Fournier admitted that what she knew about Tyson's business relationship with Jackson came from Tyson. When Mesereau suggested that Tyson might have been exaggerating the extent of his relationship with Jackson to promote himself, she agreed he was egotistical.

In their indictment against Tyson, prosecutors allege he was part of a conspiracy by Jackson to intimidate the accuser's family into silence. In trial testimony, the accuser and his brother said Tyson showed them sexually explicit images over the Internet, at Jackson's suggestion.

Weatherman's testimony

Also taking the stand Thursday was Fritz Coleman, a weatherman at KNBC-TV in Los Angeles who moonlights as a comedian. He testified that he met the accuser and his family when the boy, his brother and his sister came to a comedy camp for disadvantaged children in 1999 at the Laugh Factory, a Los Angeles comedy club.

That Christmas, he said, he and another comedian, Louise Palanker, delivered presents to the family at their "very small" apartment in a low-income area of eastern Los Angeles.

In 2000, after Jackson's accuser became ill with cancer, Coleman said, he visited him in the hospital. On the last visit, the boy was "beaming" because he had gotten a "huge box" of gifts from Jackson, Coleman said.

Coleman said he had met the boy's mother only three times, and she never tried to solicit money from him. He said there had been conversations around the Laugh Factory about the boy's father soliciting money from celebrities, but the father had never asked him directly for money.



Jackson, 46, was indicted in April by a state grand jury on 10 felony counts in connection with incidents alleged to have occurred in February and March 2003. The charges include four counts of committing a lewd act on a child; one count of conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion; one count of attempting to commit a lewd act on a child; and four counts of administering an intoxicating agent to assist in the commission of a felony.

Jackson has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

CNN's Dree De Clamecy contributed to this report.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/17/jackson.trial/index.html

Jolie Rouge
03-19-2005, 08:19 PM
Jackson Accuser's Poor Performance
March 14, 2005

If prosecutors were hoping that Michael Jackson's accuser would come to the witness stand Monday and cement into place their case, they surely are disappointed, and perhaps even mortified, by the young man's courtroom demeanor and testimony. The alleged molestation victim did not talk or act like one in court. And on Monday, during the heart of the prosecution's case, no part of his story was immune from serious and substantial questions about its accuracy or reliability.

At times sullen and combative, cheeky and evasive, acting more like a punk than a crime victim, and often mumbling so badly that the court reporter had to ask him to repeat his answers, the young man did little to persuade jurors that he is telling the truth and Jackson is lying about their alleged encounters together. And it wasn't because Jackson's attorney, Thomas Mesereau, went after the complaining witness like the pit bull attorney we all know he can be. Indeed, part of the reason why Monday was such a devastating day for prosecutors is because the accuser so often during the course of the cross-examination did himself in through word and deed. Calling the young man "Mister," Mesereau was subtle and soft because he didn't have to be blunt and firm. The witness was doing his dirty work for him.

By far the most important revelation from the day's testimony is that the young man apparently told a former middle school dean of his that Jackson had not molested him. "I told him that Michael didn't do anything to me," the young man told jurors after Mesereau asked him what he had told the dean. And what had the dean said to the young man to elicit that response?

Mesereau said the school official asked the young man: "Look at me, look at me. I can't help you unless you tell me the truth." Powerful stuff for the defense, especially since it appears that prosecutors were unaware of the dean's purported testimony until this past weekend.

If the dean does testify, and if he says what Mesereau says he will, that testimony alone could easily create the reasonable doubt Jackson needs to be acquitted of the charges against him. What possible incentive would the dean have to lie? Why would he want to help Jackson? Why would he want to sink the prosecution's case? And even if the young man eventually says on re-direct examination that he didn't want to level with his dean because he was embarrassed, the fact is that then he's lied to a person of authority when asked him to tell the truth about molestation -- which is exactly what this trial is all about.


If this were the only problem prosecutors faced with their most important witness, it might be enough to sink the case. But it is not. On point after point, the alleged victim came across as incredible, at worst, and just plain confused at best. During the afternoon, he even seemed to suggest that he was unclear about when the molestation took place; whether it took place before or after the family made a "rebuttal" video designed to respond to the infamous network video of Jackson at Neverland; the one in which he admitted to the world that he enjoyed sleeping in the same bed with boys not related to him. This, too, is the essence of reasonable doubt.


The timing of the alleged molestation is so important to the case that the defense Monday afternoon trotted out for a third time the rebuttal videotape. If the alleged molestation took place before this rebuttal video was made, its floridly pro-Jackson tone makes even less sense than it did last week, when jurors were told that the alleged molestation took place after the rebuttal video. But no matter when jurors are told the molestation occurred, the rebuttal video is powerful evidence for Jackson and his lawyer made great use of it with the accuser in the courtroom. Over and over again, Mesereau stopped the videotape to ask the young man if he and his family were lying or telling the truth in it. Sometimes the answer was yes; sometimes it was no.


Long hours before the rebuttal video graced the courtroom again came the first question of the day. Before jurors even got settled in their seats, Mesereau was talking about the young man's comments about masturbation. Mesereau asked the accuser why he had ascribed the same words about masturbation to both Jackson and his grandmother. In other words, the alleged victim apparently told some people that Jackson had told him that masturbation was necessary because it prevented rape while telling others that his grandmother had said that. The young man tried to explain away the inconsistency but it wasn't persuasive. And from that icky start it went downhill quickly. It got so bad, in fact, that the young man's answers to questions about his cancer made it seem like he often used the disease as a sword, not a shield, and had unrealistic and sometimes even offensive expectations about what Jackson and the rest of the world owed him.


Then there were moments where the young man's testimony simply defied belief. For example, the young man told jurors that his mother was "scared the whole time" he spent at Neverland toward the end of his relationship with Jackson. Fair enough. But he also told the jury that he never told her that he was sleeping in Jackson's bed during that whole time. How can that be? How could a mother scared about her son's relationship with Jackson either not ask where they were sleeping or not do anything about it? Mesereau repeated that line of questions several times in order to ensure that the jury understood the lack of logic. It's not an issue that breaks the case wide open against Jackson but it surely doesn't help prosecutors, either.


Jackson's attorney also focused during the day on portraying the young man as a poor student with a long history of discipline problems; a mercenary punk who was renown for talking back to his teachers and defying authority. The alleged victim told jurors that he lost respect for one of his teachers because that teacher had brought himself "down to my level." One teacher wrote about the alleged victim's "good acting skills" and the young man himself told the jury that he "wasn't that good of a kid then." Now, as the parent of most young teenagers might tell you, some of this behavior is typical. But Mesereau listed at least nine teachers who all complained in one way or another about the young man. This jury has a few teachers on it and you can bet that this testimony in particular resonates with them.

But Mesereau wasn't trying to get jurors to "tut-tut" the witness for his bad school behavior. He was trying to get them to buy into the notion that the accuser in this case is capable of deceit, of defiance in the face of authority, of not suffering fools gladly even at a tender age. In a case where the young man ought to be appear wholly as a victim, Jackson's attorney Monday may him seek more like a punk, like a tough street kid who would be more likely to torment Jackson than vice versa. None of this means that the alleged molestation didn't take place, of course, but in a case about perceptions, about who was more likely to be victimizing who, it's a big deal. Simply put, it is harder tonight for me to believe that the young man would have allowed Jackson to molest him.

