What amazes me is that is family is unwilling to step in and take appropriate action.

Look at Michael Jackson's faces here -->

http://www.killsometime.com/Video/video.asp?video=Faces-of-Michael-Jackson

Yikes!

The evidence seems to be absolutely enormous, and that was not a dick joke. Assuming he is guilty, why would he put himself and his image through this kind of public flogging? Jackson would be wise to flee, then the insane and stupid people who think he is innocent can continue to support him.

Yup, I believe he is guilty. Remember, the justice system is predicated on innocence until proven guilt. I am not the justice system though, and nor a juror.

Most importantly, as all his assets are going to be liquidated (even if he is innocent... dude is completely broke) I hope to see the Beatle's catalogue sold back to the Beatles.

if you look at the huge wad of accusations that have accumulated over the last 15 years, there appear to be certain patterns and reoccurences that would be exceptionally hard to explain away, even if you assume bad will from all who have accused. I think he genuinely does not know where the line is between appropriate and inappropriate behavior toward children, and in particluar, toward boys.

We seem to be Jacko-lytes on blogcritics - no dearth of reading material - a book in itself:)

the story is fascinating and disturbing on so many levels, plus it is so THERE - I hadn't realized how much we have done on him, and this is just the last year.

Eric,

This Jackson thing is perfect writer & blogger fodder. Sort of like how comedians regarded Clinton's sex addiction. They all call it the golden age of political comedy because the material just kept coming.

I feel confident that this Jackson story will be water cooler fodder for years... and that, frankly, is where we come in.

one last thing:

How do you know when it is bedtime at Neverland Ranch?

When the big hand is on the little hand

>>What amazes me is that is family is unwilling to step in and take appropriate action.<<

What, like a muslim-style castration and stoning?

Dave

no, more like an "intervention" as in, "enough with the fucking plastic surgery, freak" about 20 years ago; "enough with the creepy fixation on little kids, especially boys - perhaps you should talk to someone about that"; "enough with the paying people off shit - if you didn't do it, say so, stick with it, and prove the fuckers wrong."

Do you think my parents and brothers and sister wouldn't have intervened if I behaved and lived my life like that? You bet your dyed-white, "dressed to lead a marching band through the streets of St-Tropez," child-luring, self-mutilating ass they would have.

Yes... Jacko Wacko will give us plenty to write about. Remember the Iranian Hostage Crisis and the media? Day 12, 13, etc... You can run something like that with blogged updates! This should be a very deep well indeed !

What Evidence? Have the defense presented their case to any of you in private that the rest of us were not privy to? Are any of you aware of the fact that there are two sides to each story? Has it entered any of your brains that perhaps you should wait to hear how Jackson would counter these so called allegations? No. Smoking Gun, Leaked Grand Jury testimony which we all know is just the prosecutions side, Jacksons face, his eccentricities and bam..he must be guilty.

Well, we'd better hope it's not folks like you that make up the Jury if not we might as well save ourselves the drama and go straight to sentencing.

Sneddon started this investigation after Bashir's Tv hatchet job. If MJ had not been naive enough to say that he sleeps with the kids on the bed when they come to visit..we would not be here. That comment galvanised Sneddon to hunt down this boy whose mother went to a civil lawyer several months before she considered Sneddon. They were kidnapped? To travel round the world and live in the lap of luxury and they wanted to get out to live in the poverty stricken lives they now lead and are trying to improve via Jackson?

I think the sensible person will wait for the case to start before jumping to conclusions or at the very least wait till some defense points are also leaked. The sensationalist Reporters amongst us though, will carry the prosecutors so called large heap of evidence and run with it. I can't imagine how MJ is going to have a fair trial. Sneddon has contaminated the Jury and any Law student knows that Grand Jury testimony is never leaked just for the hell of it.

Now, Corey Feldman has been subpoenaed because he said Jackson showed him nude pics when he was 13. Nevermind that he also said, Jackson never touched him and he never saw Jackson do anything with any other boys. The Prosecution are so desperate. How anyone can say they have a strong case is a mystery to me.

I am no specialist on American Law but I can't imagine why anyone would think the prosecutions case is strong, with the desperation they are showing so far. It is very IMPORTANT to bear in mind that this case would NEVER have been brought up but for Bashir's hatchet job and Mj's naive comments on camera. Since then, Sneddon and his cronies have been trying to give credibility and legitimacy to their allegations.

I look forward to all your posts when Jackson is found innocent of these charges. They will be amusing to read. I have presumed the man innocent and I can not imagine what the prosecutors have that would lead anyone to believe beyond reasonable doubt that MJ molested that kid. They've leaked so much that if this is the bulk of their evidence it is no wonder they are trying to contaminate the Jury and judge it in the court of public opinion. It is all rubbish with huge holes in the bulk of it and Sneddon knows that if that is the extent of his evidence, he and his gang will be shown for the incompetent caricatures that they are in the real Court of Law.

Sandra, my MJ apologist friend, I have no idea if a) Jackson committed the crimes with which he is charged, or b) if he will be found guilty or innocent of said crimes.

There is plenty else going on here without trying to prejudge the vagaries of a jury trial. At a minimum, however, I believe (just my opinion, no legal weight whatsoever) he IS guilty of inappropriate relationships with boys

I look forward to all your posts when Jackson is found innocent of these charges.

It's gonna be a long wait, Sandra. He'll never be found innocent, only not guilty, and there's a difference. Doubt will always exist, whether he's found guilty or not.

I don't know if he's guilty of sexual molestation. I just know that I'd never let my son near him, never mind let him sleep at the guy's house.