Jolie Rouge
03-19-2005, 08:20 PM
Anticipating a question that surely has gone through the minds of jurors, Mesereau also focused Monday upon the idea that the young man and his family had a motive to ruin Jackson's life. Why would a young man do this?

Because, Mesereau suggested with his questions, the young man and his family were chronic complainers, career gold diggers, freeloaders and grifters who turned against Jackson when he and his entourage began to withdraw their significant perks and services from them. The accuser apparently complained when the vehicle Jackson gave his family took it back to repair it.

And he apparently complained that the expensive watch that Jackson had given him wasn't worth what Jackson had told him it was worth. If that is gratitude, if that is appreciation, then this right now is a close case.


It also bodes ill for prosecutors that they twice seemed surprised by defense questions. First, they apparently were taken aback by the discovery that the dean would testify that the accuser had told him that no molestation occurred. Apparently, prosecutors only questioned this dean on Saturday, two days ago, and then had to meet with the alleged victim Sunday evening to discuss the development. In a case like this, that's unacceptable footwork on the part of law enforcement officials and the District Attorneys' Office, who long ago should have talked to every single faculty member at every single school the young man has attended.

Also, the alleged victim told jurors that he had not been asked by prosecutors about Jay Leno until after the trial started, implying that prosecutors did not know that Jay Leno would play a role in this case until the defense said he would during opening statements. Leno, it now appears, will be a defense witness, called to testify that he, too, was approached by the young man and his family as part of a solicitation effort. In these circumstances, it is inexcusable that Sneddon did not know about that before trial or, if he did, that he did not discuss it with his witness. Inexcusable, but not necessarily inconsistent with some of the other dubious decisions and developments so far in the case that left Thomas Sneddon, the District Attorney, shaking his head inside court late Monday morning.


Dressed in a royal blue dress shirt with a white t-shirt underneath, the young man is short-haired and good looking with a voice that is deeper than his age suggests. But when he testifies, he talks as though he is recalling a story that he has read and not as though he is retelling his own experiences. In that sense, he seems as over-coached and scripted as he seems under-coached in other areas of his testimony. Have jurors picked up on this? I don't know. Recognizing the core of the case when they see it, many of them were furiously scribbling notes Monday. And they were as attentive as you would hope they would be, focusing in upon the young man as he answered, or didn't, the questions posed to him.


Surely, in the end, they will cut the accuser some slack on some of what he says. Being the fulcrum of a case like this surely would not be easy for a mature adult, much less a young person just beginning to understand the real world. And surely there is a lot of detail for him to remember over a long period that marks the beginning and end of his relationship with the defendant. The problem for prosecutors, however, is that there is only so much of a break the jury is likely to cut the accuser, especially when Jackson is entitled to "breaks" of his own, constitutionally-mandated breaks like the presumption of innocence and the reasonable doubt standard.


If I were a member of the jury tonight, I would more likely be wondering why this case was brought in the first place than I would whether or not Jackson is guilty of the charges against him. And that is a horrible calculus for prosecutors now, smack dab in the middle of their case-in-chief. Why? Because with the most dramatic parts of his presentation nearly over, and with a deck stacked with defense witnesses, if Sneddon doesn't have the jury now he likely never will.

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/14/opinion/courtwatch/main680053.shtml

Jolie Rouge
03-23-2005, 10:05 PM
Jackson prosecution witness jailed in robbery spree
Charges may deal blow to state's case against pop star
Thursday, March 24, 2005

SANTA MARIA, California (CNN) -- In a twist likely to further complicate the prosecution's efforts to convict Michael Jackson, a former bodyguard expected to be a key witness against the pop star is sitting in a Las Vegas jail, facing a slew of felony charges stemming from four armed robberies.

A spokeswoman for the Clark County, Nevada, district attorney's office confirmed that Christopher Eric Carter, 25, was indicted Wednesday on 15 counts, including first-degree kidnapping, burglary, robbery, coercion and possession of a firearm by an ex-felon.

According to the indictment, Carter had been convicted in 2000 in Maryland on drug and escape charges, two years before he went to work for Jackson.



The victims in the kidnapping counts were targets of the robberies and were patrons inside businesses who were held against their will, according to the indictment. The serious felony charges are likely to damage the credibility of Carter, who has testified he witnessed Jackson and his teenage accuser drinking alcohol together during an airplane flight.

The first armed robbery Carter is accused of committing in Las Vegas was on October 29, 2003 -- about two months after he left Jackson's employ and before he testified before the Santa Barbara County grand jury that indicted the pop star in April 2004.

According to court documents, Carter was arrested February 19 after his fingerprints matched those left on a freezer by a man who robbed a Jack In The Box restaurant on February 2, wearing a mask made from a white T-shirt with holes cut out for the eyes. FBI agents found the mask while searching Carter's garbage. The robbery netted just $239, according to police.

Carter was being held on $265,000 bond, according to court documents. He is to appear in court Monday to face charges.

According to his testimony before the grand jury that indicted Jackson, Carter worked as a security guard for Jackson from August 2002 to August 2003, during the time when the accuser says Jackson molested him at Neverland ranch. He said it was his decision to leave Jackson's employ and that he then moved to Las Vegas.

Carter told grand jurors he saw both Jackson and the boy drinking alcohol from soda cans while on a flight from Miami to California in February 2003. He also said he saw the boy "stumbling" drunk one afternoon at the ranch, and the boy indicated to him that Jackson condoned his drinking.

Carter also said that after the trip from Miami, the accuser's mother asked him to take her off the ranch in the middle of the night, without her children. She was upset and prayed throughout the drive to Los Angeles, he said.


The prosecution contends that the accuser and his family were held against their will at Neverland by Jackson's associates after the Miami trip and that the mother was fearful for their safety.

According to transcripts of the grand jury, Carter also said Jackson had the ability to monitor phone conversations at Neverland and once showed him a tape he had made of a phone conversation he had recorded.


CNN's Stan Wilson contributed to this report.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/24/jackson.witness/index.html

Jolie Rouge
03-30-2005, 10:02 PM
Jurors hear Jackson case origins
Psychologist and lawyer describe roles in starting case
Wednesday, March 30, 2005 [/i]


SANTA MARIA, California (CNN) -- Jurors in the Michael Jackson trial learned more details Wednesday about how authorities first learned of child molestation allegations against the pop star.

The testimony came from the same lawyer and psychologist involved in similar charges made against him a decade ago.

Wednesday's court appearance by Dr. Stan Katz, a Beverly Hills psychologist who also treated a boy who accused the singer of a sex crime a decade ago, was widely anticipated to be a key moment in the trial.

But he was on the stand for only about an hour, after truncated questioning by the prosecution did not give the defense much room to grill him on cross-examination.

Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville had ruled earlier that Katz couldn't tell jurors whether he thought Jackson's teenage accuser and his family were credible, or whether he believed the events they described actually happened.

Katz testified he conducted eight interviews in May and June 2003 with the accuser and his mother, brother and sister. He did not provide details of what they told him.

After the interviews, however, he said he informed Larry Feldman -- the attorney who hired him to "help sort things out" with the family -- that they needed to report abuse allegations to authorities.

The family told the state Division of Children and Family Services and the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department, which launched an investigation that led to Jackson's indictment.

In a related development, the lawyer for Christopher Eric Carter, a key prosecution witness who has been charged in a string of Nevada armed robberies, said Wednesday he has advised the former Jackson bodyguard not to testify at the trial.

Carter's testimony would be important to the prosecution because what he told the grand jury that indicted Jackson last year appears to corroborate the accuser's statement that the singer gave him alcohol, as the indictment alleges.

[b]Cross-examination limited

The brevity of the prosecution's questioning of Katz limited what defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. could ask on cross-examination, which has to be within the scope of the prosecution's direct exam.

In an attempt to draw parallels with the accuser in the Jackson case, Mesereau focused much of his questioning on books and articles by Katz in which the psychologist discusses how abuse victims behave.

Katz also testified about the frequency of false allegations of sexual abuse, saying very few are made by children older than 5.

He said it would be "extremely rare" for preadolescent boys, like Jackson's accuser, to make a false claim because they are "hyper-sensitive" about their sexuality.

He said an absence of physical evidence corroborating a molestation claim is not unusual. "Fondling doesn't leave marks or bruises or semen," he said.

In 1993, Feldman represented the family of another teenage boy who said Jackson molested him. Without admitting guilt, Jackson agreed to a multimillion-dollar settlement to end a civil suit over those charges.

Katz told jurors Wednesday about his involvement in the earlier case, which he portrayed as limited. He said he was hired by Feldman's law firm to review videotape of an interview another psychologist had conducted with Jackson's 1993 accuser and offer his opinion as an expert on child abuse.

The defense has pointed to the common cast of characters in the two cases to support its contention that the latest charges were made up to extract another financial bonanza -- and that the involvement of some of the same people could account for common details in cases a decade apart.

When pressed about his relationship with Feldman, Katz insisted he had little contact with him in the decade between the two cases. "I have no social relationship with him," he said.


Lawyer offers more background

Feldman has not been called to testify in the trial. But the lawyer who referred the mother of Jackson's current accuser to him, William Dickerman, took the stand Wednesday to describe the series of events leading to Feldman's involvement in the case.

Dickerman said he was hired by the mother in February 2003, after the boy, then 13, appeared with Jackson in a controversial television documentary in which they were shown holding hands. She wanted Dickerman to write letters to networks who aired the program demanding that they stop using the boy's image, he said.

The next month, after the family broke off contact with Jackson and left his Neverland Ranch for good, Dickerman said he also began sending letters to Mark Geragos, Jackson's attorney at the time.

Dickerman said he demanded in the letters that Jackson put a stop to what the family described as a campaign of harassment and intimidation, including surveillance of family members and people banging on their door late at night.

He said he also asked for the return of items belonging to the family, including birth certificates, passports and personal property, including the accuser's underwear and his tap shoes.

Dickerman said that as he worked with the family and "learned a lot of things" he decided to refer them to Feldman because "he was the go-to guy with regard to Michael Jackson matters."

Under cross-examination by the defense, Dickerman admitted he had an arrangement with Feldman under which he would share any legal fees generated by a successful civil suit against Jackson.

The defense contends that criminal charges against Jackson are designed to reinforce an eventual civil claim against him by the boy, now 15, and his family. Dickerman discounted such a motive. "I don't anticipate any lawsuit," he said, adding that the boy's mother never asked him to seek money from anyone.

Dickerman conceded that in the letters he wrote to Geragos in the spring of 2003, he never mentioned anything about allegations of child molestation or alcohol consumption, or that the family claimed it had been held against its will at Neverland.

He said he never called police to report any wrongdoing by Jackson. He said he did call the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department once to check on the progress of the investigation triggered by Katz and Feldman.

Dickerman said he did not see any of the alleged harassment of the accuser's family by Jackson's camp that he mentioned in his letters to Geragos.

Jackson, wearing a dark suit with a light peach vest and a dark peach armband, attended court Wednesday with his parents.

At one point as he was entering the Santa Monica courthouse, he playfully patted one of his bodyguards on the head.


Testimony about plane flight

Testimony resumed Wednesday morning with more questioning of Cynthia Ann Bell, a flight attendant who said she served Jackson wine disguised in a soda can on a private jet flight from Miami to California with the accuser and his family in February 2003.

Bell, who testified Tuesday that she did not see Jackson share alcohol with his accuser or anyone else, described Jackson as intoxicated but not drunk on the flight, explaining that he was just "a lot more relaxed."

She said the accuser was rude and demanding throughout the flight, at one point triggering a food fight by throwing mashed potatoes at Jackson's doctor. "He acted like I was his maid," Bell said, adding that neither Jackson nor the boy's mother stepped in to discipline him.

She said the policy of the charter company that operated the plane, which Jackson often used, was to have wine in soda cans available for him. On Tuesday, Bell testified that Jackson did not direct her to disguise the wine in the soda can.

She also said that during the flight she saw Jackson touching the boy "at times," putting his arm around him. But she said she would not describe what she saw as cuddling.

Jackson was indicted last April by a state grand jury on 10 felony counts for incidents that allegedly occurred in February and March 2003.

The 46-year-old singer is accused of molesting the boy at Neverland, giving him alcohol and conspiring to hold the boy's family captive in 2003.

Jackson has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

CNN's Dree DeClamecy and Stan Wilson contributed to this report.

http://us.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/30/jackson/index.html

Jolie Rouge
04-01-2005, 02:49 PM
Attorney: Accuser's family has not asked for lawsuit against Jackson
No trace of accuser in singer's bed, sheriff's deputy testifies
Friday, April 1, 2005


SANTA MARIA, California (CNN) -- An attorney representing the family of the teenage boy at the center of Michael Jackson's child molestation trial testified Friday the family never asked him to file a lawsuit against the pop star.

The testimony by Larry Feldman seemed to support Jackson defense attorneys who contend that the boy's family sought money from the pop star.

Also Friday, an investigator testified that linens seized by police from Jackson's bed failed to yield hair, fibers or DNA linked to the teenager accusing him of child molestation or the accuser's brother.

In Friday testimony, attorney Feldman said the family of the accuser first approached him to investigate allegations and possible legal action against media companies, including ABC, for showing the faces of the minor and his brother without consent in a 2003 documentary.

Later, after the investigation had shifted, Feldman brought in Dr. Stan Katz. A psychologist, Katz helped launch the string of events leading to Jackson's indictment when he reported to police that Jackson's accuser, during a therapy session, said he had been molested by the pop star while staying with him at Neverland Ranch.

When Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon began investigating the allegations, Feldman said, he told the prosecutor he would not file a suit.

During a tense cross-examination of Feldman, defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. established that the boy, now 15, and his brother have until the age of 20 to sue for damages in the case. Additionally, Mesereau established, if Jackson is convicted in criminal court, a conviction in a civil suit -- which could bring a damage award -- is virtually assured.

The connection between Katz, Feldman and Jackson is not new. In 1993, Feldman represented the family of another 13-year-old boy who spent time with Jackson. Feldman referred that boy to Katz, who contacted authorities after the boy said he had been molested.

The 1993 case ended after Jackson, without admitting guilt, agreed to pay the boy and his family a multimillion-dollar settlement. The boy stopped cooperating with authorities, ending a criminal probe into the charges.