If you don't think there's anything wrong with MJ, then why is he always fixating on BOYS, specifically? If he loved all children [in the platonic sense] equally, where are all the sleepovers for girls?

I can't help but have the sense that his defenders doth protest too much: not that it shouldn't be reiterated "innocent until proved guilty" over and over - it should. But the whole "naive innocent adrift in the uncomprehending, heartless, judgmental world" sound delusional at best to my ears

With all due respect Sandra, you must be living under a rock somewhere if you harbor no doubt to MJ's innocence.

I doubt he violently raped anyone, but there is zero doubt in my mind that he has an unnatural proclivity towards yound boys, and that in itself is a crime in my book.

But hey, I am a parent and a human being who heavily frowns on child molestation and the ramifications of such.

Ever since Michael Jackson said on camera that sharing your bed with someone is the most loving thing you can do, I've never been sure if he is arrogant or has a death wish. The way he keeps defending himself on camera, the absolute refusal to put any limits on his behavior -- you just think either here's a guy who thinks he can buy his way out of anything or is just waiting for the judicial system to stop him before he strikes again.

good point Rodney, there is pathology is all directions with the guy

Me? An MJ Apologist? Never! Surely not. Whatever for?! Eric, the way you post every development on this case, one would think you actually knew the facts of the case. The Charge, my friend, is not “inappropriate relationships” . The Charge is, Child molestation, kidnapping and whatever else, Sneddon has imagined.

Even he, has not been disingenuous enough to level a charge of “inappropriate relationships” . If every person in an inappropriate relationship was taken to Court, the Courts of the Land would collapse and you be assured that there might be no Judges or Lawyers to handle the matter as they would be the “accused” in many cases. Please, try to stick to the facts. You can have your opinion on MJ. However, when you want to discuss the case, it is best to stick to the case and not suffer this unfortunate epidemic of being unable to distinguish between personal opinions of MJ as a person and the ACTUAL FACTS of the case before us. As far as his supporters protesting too much, Eric, you start a topic on the slightest development of his case. It would be more astute to state that his attackers have itchy pants and won’t let the case start at all. They are already trying him in the Court of Public opinion. It is no wonder his supporters have to protest.

BHW, when Mj is pronounced not guilty, I will consider him innocent. If MJ were to be found Guilty, would you say, “he isn’t guilty but the Jury just said so in Court”? Hmm? There is a reason different Standards of proof are put in certain circumstances. In this case, it is a standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”. If Sneddon is unable to prove that, then MJ is innocent. We can not let people run around leveling accusations on every person they dislike with no standard to prove if their accusations are actually true. Quite frankly, for a person like you, the Trial is a waste of time. You have two opinions. Guilty or Guilty but not proven. So, what’s news there? You have already made up your mind. How many sleepovers did you have with 10-13 year old boys when you were that age? Surely, all your friends were girls(I am assuming you are a girl). MJ is a child in a man’s body. Yes, there is something wrong with him. He certainly has psychological problems. However, Do I think he sexually molested that cancer patient? Absofuckinglutely not!

Dawn, then I must be living under a rock. I’ll tell you, it’s a very comfy and beautiful rock. Look, I am certain that MJ did not molest this boy. Am I disappointed with his naivety? YES. Am I troubled that he has more 10 year old friends than fourty-something year old friends? Absolutely. Do I think, he sexually molests these young boys that come to NeverLand? NO. It is inappropriate because we are “normal” but to MJ’s troubled mind, it is not inappropriate for him to have more “child” friends than adult friends. Still, if the Charge is “inappropriate” relationships, everybody better duck.

Rodney, MJ’s comments on TV is just a clear example of how naïve this man is. He said it without a moment’s thought and did not see anything wrong with it. This man has psychological problems. He is not a pedophile. Eric, to use that example as some sign of pathology is really scraping the bottom of the gutter. Goodness Gracious!

remove apostrophe from moments

BHW, when Mj is pronounced not guilty, I will consider him innocent.

You already consider him innocent.

Quite frankly, for a person like you, the Trial is a waste of time. You have two opinions. Guilty or Guilty but not proven.

No. I said that I don't know if he's guilty or not. Aren't you a lawyer? Then you should know that a "not guilty" verdict does not necessarily prove innocence. It's often an "inconclusive" verdict on the case presented.

How many sleepovers did you have with 10-13 year old boys when you were that age?

What age? An adult, in my 30s and 40s? Um, NONE.

MJ is a child in a man's body.

That's your opinion. No factual information there.

However, Do I think he sexually molested that cancer patient? Absofuckinglutely not!

Well, I'm glad that you've made up your mind before all the evidence has been presented. Ironically, that's what you wrongly accused me of.

BHW: You already consider him innocent.

Sandra: As is the right and sensible thing to do.
I am also aware that a "not guilty" verdict does not mean the person is actually "innocent". I think OJ killed Nicole but he was found "not guilty". My point is, putting your post in context with that comment, you approach it with a presumption of guilt. So, whatever the finding, you will stick to it. I disagree with the use of the word "often". It is sometimes an inconclusive verdict, but not often. This takes us back to the "Standard of proof" point I made.

No, I meant when you were 10 or 13. If it isn't clear, my point is that MJ is the child who never grew up. He had a deprived childhood. From the age of 5 he was an adult. Now, he wants to be a child. Thus, he sees nothing wrong in having 10 year old friends jumping all over his bed, sleeping over, playing with trains and going on rides. We think, wierd. He thinks, not so wierd. None of this means he is sexually molesting anybody.

Well, if you can not see that MJ has issues regarding his childhood, and refer to it as just my opinion, but you are able to presume the man guilty of child molestation, having not heard the evidence, let our different thought processing abilities be a reflection of how much or how little common sense either of us have, respectively.