Jackson's trial judge has ruled that evidence from the 1993 case can be brought up in Jackson's current trial, raising the possibility of Katz pulling double duty as a witness about both alleged episodes. (More on that ruling)

But the defense also is expected to point to the common cast of characters to bolster its contention that the latest charges were made up to extract another financial bonanza -- and that the involvement of many of the same people could account for common details in cases a decade apart.

Under cross-examination by Mesereau, Feldman repeatedly denied attending a meeting at which defense attorneys say he told CNN's Larry King that the accuser's mother was making up the molestation allegations.

While he was on the stand, tempers appeared to be running short in the courtroom. Feldman seemed testy with both Sneddon and Mesereau, and Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville, while considering an objection, told Sneddon, "Don't give me that look."

Testing of seized Neverland items
Earlier Friday, the officer who oversaw the November 18, 2003, search of Neverland testified about the test results of items confiscated from Jackson's home.

"We took all bedding," said Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Sgt. Jeff Klapakis, who oversaw the search warrant execution.

Both the accuser and his brother claim they frequently slept in Jackson's bed, and allege that is where the molestation took place.

During cross-examination, Klapakis said authorities did not test bottles and glasses containing alcohol -- found in Jackson's bedroom as well as the home's wine cellar and kitchen -- for fingerprints. Nor did investigators test furniture, boxes, mannequin toys and rails along Jackson's stairwell or his bedroom doors for fingerprints.

Klapakis told defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr., that investigators did test pornographic magazines. The boy's brother testified Jackson showed them the magazines. A fingerprint analyst has testified the prints of Jackson and his accuser were recovered from the same sexually explicit magazine.

Asked on redirect by prosecutors why the glasses and bottles were not tested for prints, Klapakis said, "It didn't enter in the investigation at the time."

Jack Green, president of Affordable Telephone Systems, followed Klapakis to the stand. Green inspected Neverland's telephone system, and testified that Jackson's private telephone line was able to join in with or listen to conversations on any other line throughout the ranch.

Under cross-examination, Green conceded there was nothing unusual about the system, and said that anyone could dial out or call 911 on it.

Jackson was indicted last April by a state grand jury on 10 felony counts for incidents that allegedly occurred in February and March 2003.

The 46-year-old singer is accused of molesting the boy -- now 15 years old -- at Neverland, giving him alcohol and conspiring to hold the boy's family captive in 2003.

Jackson has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

CNN's Stan Wilson and Ted Rowlands contributed to this report.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/01/jackson.trial/index.html

llbriteyes
04-01-2005, 04:38 PM
I think I'll hold my opinion until the jury comes back.

Linda

JCshopper
04-01-2005, 06:19 PM
Hey Jolie, What do you think about this? Just curious... I just don't know what to make of it all. I think that it is possible that he could be innocent. Some people could see someone like him and think he is freakish enough that they could make these allegations and take advantage of that. Everyone, whether they like him or not has to at least acknowlege that he is very bizarre. It would be very easy to equate his strange behavior with a sexual deviance. I think it has been shown over and over again how difficult it is to prove or disprove sexual molestation unless there is absolute physical evidence. If he is guilty of course I hope he pays dearly, no punishment would be too harsh ... but how will they ever figure it out? Scratching my head over this one.

CatrinaF25
04-02-2005, 12:13 AM
he is odd. he is wierd but i dont think he did this. I think he does want to act as a CHILD> but i dont think he molisted this child. if he does hell will hold a special place for him and i hope he pays dearly . but i just dont think he did it

Kyla Kym
04-02-2005, 01:14 AM
he is odd. he is wierd but i dont think he did this. I think he does want to act as a CHILD> but i dont think he molisted this child. if he does hell will hold a special place for him and i hope he pays dearly . but i just dont think he did it
I don't think he did it either. Especially after watching a show that was true the other day about little people. It was a married little couple that had 3 or 4 children. Anyway their farm looked like something straight out of peter pan complete with life size pirate ships. I thought WOW these people really spoil their children. But as the program progressed we learned that the husband wasn't allowed to be a real kid because he had to have so many surgeries as a child. So he said he is making up for it now that he is a grown man. When he said that the first thing I thought of was M.J. claiming to never have had a childhood. So maybe their is something to some people that can afford to be a child again once they are adults if they missed out on their first childhood.

The sad part to me is, if he is really innocent, then this whole mess is going to change him. He seems like such a caring, loving person. I've seen on TV how most of those stars want to be left alone. He seems to care about people. I truly hope it isn't true.

Jolie Rouge
04-15-2005, 05:19 PM
Accuser's Mom Admits Earlier Lies
By LINDA DEUTSCH

SANTA MARIA, Calif. (AP) - The mother of Michael Jackson's young accuser was barraged with questions and insinuations on the witness stand Friday as the singer's attorney tried to portray her as a con artist and forced her to admit she had lied under oath twice in an unrelated case.

Attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr.'s biting cross-examination and the witness's long-winded answers that often strayed from the subject prompted Judge Rodney S. Melville to admonish both sides.

Mesereau, attempting to shatter the mother's credibility, focused many of his questions on the woman's lawsuit against a department store. The family received more than $150,000 in 2001 after alleging they were roughed up by JC Penney security guards.

Mesereau noted that in a sworn statement, the woman said she had never been abused by her husband at the time - an important issue, because her alleged injuries may have been caused by such violence. ``You were not telling the truth under oath when you made those statements,'' Mesereau said.


The woman eventually responded, ``This is correct,'' but explained that she lied because she was embarrassed about the abuse.

She also acknowledged being untruthful when she said in the lawsuit that her husband was honest.


Earlier, the witness testified that she gave a poor performance on a videotaped interview in which she praised Jackson, saying she is a ``bad actress.'' Mesereau fired back: ``I think you're a good one.''

The judge chastised Mesereau for the remark and told the woman to refrain from delivering long answers unrelated to attorneys' questions, telling her, ``It's as much your fault.''


Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting a 13-year-old former cancer patient, plying the boy with alcohol, and holding his family captive at his Neverland ranch and elsewhere in February and March 2003 to get them to help rebut a damaging documentary.

Jackson's lawyers have suggested that the child-molestation charges were concocted by the boy's mother in an attempt to shake down Jackson for money.

The mother said Jackson associates gave her a precise script to follow in the rebuttal video but later told her she had strayed too far from it, leading to the comments on her acting skills.


The woman testified that almost everything on the video - even breaks where the boy complains about his seat and the family laughs at jokes - was scripted by Jackson aides. She said the only departure from the script was when she discussed God, cancer and child welfare workers.

At one point on the tape, the boy speaks at great length about the agonies of undergoing cancer treatment. ``Do you believe what (he) was saying was the truth or not?'' Mesereau asked the boy's mother. ``I believe what he was saying was according to a script,'' she said.



The woman suggested that she met with one of Jackson's associates 10 times at Neverland to discuss what she would say on the video. Mesereau noted that she had never said this before in interviews with police or prosecutors, and suggested she was trying to enhance her story.

Asked about a report she made against her ex-husband accusing him of molesting her daughter, the woman refused to answer the question directly and instead turned to the jury and said, ``No, he's wrong.'' But ultimately, she agreed she had made such a report.


Earlier in the day, prosecutors concluded their questioning of the woman by showing jurors videotapes found in a private investigator's office to demonstrate that Jackson associates had closely monitored the boy's family while he, his mother and siblings were allegedly being held captive by Jackson at Neverland.