BHW, I do not think for a moment that MJ molested that boy. There is no evidence that raises any doubt in my mind. Mind you, we have had nothing but the Prosecution evidence so if anything I should have some doubts by now. Should the Trial start and I begin to have doubts, I will be the first person to state them clearly. You can bet on that.

I don't think, I wrongly accused you, BHW. You are just on the wrong side of the Law. The Law is, innocent until proven guilty. The policy of free countries and civilised countries is a presumption of innocence. I can not abide this presumption of guilt that MJ is having to fight simply because he is "wierd".

Woody Allen is wierd but I am not going to think he is guilty if a girl who had spent sometime in his house suddenly accused him of sexual harassment. Even if she is found to be Soon Yi's adopted daughter and it's de ja vu all over again. I need more evidence than my personal opinion that a certain person has flown over the cuckoo's nest.

My point is, putting your post in context with that comment, you approach it with a presumption of guilt.

Wrong. I don't know if he's guilty or not. Now that's three times I've said it.

You are just on the wrong side of the Law. The Law is, innocent until proven guilty. The policy of free countries and civilised countries is a presumption of innocence.

Yes, but that is a legal standard that refers to how juries must approach the trial and how the prosecution must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt; it doesn't refer to the general public or whether or not they may opine about his guilt or innocence. He is innocent in the eyes of the law, but he may be guilty in fact. Nobody knows for sure but the accuser and MJ.

I don't know if MJ is innocent or guilty, but as someone not eligible for his jury, I'm not obligated to presume one way or the other.

That said, his fixation on young boys and having them sleep in his bed means that I would never let my own son anywhere near the guy. It's not worth the risk.

I can not abide this presumption of guilt that MJ is having to fight simply because he is "wierd".

He is fighting the presumption of guilt by many because 1) he has been accused before and settled out of court rather than defend his innocence before a jury. He bought the accuser's silence, rather than defend himself. That doesn't look good. And 2) he just simply doesn't think there's anything wrong with him sleeping with other people's kids in his bed. That's not naivete. That's a fundamental ignorance, possibly willful, of what his relationship to/with children should or shouldn't be.

Would it help if he hadn't carved his face to bits and didn't walk around wearing a hospital mask and wasn't seen in public with all sorts of animals and kids? Would it help if he wasn't so weird? Yes, it would. The weirdness is contributing to people's willingness to believe he's guilty before they hear all the evidence. But it's not the only thing that's leading them in that direction.

The Jury is made up of the public, BHW. These are not special people kept aside to be rolled out during Trials. They ARE part of the general public. So, it would do society well if we could all learn to cultivate the habit of presuming people innocent until it's proven otherwise.

If everyone who has settled out of Court over one matter or the other is to be presumed guilty of whatever charge it was, then the free world is choc-a-bloc with guilty people roaming the land.
Sometimes, it's a nuisance BHW. Sometimes, you just pay to get this nonsense off your back. 20mill, the alleged amount might seem like far too much to pay to get rid of a nuisance to you and I, but to MJ, it's the equivalent of 200 dollars. You are a mother. Would you take ANY amount of money from a man you believe has molested your son? I can't imagine any mother wouldn't want to see that child molester locked up to prevent future children from being abused. Yet, the boy of 1993 went straight to Civil Lawyer and when that didn't pressure MJ, they threatened the long outdrawn criminal Trial..the man paid up. Of course it looks bad, but it also looks bad for the 1993 boy. I do hope he is called by the Prosecution for this case. He and his parents will have to tell us why they accepted the money when they could have had both. They could have continued with criminal proceedings and then had their civil proceedings afterwards. You can look at it two ways, BH. It makes you wonder why MJ paid, it makes me wonder if he did anything at all because I can not imagine a mother or father taking money to shut up about the man that allegedly molested her son.

Yeah, he doesn't think there is anything wrong in sharing a bed with young boys. Is there anything wrong in a father sharing a bed with his 13 year old son? Is there anything wrong in an older brother sharing a bed with his younger brother? MJ, stupidly took these children as his own. He took them as his friends. This particular cancer patient lived in that house for a long period. Travelled with MJ. His mother and the rest of his family present. They played computer games, etc. MJ even said sometimes he slept on the floor while the kids slept on the bed. Even the way he talks is child like. Should a 40 something year old man be sharing a bed with a 10 year old boy? Depends. Probably not. Should MJ be sharing a bed with these boys? Probably not. In sharing that bed, did he touch them in any sexual way? THAT, is the question. The word "inappropriate" or what some consider abnormal or wierd varies from community to community. Some people find homosexuality weird. Some people find cousins getting married weird. There are all sorts of weird and inappropriate things in this life we lead. Certainly, a majority would find MJ's friendship with young boys abnormal. It might be. However, I find it understandable and I certainly need a lot more than what you have said to lead me to believe that sexuial activities took place b/w MJ and some little boys. Especially this particular ungrateful one in question.

Sandra, we've gone over and over this. We all agree: we don't know if he did or did not do what he has been accused of in this case, AND innocent until proven guilty. What I don't get is why are you so SURE he didn't do what he is accused of? Do you have inside knowledge, or are you just assuming innocent until proven guilty, which is something else entirely. I am willing to suspend judgment until the case has run its course, but you seem certain, before the trial runs its course, that he DIDN'T do it. Why is that?

And as bhw and others have said, his guilt in this specific case and his overall behavior are two different things. We are free to discuss and pass judgment on his behavior while awaiting the facts on this particular case.