Associated Press writer Tim Molloy contributed to this report.



04/15/05 18:19

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-PLS&idq=/ff/story/0001/20050415/1820782961.htm&ewp=ewp_news_jackson

Jolie Rouge
04-18-2005, 11:31 AM
Jackson Accuser's Mom Refuses to Answer
By TIM MOLLOY

SANTA MARIA, Calif. (AP) - The mother of Michael Jackson's young accuser cited attorney-client privilege Monday in refusing to say whether she was represented by a lawyer at a time she and her children were allegedly held captive by the pop star.

Resuming a tough cross-examination that began last week, Jackson attorney Thomas Mesereau asked the woman if she had been represented by lawyer Michael Manning from 2001 through 2004 on issues involving her divorce.

The woman said Manning had helped her on several issues involving the divorce. She added that Manning worked for her for free and that as a result she was one of his low-priority clients. Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville ordered the latter comments stricken from the record. When Mesereau asked the woman if Manning was her attorney at the time of the alleged captivity, the woman asked, ``Is that attorney-client privilege?''


Mesereau said he would drop the question if she was citing her privilege, and she said she was doing so.


Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting one of the woman's sons, plying the boy with alcohol, and holding his family captive in February and March 2003 to get them to help rebut the ``Living With Michael Jackson'' documentary in which Jackson said he allowed children to sleep in his bed, a practice he called innocent. The woman alleges that Jackson and his associates held her family captive, shuttling them between locations until they made a rebuttal video in which they praised Jackson.


Mesereau also asked the woman about her reasons for mentioning Jackson, Los Angeles Lakers star Kobe Bryant and Los Angeles TV weather forecaster Fritz Coleman in an interview with police involving domestic abuse allegations against her former husband. She said her former husband falsely accused her of having sex with Jackson, Bryant and Coleman. She said she gave investigators their names so they could contact them and verify that the ex-husband's claims were not true.


Mesereau noted that the police report did not include any mention of alleged false claims by her ex-husband that she was having sex with celebrities. ``I don't think it was considered a crime,'' she said.


Jackson's attorneys contend the woman is the mastermind of a scheme to get money from the singer by having her son falsely accuse him of molestation. She testified last week, however, that she has no plans to sue him.


But last week she also admitted under Mesereau's questioning that she twice lied under oath in a lawsuit against department store J.C. Penney.


The family received a settlement of more than $150,000 after alleging that guards beat them. But the woman acknowledged she lied when she testified in the case that her then-husband was an honest person and that he had never beaten her.


The woman said she asked her attorneys to correct her testimony after her husband was arrested, accused of domestic abuse. She said she felt ``liberated'' to change the record but that her attorneys never did.


On Friday, Mesereau played the rebuttal video for the fourth time in the trial. It includes the woman and her children repeatedly calling Jackson a father figure. Mesereau asked if the woman was lying when she made the comments, and she said the entire video was scripted by Jackson's associates. ``I was acting,'' she testified.


The woman testified that Jackson's associates told her the family had to stay with them because ``killers'' wanted to hurt the family. She said she was never told who the killers were.


The prosecution has introduced video and audio tapes to corroborate her account.


On one recorded phone call, a Jackson associate was heard telling her the family might be in danger because of the broadcast of the ``Living With Michael Jackson'' documentary.



04/18/05 15:51

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=ne-main-9-l5&flok=FF-APO-1403&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050418%2F1551998907.htm&sc=1403

Jolie Rouge
04-18-2005, 06:58 PM
Accuser's Mom Says Jackson Fooled World
By LINDA DEUTSCH

SANTA MARIA, Calif. (AP) - The mother of Michael Jackson's accuser lashed out at the pop star from the witness stand Monday, declaring that Jackson ``really didn't care about children, he cared about what he was doing with children.''

The woman resisted answering questions by defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. and began her fourth day on the witness stand by making speeches to the jury.

She looked at Jackson across the courtroom and said: ``He managed to fool the world. Now, because of this criminal case, people know who he really is.''

Jackson is accused of molesting one of the woman's sons - a teenage cancer patient - in February or March 2003, giving the boy alcohol and conspiring to hold the boy's family captive to get them to rebut a TV documentary about the singer.


During another combative day on the stand, the woman admitted that she once told sheriff's deputies she feared Jackson had a plan for her and her family to disappear from his Neverland ranch in a hot air balloon.


However, she accused Mesereau of taking the comment out of context. ``I told police that (Jackson associates) had many ways to make us disappear,'' she said.

``And someone mentioned to you a hot air balloon?'' Mesereau asked.

``That was one of the ways,'' she said.



The mother also denied repeatedly that Jackson or anyone associated with him had tried to help her and her family when her son was stricken with cancer.


Asked whether Jackson arranged a blood drive at his Neverland ranch, she said, ``I was responsible for that.'' She then launched into an explanation about how the hospital would provide a bloodmobile anywhere she could arrange such an event.

``And Mr. Jackson allowed you to use the ranch for the blood drive?'' asked Mesereau.

``Yes, this is correct,'' the woman said. But she added, ``He wasn't the only one. Many church groups gathered.''



Mesereau also elicited testimony that the woman received checks for $20,000 and deposited them in her mother's bank account. But she said she could not remember how any of the money had been used for her son.

She also said she opened a bank account in which people could deposit money for her son's benefit.

``Did you withdraw thousands of dollars from that account?'' Mesereau asked.

``Yes,'' said the woman.

``And was any of that money for medical expenses?'' the attorney asked.

``No,'' she said.



She denied that she misled a reporter for a local newspaper into writing a story saying the family was poverty-stricken and was paying $12,000 for each chemotherapy treatment the boy received. The story included an address to send contributions.

She said that the $12,000 figure was a typographical error and that she meant $1,200. But she acknowledged ultimately that the family was paying for nothing because the father's health insurance covered the boy's treatment.




Mesereau led her through questions and answers involving her relationship with comedian Chris Tucker and his girlfriend Aja, and she denied that the family solicited help, money or any other gifts from Tucker. She acknowledged that Tucker once gave the family a car, but she said she never asked him to do that and asserted that he only did it because he had gotten his girlfriend a car and needed to make room for it.


Mesereau pressed her on whether she made any attempts to get help during the family's alleged period of captivity. ``Did you complain to anyone in the building that crimes were being committed against you and your family?'' Mesereau asked.


``No, but I am now,'' she said.


Mesereau also noted that the woman was able to telephone comedian Louise Palanker during the alleged captivity. ``If you could call (Palanker), why couldn't you call police?'' Mesereau said.


``I couldn't. I was hoping she could,'' the woman responded.


Mesereau then asked, ``You didn't call 911?''


``I have now,'' the woman said.


Associated Press Writer Tim Molloy contributed to this report.



04/18/05 22:24

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=ne-main-9-l5&flok=FF-APO-1403&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050418%2F2224028141.htm&sc=1403

Jolie Rouge
04-28-2005, 06:14 AM
Jackson's Ex-Wife Sets Back Prosecution
By LINDA DEUTSCH

SANTA MARIA, Calif. (AP) - In a startling setback to the prosecution, Michael Jackson's ex-wife took the stand at his child molestation trial Wednesday and said through tears how she was never scripted or rehearsed to say positive things about him to rebut a damaging TV documentary.

Prosecutors called Deborah Rowe to bolster their argument that Jackson conspired to hold the accuser's family captive to get them to rebut the documentary, in which the singer said he lets children sleep in his bed. The accuser's mother claims a video she recorded praising Jackson was made under duress and that every word was from a script.

The prosecution has said Rowe would offer similar testimony - that she was also pressured to praise Jackson in a video - but her testimony Wednesday did not reflect that.

``I didn't want anyone to be able to come back to me and say my interview was rehearsed,'' Rowe said. ``As Mr. Jackson knows, no one can tell me what to say.''


She reiterated that she had been offered a list of questions by her interviewers but she declined to look at them before she talked. ``It was a cold interview and I wanted to keep it that way,'' she said.


Rowe glanced at Jackson as she spoke. The pop star, dressed in a maroon suit, showed no obvious reaction to her testimony.


Rowe was a nurse for one of Jackson's plastic surgeons when they married in 1996, and they had two children together - 8-year-old Prince Michael and a 7-year-old daughter named Paris. The couple filed for divorce three years later, and Rowe is currently in a family court dispute over visitation with their children. Jackson has a third child, Prince Michael II, whose mother has remained anonymous.


Rowe appeared nervous at first as she told jurors ``we've been friends and we were married.'' Asked about her domestic arrangements, she said, ``We never shared a home.''


Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen asked her what she expected after she gave the video interview. A teary-eyed Rowe said, ``To be reunited with the children and be reacquainted with their dad.''


Jackson is accused of molesting a 13-year-old boy in February or March 2003, giving him alcohol and conspiring to hold the accuser's family captive to get them to rebut the ``Living With Michael Jackson'' documentary.


In 2003, Rowe said she spoke with Jackson over the phone and he said ``there was a video coming out and it was full of lies and would I help. I said, as always, yes.''


Rowe said her conversation with Jackson lasted perhaps 2 1/2 minutes and there was no discussion of what he wanted her to do other than to work with his associates.


She said all she could recall him saying was, ``There was a bad video coming out.''


``Did he tell you with any specificity what he wanted you to do?'' asked Zonen.


``No,'' she said.


Asked why she would help Jackson, she said, ``I promised him I would always be there for Michael and the children.''


She did not give any details of her private life with Jackson and made it clear that she did not want to discuss it. ``My personal life was my personal life and no one's business,'' she said when asked by the prosecution if she had talked completely truthfully on the video.


She said the videotaped interview lasted nine hours and that she recently saw a two-hour version of it which was shown to her by prosecutors. She said she found it ``very boring and dull'' and didn't really pay attention while she was watching it.


Rowe said she did not see the ``Living With Michael Jackson'' documentary before her interview was taped. ``All I knew is what was being put out about Michael was hurtful to Michael and the children,'' she said.


In his opening statement, District Attorney Tom Sneddon told the jury they would hear Rowe tell a story similar to that of the accuser's mother. `Debbie Rowe will tell you her interview also was completely scripted,'' Sneddon said on Feb. 28. ``They scripted that interview just like they scripted the (accuser's mother's) interview.''


Rowe was expected back on the stand Thursday for more questioning.


Earlier in the day, Jackson's attorneys asked for a mistrial but were turned down by Judge Rodney S. Melville during a controversy involving testimony about the television documentary.


Associated Press Writer Tim Molloy contributed to this report.



04/27/05 22:07

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050427%2F2207738911.htm&sc=1403&photoid=20050427MJT122&&ewp=ewp_news_jackson

Bud_Girl76
04-29-2005, 05:47 AM
I really don't think he did it.. I think he's innocent..

Jolie Rouge
05-16-2005, 07:09 PM
Jackson defense focuses on trips to spa, orthodontist
Attorneys seek to undercut charge family was held captive
Monday, May 16, 2005


SANTA MARIA, California (CNN) -- Michael Jackson's defense tried to undercut the conspiracy charge against him Monday by calling witnesses who disputed claims by his accuser's mother that she and her children were held against their will at Neverland Ranch.

Witnesses told jurors in Jackson's child molestation trial they saw no signs the mother was fearful or wanted to escape during the family's stay at Jackson's ranch in February 2003. They also said they didn't hear her complain about how the family was being treated.

A housekeeper, Maria Gomez, said the mother told her Jackson "was like a father, and she wanted her children to call him 'Dad.' " She said the woman told her at one point that she wanted to leave the ranch because three Jackson associates were "interfering" in her relationship with him.

Gomez and two other witnesses also said the accuser, then 13, and his younger brother -- who claim they were introduced to alcohol and pornography by Jackson -- had both in their possession independently of him.

The housekeeper said that while she was cleaning a guest cottage where the brother stayed, she saw sexually explicit materials in an open backpack.

Angel Vivanco, a chef's assistant, said the boys showed him adult materials when he brought food to them in one of the guest cottages.


Jackson, 46, was indicted last year on 10 felony counts for incidents that include a lewd act on a child; conspiracy to commit abduction, false imprisonment and extortion; and the use of an intoxicant before the commission of a felony. Jackson pleaded not guilty to the charges.

He arrived in the rain at the Santa Maria courthouse Monday morning, accompanied by his mother, Katherine. He wore a black suit with a tan vest and a tan-and-white armband festooned with stars.



Another witness, Shane Meridith, a former ranch security guard, said he once caught the accuser and his brother alone in Jackson's wine cellar in possession of a half empty bottle of wine. Jackson was on the property at the time but was not with them, he said.

Meridith said, however, he did not see the boys drinking and could not recall smelling alcohol on their breath.


Vivanco said the accuser's brother once demanded that he put a liqueur into a milkshake he was preparing for the boy. "He told me if I didn't do it, he would tell Michael, and I would get fired," Vivanco testified.

The defense, which maintains Vivanco developed a relationship with the accuser's older sister, also wanted to question him about comments she allegedly made to him critical of her mother and other family members.

But Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville severely limited that line of inquiry, agreeing with the prosecution that it was inadmissible hearsay.


Orthodontist refutes captivity tale

Monday's first witness, Dr. Jean Seamount, an orthodontist in the nearby town of Solvang, testified that she removed braces from the accuser and his brother on February 24, 2003, during the time frame the mother says the family was being held by Jackson's associates.

The mother earlier testified that the appointment with the orthodontist was a ruse to get the family away from Neverland so it could seek help, which she abandoned because the family was being watched. But Seamount said none of the family members asked for help or attempted to call for help, they didn't try to leave the office, and she saw no bodyguards.

Asked if members of the family appeared afraid, Seamount answered, "Not at all."

Seamount said the accuser's mother told her she wanted the braces removed so she could send them back to the Los Angeles orthodontist who had put them on the boys. She said the woman told her she was upset with the other dentist because she believed he wanted to charge her more after discovering who the family was -- an apparent reference to their connection to Jackson.

"I spent quite some time explaining to her the need for treatment," Seamount said. But the mother insisted on removing the braces, she said.

Kathryn Bernard, a former Neverland employee who handled requests from guests, said the mother told her that she needed to take the boys to a new orthodontist because "she was being hassled" by the Los Angeles dentist and "couldn't afford to pay" for the braces.

Seamount's assistant, Tiffany Hayes, described the accuser as "rude" and "kind of a brat." She said she got the impression he believed he was "better than us."