Is it possible that there has never been any sexual aspect to his relationship with children, and specifically boys? Yes it is, but to me it seems unlikely and contrary to the facts that ARE known.

So, it would do society well if we could all learn to cultivate the habit of presuming people innocent until it's proven otherwise.

I see your point. However, there are quite a few vocal defenders of MJ's actual innocence -- not legal, presumed innocence. You are one of those people -- you won't even consider the possibility that he's guilty. You don't believe only in his legal innocence, you believe that he absolutely did not do it. You don't have all the facts, but you still have drawn a conclusion.

So in CA, the court has its work cut out for it to filter out not only those people who already believe he's guilty, but those rabid nutjob fans who already "know in their hearts" that he's innocent and completely incapable of the crime.

I believe it's possible he committed the crime. I also believe it's possible he didn't. Frankly, I'd be the perfect juror because I'd be willing to listen to both sides of the story with an open mind.

However, I find it understandable and I certainly need a lot more than what you have said to lead me to believe that sexual activities took place b/w MJ and some little boys.

I haven't tried to convince you or anyone of his guilt. In fact, I wrote an entry that made fun of the "big news" that MJs fingerprints were found on his own porn magazines. I don't know how solid the prosecution's evidence against him is. His and the boy's fingerprints on the same porn mags doesn't do it for me. Lots of kids find their parents "reading material" in the house. Doesn't mean much on its own.

Would you take ANY amount of money from a man you believe has molested your son? I can't imagine any mother wouldn't want to see that child molester locked up to prevent future children from being abused.

I very well might. As a parent, my job is to do what's in the best interest of my child FIRST and then worry about other people's children. I would already be living with a huge amount of guilt that I had put my child in a dangerous situation. So if my kid was going to be further traumatized by testifying to the sexual abuse in a room full of strange adults, then yes, I very well might take the settlement knowing that the perpetrator had paid at least some price and that the accusation had been reported and was on his record. Then if other parents, knowing that there were allegations of sexual abuse against this guy, decided to let their kid mooch off of him because he was a celebrity, then that's their problem and not mine. I would be comfortable in knowing that I had warned them very publicly.

Which is to say that the mother of the current accuser should be charged with child endangerment if MJ is found guilty. She allowed her kid to sleep with a grown man who'd been accused of sexual abuse: that's negligence and endangerment.

Sandra Smallson: You are a mother. Would you take ANY amount of money from a man you believe has molested your son? I can't imagine any mother wouldn't want to see that child molester locked up to prevent future children from being abused.

Wow, that's an astonishingly lame argument.

Andrea Yates was a mother. So was Susan Smith. And Joan Crawford. Do you really think you can generalize about what a mother would or wouldn't do?

Hey, JR, thanks for lumping me in with the pyscho mothers from hell. ;-)

But it's a good point. Let's turn the scenario around: I can't imagine that any mother would let her kid sleep over at MJs house after the original accusations had been made in 1993. And yet it has happened.

Would you let your kid sleep at the home of an accused molester who had paid off the accuser?

I wouldn't.

First of Eric, I have no inside knowledge whatsoever. I am simply leaning towards innocence as firmly as YOU have been leaning towards guilt. Perhaps you need to read your various posts on the matter as to refresh your memory on what you have written. If you think your posts lead anyone to infer that you have "suspended judgment" till Trial..read'em again:) Also, Please enlighten me on the "KNOWN FACT" that leads you to believe he sexually molested boys.

BHW: I think you are a tad misguided. Somewhere in one of my posts, I clearly stated that, "should the trial start, and doubts are raised in my mind, I would be the first person to state them. You can bet on that"..Surely, that comment leads anyone thinking clearly to infer that I HAVE considered the possibility that he might be guilty. Surely, that comment leads anyone with any level of understanding to know that what I am saying is, "Don't give me this poppycock nonsense, show me something concrete"..???..Therefore, you accusing me of drawing a conclusion is based on shaky grounds, dontcha think?!

Again, YOU need to re-read your posts if you think you would be the perfect Juror. You would be the worst possible Juror they could get in there. Bloody hell! Read your posts again. Perhaps we all need to refresh our memories on what exactly it is we've been writing.

Wow. So, YOU will consider taking the money. You don't want your child to go through the public trauma. I am guessing you don't want your family to go through the public scrutiny.

Yet, you can not see how Jackson might have also paid off these scavengers for the very same reason? You can not see how he wouldn't want to go through the unnecessary scrutiny? You can not see how he would have thought this whole trial would harm his career at the time or take up far too much time. You cannot see how he would have thought "If I pay them, sooner or later it won't be front page news but if there's a Trial, it will be front page News for a year"? You can not see Jackson considering these things and deciding to pay the boy. Therefore, you list it as one of the reasons why people have started with a presumption of guilt? Do you see how warped your reasoning on this matter is?


As to your last point, If Jackson is found guilty, then the mother of the child must be prosecuted as well. I have no argument with you there.

JR: That comment of mine is no more lame than your comparison. Those women were killers whether because they were evil or because of one psychological problem or the other. Like I said, I can not believe any mother would take money as compensation from a man who quite frankly, raped her child. If you find that argument lame, then there must be something wrong with you.

BH..you can't even understand your own posts. So, because Jackson was an "accused" therefore he is a child molester in your eyes and your kid can't stay there? Has it entered your head that these mothers quite rightly do not believe the accuser and so allow their children to sleep over? Hmm? So, every accused is now tainted for life? And you think you are the perfect Juror? You are a nightmare for the Legal system and woe unto the defender whose case you are to judge.. Jeez, come on!