Hayes said Neverland's property manager, Joe Marcus, who called to make the boys' appointment, waited in the lobby for the family. She said Neverland was billed for the treatment.


Day at the spa

Also testifying Monday was Carole McCoy, who said she gave the accuser's mother a "full body" wax at a day spa in Los Olivos, a town near Neverland, on February 11, 2003. Her legs, brow, lip and face were waxed, and she also got a bikini wax, McCoy said.

During her earlier testimony, the mother insisted she had only her legs waxed.

Bernard testified she took the mother to the waxing appointment and arranged to pay the bill. During a conversation on the way, Bernard said the mother, whom she barely knew, began divulging personal information. She said the woman told her she was "trying to get away" from her estranged husband and commented on "how well Michael was treating her" at Neverland.

Bernard said the mother described Jackson as a father figure who had helped her family. She said she "never" complained that she and her children were being held against their will.


Monday's witnesses also said they did not see a film crew following the family during their trips from the ranch. That disputed testimony by the mother that the crew was there to shoot "positive" footage for public relations purposes.

CNN's Dree De Clamecy and Stan Wilson contributed to this report.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/16/jackson.trial/index.html

schsa
05-17-2005, 06:51 AM
Honestly, I think everyone is lying and we are never going to know what really happened. Too many contridictions and too many stories that don't make sense.

Jolie Rouge
05-19-2005, 11:11 AM
King Not Allowed to Testify
By TIM MOLLOY

SANTA MARIA, Calif. (AP) - The judge in Michael Jackson's child molestation trial ruled Thursday against allowing CNN host Larry King to testify for the defense, saying his testimony would be irrelevant.

Judge Rodney S. Melville ruled after listening to King's account of a conversation with an attorney, Larry Feldman, who represented the accuser's family.

Without the jury present, King said that Feldman told him the accuser's mother was out for money and referred to her as ``wacko.''

Feldman testified earlier for the prosecution and denied saying such things about his clients.

After listening to King's account, the judge ruled that King's testimony would not impeach Feldman's own testimony and King left the court.


Feldman was contacted by the accuser's family members after they left Jackson's Neverland estate for the last time in 2003. He referred them to Stan Katz, a psychologist who reported suspicions of child molestation to authorities after interviewing the family members.


On the stand and without jurors present, King said he spoke to Feldman at a Beverly Hills restaurant before the trial began. He said he and a producer were trying to get Feldman to appear on ``Larry King Live.''


He said Feldman told him he didn't take the mother's case because he didn't find her credible and thought she was only after money.


``The mother was a 'wacko' was the term he used,'' King said.


``He said he thinks she wants money. ... He said 'wacko' a couple of times and he said 'she's in this for the money,''' King told the judge.


Jackson defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. asked King if he asked Feldman to clarify what he meant by wacko.


``No, I think that's self-explanatory,'' King said.


Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting a 13-year-old boy in February or March 2003 and plying him with wine. He is also charged with conspiring to hold the boy's family captive to get them to rebut a damaging documentary in which Jackson said he let children sleep in his bed but that it was non-sexual.


Feldman testified in early April. The prosecution had called him as part of its explanation to the jury of how the alleged molestation came to the attention of authorities. But the defense used his appearance to pursue its contention that the accuser and his family were out to get money from Jackson.


Feldman acknowled under cross-examination that the boy, now 15, could file a civil lawsuit against Jackson until he turns 20 years old.



05/19/05 12:22


http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1403&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050519%2F1222514419.htm&sc=1403&photoid=20050519CADD102&ewp=ewp_news_jackson

Jolie Rouge
05-19-2005, 07:59 PM
Jackson Witness Testifies on Inaccuracies
By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent
May 19, 2005

SANTA MARIA, Calif. - The mother of Michael Jackson's accuser complained that she and her children were being kept away from the pop star during the time period prosecutors say one of her sons was being molested, a witness testified Thursday.

The testimony came after the judge refused to allow the defense to call CNN's Larry King as a witness. The talk show host was in court but left without taking the stand.

The defense wanted to present testimony by King that attorney Larry Feldman, who once represented the accuser's mother, had told him the mother was "wacko" and out for money.

The highlight from Thursday's testimony was that of Azja Pryor, a Hollywood casting assistant and the girlfriend of movie star Chris Tucker. She told the jury that the accuser's mother complained to her in early March 2003 that two German associates of Jackson had stepped in to keep her family away.

"I asked, 'Does Michael know anything about this?' She said, 'They won't let us around him because they know the children tug at his heart strings,'" Pryor testified.

The time period she cited is critical because prosecutors allege Jackson molested the then-13-year-old accuser between Feb. 20 and March 12, 2003.

When the accuser's mother testified in the trial, she bitterly spoke out against "the Germans" and claimed they were conspiring with Jackson to hold her family captive.

Pryor began her testimony with a few tears, talking about how she met the family at the Laugh Factory club in Hollywood in 2001 when the boy was battling cancer. The owner of the club and comedians there had become involved in fundraising efforts for the family.

Pryor said she and Tucker, who is expected to testify next week, began taking the children places. Tucker took them by private jet to an Oakland Raiders game and invited them to his brother's wedding, she said.

Pryor testified that she and the boy's mother would talk for hours at a time on the phone, but the mother never complained to her about Jackson.

The judge later handed the defense a victory when he allowed jurors to see a video tour of the singer's Neverland ranch.

Besides the ranch's amusement park rides and zoo animals, the video shows numerous clocks, countering testimony by members of the accuser's family that they were not able to keep track of time while Jackson allegedly held them against their will.

District Attorney Tom Sneddon vehemently opposed the video, saying much of it was "propaganda." He cited in particular a scene that showed a note written on a chalkboard by one of Jackson's children, saying "I love you daddy."

In addition to molestation, Jackson, 46, is accused of giving the boy wine and conspiring to hold his family captive to get them to rebut a TV documentary in which Jackson said he let children sleep in his bed but that it was non-sexual.

Pryor smiled as she told Jackson attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. that the accuser's mother never told her she had tried to escape from Neverland.

"Why are you smiling?" Mesereau asked.

"It's Neverland," the witness said. "I don't know who would ever want to escape Neverland."

Pryor also testified that she gave the family money and that the accuser's mother and sister tried to pressure her to give them a car. The defense contends that the accuser's mother tried to bilk celebrities by exploiting her son's fight against cancer.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050519/ap_en_mu/michael_jackson

Jolie Rouge
05-25-2005, 11:58 AM
Jackson defense rests without calling singer


SANTA MARIA, Calif. (Reuters) - Lawyers for Michael Jackson rested their case on Wednesday without calling the entertainer to testify in defense of the child molestation accusations against him. "Your Honor, the defense rests," said lead Jackson attorney Tom Mesereau after calling some 50 witnesses over 15 days intended to cast doubt on the motives and background of Jackson's accuser and family.

The final defense witness was comedian Chris Tucker, who said he had warned Jackson about the mother of the boy before the charges were brought.

Tucker, a friend of the 46-year-old entertainer, said he befriended the boy after meeting him in 2000 at a time when the youth was battling cancer.

But Tucker, who co-starred with Jackie Chan in the "Rush Hour" movies, said he became concerned about the mother and about the boy's own wheedling, "cunning" ways.