Jackson defenders are rabid nut jobs? His attackers are??? Don't make me laugh. You so think he is guilty it's not even difficult to discern. You can't even fathom how he might be innocent. I pity the defender whose case you are selected for.

BHW: I think you are a tad misguided.

But not about MJ.

I do not know if Michael Jackson is guilty or not.

Anyone keeping count?

Somewhere in one of my posts, I clearly stated that, "should the trial start, and doubts are raised in my mind, I would be the first person to state them. You can bet on that"..Surely, that comment leads anyone thinking clearly to infer that I HAVE considered the possibility that he might be guilty.

Not when you counter it with the number of times you have asserted your *certainty* of his actual [not legal] innocence. I honestly believe that nothing would convince you of his guilt, even his own confession. You'd explain it away with his naivete or something.

Wow. So, YOU will consider taking the money.

Yep.

You don't want your child to go through the public trauma. I am guessing you don't want your family to go through the public scrutiny.

Sandra, this was a hypothetical. It has not actually happened, and yet you imply that I have something in my family to hide. Oh the SCREAMING FUCKING IRONY of you trying to JUDGE me on what I said I'd CONSIDER doing in a hypothetical situation.

Just for fun, how about you apply that same level of judgment to what is factually known about good ol' MJ at this point?

But I stand by what I said. I'd definitely consider taking the money and dropping the criminal case if I thought my kid would not be able to handle the pressures of a trial on top of the trauma of having been abused.

So, because Jackson was an "accused" therefore he is a child molester in your eyes and your kid can't stay there?

Partly right. 1) My kid can't stay there. 2) If I did not know for sure that the accused was in fact innocent, and that's all the information I had to work with, then s/he's as good as guilty when it comes to getting close to my kids.

In MJ's specific case, the accusation coupled with the lack of public scrutiny of all the evidence make this a *potentially* dangerous situation for my child. My job is to protect my kid and err on the side of caution. No sleepovers for him at MJ's. They'll both have to find friends their own age.

You can not see how he wouldn't want to go through the unnecessary scrutiny?

Sure I can. But he'd rather bury the charges than prove his innocence. If I'd been falsely accused of a heinous crime, I'd want my name cleared. I'd want to show the world that the accuser was lying. I'd hold my head up and defend myself.

You can not see how he would have thought this whole trial would harm his career at the time or take up far too much time.

The career was already tanking. And as for time, how much time is your reputation worth?

You cannot see how he would have thought "If I pay them, sooner or later it won't be front page news but if there's a Trial, it will be front page News for a year"?

Not really. The better scenario is that his lawyers convinced him not to take a chance in a criminal court -- you never know about those juries! -- and to prevent the criminal trial from ever taking place. If the kid drops the charges and they stay dropped until the statute of limitations runs out, then MJ never has to face the prospect of going to jail. I thought defense lawyers always tried to get the charges dropped if they could so they'd be assured that their client couldn't be found guilty of anything.

Where does this reasoning fit the scenario: If these were false accusations, then paying the accuser is acquiescing to extortion. By paying, some people think it looks like MJ would rather be extorted and leave the tawdry accusations floating in the air than show them to be false AND thereby prevent another extortion -- like the one we potentially have right now -- from occurring. If he'd gone to court and been found not guilty, this second boy's accusations would probably have fallen on somewhat deaf ears, don't you think?

Has it entered your head that these mothers quite rightly do not believe the accuser and so allow their children to sleep over?

It has occurred to me that they think they *know for sure* that MJ didn't do anything wrong, whereas I continue to understand that I don't *know* if he did or not. In the absence of conclusive evidence, my kid sleeps at home. In their case, in the absence of conclusive evidence, they're willing to take the risk with their kids. That's their perogative.

So, every accused is now tainted for life?

If the facts are not completely out in the open AND my child comes into play, then yes, someone accused is tainted for life. In the case of accused child molestors getting near my kids, I need to KNOW that the accusations were false, not just work on the legal presumption of innocence. That's a completely different set of conditions/standards than the ones MJ should be legally held to. I'm just talking as a parent.

Jackson defenders are rabid nut jobs?

Um, yes, especially the ones who have traveled to CA from around the globe to stand outside the courtroom and hold up signs declaring his innocence.

You so think he is guilty it's not even difficult to discern.

I don't know if MJ is guilty or not. I believe that he might be factually innocent or guilty, and that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt for him to be found legally guilty.

You can't even fathom how he might be innocent.

See above.

I pity the defender whose case you are selected for.

I don't, because I can keep an open mind and wait until the facts are in before making statements like, " I do not think for a moment that MJ molested that boy."

Sandra, here's why I think he is a pedophile, and please note I said "think" - not "know," not "am certain": his emotional dependency upon children is not in dispute. He's Peter Pan, he never grew up, etc etc. From what I have read and observed from a variety of sources, there appears to me to be a sexual element to it, and it appears to involve boys, whom he treats very differently than girls.

In addition to that, he truly does not seem to be in touch with reality; his judgment is incomprehensibly bad, which leads me to believe that he may not even KNOW where the line is between appropriate and inappropriate behavior and relationships.

Examples: his statement for all the world in the Bashir film that it is normal and loving, etc to sleep with children not his own.

The "baby-dangle": "Whee! I'm Michael Jackson - the fucking rules of gravity don't apply to me or to anything I touch. The baby and I could fly off this balcony right now if I wanted to. Whee!"

From anyone else, this would be considered insane. Other examples of dangerously bad judgment are myriad and manifest: it's a plain as the nose on his face.

Or the one that used to be.

exactly my point

this kind of seemingly compulsive self-disfigurement -- "Who me? I haven't done anything to my appearance (maybe one nose job way back), and the skin color? That's a condition! Are you going to make fun of my condition? That's hurtful! -- shows extreme lack of judgment, lack of touch with reality, and he has lied pathologically about it, denying repeatedly what anyone in the solar system can see as plain as day: he has had dozens and dozens of surgical procedures which have transformed him a completely different person.

Eric sweetie, I DID NOT ask you to tell me why you think MJ is guilty. I asked you to enlighten me on these "KNOWN FACTS" that you claimed existed that would lead to an inference of guilt. I suggest you read your posts again. I am waiting...

BHW, should MJ confess, I would believe he is guilty. Should evidence contested in Trial raise doubts in my mind and not evidence on smokinggun.com or from Mr drudge, I may consider him guilty. I believe I have said this in a previous post.
BHW, temper, temper! I was not judging you. Calm down. What I meant by protecting your family from public scrutiny is that, I guess and assume that would be something a person willing to take money from the man who raped their child would take into consideration.I am saying"you" because I am discussing with YOU. Okay? Calm down.

I also stand by my point of understanding MJ paying off the nuisance. With people like you around, judging him for his nose and baby dangling, no verdict would have been good enough to clear his name. No evidence goood enough. The ALLEGATION alone is good enough for you, Eric and your ilk, so it was a no win situation and he went with the one that spared him all the drama. I can certainly understand that.

We will have to agree to disagree on your qualities as a prospective Juror:)

Sandra, love muffin, we all know the same facts, it is my interpretation of those facts that leads me to believe he is a phile of peds

Eric, for the sake of accuracy I have posted your comment on which I would like you to elaborate on. Enlighten me on what facts that are known, that make it seem more likely that he SEXUALLY MOLESTED little boys. Please try not to give me why you "think"..I am well aware of your opinions on his behaviour and appearance. Try to stick to these "known facts" that you say exist. Here is your quote;

"Is it possible that there has never been any sexual aspect to his relationship with children, and specifically boys? Yes it is, but to me it seems unlikely and contrary to the facts that ARE known."

Sandra = Smegma ?

Ah, Eric, honey crumbs, you posted as I was posting so I didn't get to read your response. Hmm. Am I to understand that your "Known facts" are that MJ sleeps in bed with little boys. Has mainly litle boys as friends. Disfigured his face and skin. Dangled his baby from a balcony.. and all the other weird and eccentric things he does? These things now lead us to believe he is a Pedophile? Is that your submission? Tut,Tut, babe. I gave you far more intellectual credit than that. I am disappointed in you, not for the first time:)

several of these children were and are able to describe his penis, from what i read and more, their descriptions matched what the cops apparently photographed. Awful as the thought is of having one's genitals photographed etc etc. and being handled that way, i think Jackson has given ample evidence that he has perhaps behaved more than a little inappropriately toward young boys. As i said, the genital describing, the fingerprints on the porn magazine, the sleeping in the same beds, etc. - and no, it would not be normal even for a biological father to sleep in the same bed as his thirteen year old girl or boy - it would be WEIRD. Just my opinion. The rest , about MJ's genitals, has been proven again and again and it's awful and sad, but that's enough evidence for me.

Have i convicted him, no. But i would NEVER let my son stay at his house and nor would i have anything to do with him. You tell mehow a young kid can describe the skin markings on an adult's genitals - it's weird. and if he does have vitiligo as he says he does, then the depigmentation of skin would make sense and would also appear first on the hands and genitals (i had a friend who had this and am a medical writer) these are where it shows up first. So, if his skin is naturally whitening as he claims, then his penis would be losing pigmentation as well as these kids have claimed to see.

Isn't that kind of weird that they say the same things and know this? To me, that's more than enough.

I'm with Dawn, Eric and the rest here. Sorry....but this is enough for me to say "no." Sure, i'll wait until the trial is over and try to keep and open mind, but given what we know to be fact, that is pretty hard to do --

the endless sleepovers, the fixation on one child at a time (and NEVER a girl), the routine of looking at sexual material with said boys, the '93 payoff, the Bashir doc, his effeminacy and gender nullification through surgery clothing makeup etc

& etc etc ad infinitum...

I remember being told in 1980 by a co-worker whose husband was in the entertainment biz (this was in L.A.) that Michael Jackson was "sweet," which at that time and place meant something very different than it does now. I said no way. She said "he likes young boys." This was 25 years ago - it appears she was right.

I'd suggest to anyone with any doubts of
MJ's guilt go to www.thesmokinggun.com
and read the police reports from the '93
case.There is just NO way this kid could
make up the kind of shit that freakboy
MJ is supposed to have said.

Of course MJ wasn't guilty of that one
though either.Rather than spend all that
money on a lawyer to clear his mentally
unbalanced ass ($16,17 Million?)MJ just
thought it would be gracious of him to
pay the kid off for all the problems he
caused for him right?Yeah sure,thats it.

I agree HW, it does seem very difficult, though not impossible I suppose, to believe that all of this stuff, over all this time, is just made up out of thin air

Wow, I didn't realize The Smoking Gun had the '93 police reports.

that's a fairly recent addition

Those TSG guys are amazing in their ability to get their hands on stuff.

Sadi, my young cousin can describe my breasts. I have never molested the boy. He can simply describe my entire naked body in fact because he has seen it. If I am baby sitting and having a shower, I do not lock my doors, nor do I lock it while dressing up. Now, perhaps when he gets to round about 13 onwards, I will think twice about that, but I do not see the kid's "ALLEGED" ability to describe MJ's genitals as some sort of smoking gun. As far as quoting smoking gun? Enough said. They are as fair, balanced and unbiased as Fox News. You know what that means...NOT AT ALL.