The mother of the boy was so emotional and overwrought at one point when she was calling him about a truck that he had promised to provide the family that she seemed "possessed," Tucker said.

Defense lawyers have sought to portray the mother of Jackson's accuser as a grifter who tried to wheedle money from celebrities and coached her son to lie about the molestation charges against Jackson.

Relating an incident at a Los Angeles comedy club where he had helped in a fund raiser for the boy, Tucker said the boy approached him and said the event had not raised enough money.

"He was just real sad looking. He said they didn't raise any money and they really needed some money." Tucker said, adding that he subsequently wired him $1,500. "He was really smart and he was cunning, but at the time I always overlooked it," Tucker said of the boy. "He was always saying stuff like, Chris, let me have this, let me have that. Come on, I'm not feeling good."

CRITICAL DOCUMENTARY

Tucker said he took Jackson aside in February 2003 to warn him about the boy's mother. At the time Jackson, Tucker and the family were staying at a hotel in Miami.

The comedian also said that the boy's family had been eager to travel with him to Miami to be with Jackson, countering prosecution claims that the trip had been a ploy by Jackson's camp to keep the family from seeing a critical documentary featuring the pop star holding hands with the boy and defending his practice of sharing his bed with children. "Something in my spirit didn't feel right about her. She started acting frantic, like mentally something wasn't right."

Tucker said he took Jackson into a room away from the family. "I told him to watch out for (the mother) because I felt suspicious about her. I took him in the room and I was trying to talk to him, I said, 'Michael, something ain't right."'

Tucker was the final witness to be called by Jackson's defense team over 15 days, a much shorter case than originally projected.

At the start of the trial in January Lead defense lawyer Tom Mesereau said he had a witness list of some 300 people, including a galaxy of stars such as Elizabeth Taylor, Stevie Wonder, Diana Ross and basketball player Kobe Bryant.

In the end, only a handful of stars, including Tucker and comedians Jay Leno and George Lopez, took the witness stand.

Jackson is charged with molesting the boy, then 13, at his Neverland Valley Ranch in California in early 2003, plying the youth with alcohol in order to abuse him and conspiring to commit child abduction, extortion and false imprisonment.

Tucker said before the Miami incident the family once showed up unannounced on a movie set in Las Vegas set where he was working and would not leave.

He said while in Las Vegas the mother "was always saying I was their brother and all that stuff and she loved me. I was getting a little nervous because my whole thing was just to help the kid, not get involved with the whole family."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20050525/ts_nm/crime_jackson_dc

3lilpigs
05-30-2005, 03:12 AM
Honestly, I think everyone is lying and we are never going to know what really happened. Too many contridictions and too many stories that don't make sense.

i agree!

...its going to turn out to be like the OJ trial. (although in my personal opinion,OJ was guilty)

I think Michaeal is guilty too. He is too much of a freak to not be guilty. what kind of 'normal' man PAYS a woman to have his children, sign a waiver to agree to never see them again, holds a baby over a balcony for the press to see (and who's baby is that anyhow?? where did it come from??), he hangs out with little boys, thinks its 'ok' to sleep in a bed with them, he's trying to change the color of his skin, and reconstructed his whole face, they found all kinds of porno material in his rooms........jeez......i'll stop here cause im making myself sick! :mad:

the man (??) is just a freak plain and simple.

didnt some of these accusers already describe certain parts of his body that could only be seen if he was naked?

i never did like Michael as a performer.....but i will give him credit that he was very talented, and its a shame to see things have gone this way for him.....but i believe he brought it on himself.

Jolie Rouge
06-08-2005, 06:36 PM
6/4/2005 3:01 PM

Case turned into weirdness contest between Michael Jackson and boy's mother

SANTA MARIA, Calif. (AP) — The jury deliberating the fate of Michael Jackson may have to decide who's weirder: Jackson or the mother of his accuser.

Much of Jackson's defense came down to trying to prove the mother was the winner of the strange contest — even though Jackson's eccentricities long ago earned him the tabloid tag "Wacko Jacko." His 2003 admission that he shared his bed with children — non-sexually, he explained — didn't do much to mitigate that notion. His lawyers tried to make their client look sympathetic by portraying the mother of his accuser as more out of touch with social norms than he is.

Was his hobby of spending weeks with children creepier than her habit of sucking up to celebrities? Was his insistence that there was nothing wrong with letting children in his bed odder than her habit of saying near-strangers were like family?

Trial analyst Ann Bremner, a former prosecutor, was at a loss when asked if Jackson or the mother came off looking stranger to jurors. "Boy," she said. "That's a contest."

The 46-year-old singer is charged with molesting a 13-year-old boy in February or March 2003. He is accused of plying him with wine and conspiring to hold his family captive to get them to rebut damaging aspects of the documentary "Living With Michael Jackson," in which Jackson appeared holding hands with the boy as he talked of allowing children into his bed for what he said were innocent sleepovers.

The jury received the case Friday afternoon and deliberated for about two hours before adjourning for the weekend.

Defense attorneys ran a risk by focusing on the mother's oddities, Bremner said, explaining that her behavior — and even alleged history of fraud — didn't really relate to whether Jackson had molested her child. "In a lot of ways she's ancillary," Bremner said. "The sins of the mother — do they stick to the son? There has not been a lot of evidence that he would lie at the behest of his mother."

Prosecutors suggested that Jackson's behavior was not only weird but criminal, arguing that sleepovers turned into molestations.

The defense tried to paint the mother as criminally odd as well, arguing that she smothered celebrities with affection to con them. One defense witness testified that the mother also fraudulently underreported income on a welfare application.

Jackson's attorneys tried to make their client's oddity an asset. In his closing statement, lead defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. played excerpts of an interview with Jackson to suggest that he was anything but a criminal mastermind.

In the wide-ranging interview, Jackson described writing songs in his "giving tree," his dream of a holiday for children and his desire to hold a party for animal celebrities, including Cheetah from the Tarzan movies and Lassie.

He also was shown holding his infant son over a balcony and claiming to have had only two plastic surgeries, both on his nose. "Does he look like the kind of person who is even capable of orchestrating a criminal conspiracy of this magnitude?" Mesereau asked.

Prosecutors tried to prop up the mother's testimony with outside corroboration. After she said she feared Jackson's people would hurt her parents and boyfriend, prosecutors presented surveillance tapes of them found in the office of a private investigator who worked for former Jackson attorney Mark Geragos.

They also seized on the mother's erratic behavior on the witness stand to suggest that she couldn't possibly have orchestrated false allegations against Jackson.

The mother "frankly can't string two consecutive sentences together that make sense," prosecutor Ron Zonen said.

The woman repeatedly ignored the typical rules of courtroom decorum by directly addressing jurors, telling them that Jackson's attorney was being unfair or dishonest. She even spoke to reporters covering the trial at one point, saying she had once thought ill of them but now considered them good people.

She said she once feared Jackson's posse of associates would make her and her family disappear in a balloon.

Another trial analyst, defense attorney Ivan Golde, said he was surprised prosecutors would bring a case against Jackson based on testimony from such flawed witnesses. "The D.A. wanted to get Michael Jackson, so he went along with this witness who's got all this baggage," Golde said.


http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2005-06-04-jury-to-decide-whos-weird_x.htm?csp=27&RM_Exclude=Juno