I believe the 1993 boy will be called to testify? I hope so. Look, you guys fail to see the point. If MJ truly molested these kids and the Prosecution have the evidence to prove it, it won't take too long for that to become obvious once the Trial starts. Nopne of you know what the Defense counter'evidence is. Keep reading Smoking gun, Fox and drudge. Add that to your opinions on the wierdness of MJ nd convict him of sexually molesting this little boy.

I have seen or heard nothing to lead me to believe that he did. I would like to hear the Defense case first which, no thanks to people with the reasoning process of you lot, is something society provides. If the Defense does not counter the prosecution claims with anything concrete, THEN I will begin to have doubts. Till then, I am afraid I can not conform to the school of thought that subscribes to the notion that a person who looks strange and acts in a way I consider strange is a child molester when there is nothing that has been leaked that can not be countered pretty easily.

It's a shame the trial won't be televised. I would have loved to see this boy on the stand along with his mother and hopefully the 1993 boy.

Sandra, "smokinggun.com" has nothing to
do with bias towards either party.They
just have the reports available for the
perusal of anyone who's interested .Take
what you want out of what you read but
they are not defending anybody nor are
they really trying to crucify anybody.
Besides, who does not take a cheap shot
at MJ these days anyway?It's not always
appropriate but can be awfully funny at
times nonetheless.

In regards to Michaels willie: The fact
the kid can describe it,discoloration &
all,is not a good thing in my book.Just
why would MJ be undressed around them in
the first place for any extended length
of time ??? I don't know that Michael J.
did anything (anymore than anyone else
does at this point in time) and I truly
hope he IS innocent because then it is
one less child who has been hurt & who
has to carry the spiritual/psychological
scarring of this physical manifestation
of anothers mental illness(es).

Harold

Harold, I am in complete agreement with you on the issue of MJ being naked infront of those kids. I think it is completely inappropriate. I am also in agreement with you that, this doesn't lead to the conclusion that he played with their own genitals. The issue of what discolouration, size or mole they can describe on the genital is something I will not believe until the Prosecution present their pics of his genitals and we are certain that the 1993 boy's testimony stands true. The current accuser, I don't care about because I wouldn't put it past Sneddon to have shown the boy and/or his mother those pics that they supposedly have.

Now, I also hope MJ is innocent. Not only will it mean one less child scarred, it would also mean one less celebrity saved from the greed of poverty stricken individuals. Saved from blackmail and extortion. We await the Trial.

If the glove fits, they won't acquit. Sandra, I'll enjoy reading what you have to say when MJ's verdict is read -- either way: goat or gloat.

I suppose I should jump in and defend Mike Jackson. I am not saying he is completely innocent, but like it or not, he deserves a fair (yes, I am also laughing) trial. He should stop acting like a self-absorbed superstar. Those days are gone.


To be clear, I think Jackson has problems, but he also needs his time in court. Anything less hurts us all in the end.


I do wonder about the all star lineup on the Jackson defense witness list. If you Google those on the list, you will discover that as a group, the list has had their share of problems with the law. What the prosecution does not know, will likely be dug up. The witnesses should fear what their friends and minions have to say to a tabloid with a large checkbook.


You can bet the prosecution will (or can) use the problems of the Jackson witnesses to their favor, and it will not bode well for these witnesses.


Bob Maxey - Salt Lake City, Utah

Anyone else hear that the jury selection is complete? (I heard a brief bit on the radio this morning, and nothing more...)

Apparently it consists of 8 women and 4 men, and the news commentator made a point that "none of [them] are black."

yes, you're correct DrPat, that was super quick, just five court days.

Rats, Eric - the link appears to be broken. Either that, or it's another site that requires pop-up windows enabled. [grin]

don't know what the link problem was but I took it out

Your latest should be linked here though: Michael Jackson Jury Selected Quickly. Thanks again!

I've been apathetic about the whole thing from the start for the main reason that there has been so MUCH to happen surrounding jackson. Yesterday I was reading an erotic lit site of all things and found a 'michael jackson' rant that brought everything together into one harshly realistic article. It was not what I was expecting to read but even though it was crude it made sense out of what I feel. Looking back at his life I have to believe he is guilty and also disturbed. The article was on darkeyeddemon.com. If you're unsure read it. It's mean but it's good.

thanks Lillian, I have taken a break from reporting on the first couple days of the trial because it's been nothing new so far, and I am sick of it already, but we will return to the appalling mess shortly

Defense attorneys have opened the case with blanket denials: "Michael Jackson's lawyer told jurors in a powerful opening statement Tuesday that authorities found no DNA evidence in the entertainer's bedroom to support child molestation charges and had to change the dates of the alleged crimes because the accuser's story changed."

...explicit magazines were found with the accuser's fingerprints and that one magazine had the fingerprints of Jackson and the accuser.

Mesereau offered a possible explanation for that, saying Jackson once caught the boy reading his magazines and took them away and locked them in a briefcase.


The boys also memorized security codes and codes used to start amusement park rides at Neverland, so they had the run of the ranch when Jackson was away and could get into Jackson's bedroom without permission, Mesereau said.

what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
There are so many scumbags out there trying to get money in any way they can.
I don't believe any of the tainted crap on TV. I believe MJ is such a kind-hearted and sincere person, he is and has been taken advantage of.
Michael Jackson may be very different, and probably not understood by most people, but it is his life to live as he sees it. Why are people so afraid of individuals who are different?
People who have to put other people down do it to make themselves feel better. I cannot see Michael Jackson causing harm to anyone or anything.

Lynn, I agree with you. There is nothing wrong with a grown man admitting that he likes to sleep with kids in the same bed. Most of us put locks on master bedroom just to keep the tykes out but its party time in MJ's bed.
Innocent my ass!

swinging pus, let me just guess

you are from a RED state, in case you don't know what that means, it alludes to "uninformed, uneducated, narrow-minded, red-neck, chicken-fried steak-eatin' W-lovin' homophobic."
Now, I feel better!

lynn,

choose your attacks on the republicans more wisely! We can't be identified as supporting micheal jackson.

Innocent or not, he clearly isn't sane. HE's as fucked up as they come and given his history, it wouldn t surprise me if he was a pedophile.

Ar you sure you arn't caught up in your 80's MJ fandom?

If you are done throwing muck left right and center, I guess your naive, bilious temperament clearly show you to be one of the parents who would love to put your child in bed with the snow white MJ.

Your visceral reaction shows you lack the ability to participate in rational discussion. Calling your beloved MJ for what he is does not make me a homophobe. The homosexuals I know do not go around preying on young children - they would horrified to be mentioned in the same breath as Michael Jackson.

Oh, BTW, I love chicken fried steak, don't ya?

Lynn, that playbook you've got - get rid of it. It sucks

No intelligent person, liberal or not, would connect gay-bashing or homophobic attitudes with the MJ brouhaha.

Hi peeps i dont want to cause any friction but it's now the 6th of march and there has been the first week of trial. I am admitedly a huge mj fan but i haven't got my head in the clouds if he was found guilty then i would wash my hands of anything to do with him. BUT! the trial so far has looked EXACTLY like this is a conspiracy plot (so far) the prosecution witnesses have said nothing i have thought sounded alarming. Bear in mind one of the witnesses was the alleged victims sister and all she could say was that she was too young to remember exactly what was going on come on she's 18yrs old and the boys sister are you telling me if there was something going on she wouldn't know what was going on the family are con artists and i can back this theory up. I don't know if any of you heard about them claiming handouts of celebs like eddie murphy,chris tucker,and others for the supposed treatment of there very ill son. The fact is and this is documented! is that the alleged victim was in fact getting free treatment in a hospital anyway under the families insurance so she didn't in fact need the 300,000 she collected for the so called hospital bills. That's a crime in it's self hope iv'e not lost lost the run of what i'm trying to say but this case could either make or break a human being that has been in the spotlight since he was a kid and in the guinnes book of records for his efforts with children i sincerely hope he's innocent but 'IF' proven beyond a doubt that he's guilty i'd have to accept it to be honest it's DODGY FROM BOTH SIDES! oh well better stop doing your heads in and have agood night all. james in telford ,england

James, I could not agree more. I have been looking for an MJ post discussing, poster's views on the Trial so far and I can't find any. Here I was, on my travels, without the internet, thinking I was missing some great Jacko debates on Blogcritics...:)

Like, you've said, nothing in the first week has raised even half a second of doubt in my mind. I find myself thinking, sooner or later one of these coached Arvizo people is going to crack on the stand. The sister herself is ditzy if the transcrpits are anything to go by. Sneddon probably felt like punching her when Mj's lawyer dismantled her on cross examination.

As for the SIX day PR person, she was just proof to me that the prosecution are desperate for witnesses and corroboration. She had never met MJ, never spoken to him, never been to NeverLand..what the hell does she know?! She was there to testify on Hearsay evidence and this Judge has lost his mind. The amount of Hearsay evidence he has allowed in in the first week alone is enough to have the verdict thrown out should it go the way of the Prosecution. It is ridiculous. He allows it in "furtherance blah blah blah" RUBBISH. None of the evidence goes to the truth of the allegation so whay are we allowed to hear it? Are all the people quoted going to be called? NO. So, it should not be allowed. Not even in America.

A pundit who has come round to my point of view said " it seems MJ is going to be judged for what he is, not what he did". I couldn't have said it better myself. Of course MJ is a lunatic. What are all those dolls about. The man is a wierdo. God help us. That's who he is though. It is clear a deprived childhood is his prob. Since he was 4 years old, he's been on stage with a less than supportive father. Donny and Marie had good parents. MJ had JOE. What about that, don't people understand?!

The boy has issues...but did he get Gavin drunk so he could touch him sexually? NO. I bloody hope the Prosecution have got more than they have leaked and they have shown so far. If we are already hearing from the family last week and this week..surely, there can't be anything else?! Just bitter ex workers, probably coming to do their Amber Fry moment so they can get Gloria Alred to get them a book deal. Poppycock! Set MJ free and let's be done with this circus.

Sandra, we give our authorities extraordinary latitude in cases involving children. This informs the judge's decision to allow the hearsay testimony, I'm sure.

That it is heard does not mean that it will have inordinate weight - TV courtroom dramas notwithstanding.

Thanks for taking the time to read what i think sandra i will be watching the case very closely and try not to read the tabloids as they put the story that sells the best. I have a gut feeling mj will come out of this exhonerated and that his career will sky rocket again. I hope there are some constuctive arguements on this case and i think there is no need to get to insulting about peoples views whether for or against we need more stars like mj to get things across to people hope to confer with you and anybody else over the coming trial. I'm 27yrs old and have been a fan since i first heard thriller and i watched moonwalker 9 times! in the cinema with various friends ttfn:-)

Dr Pat, don't be naive. Hearsay has been allowed in many instances in this Trial that it makes a nonsense of the rule itself. Do not sight unknown exceptions.

(Vinny told Ann that they would make the woman look like a crack whore? Mr X said it was "contained"...)

Is there any evidence that MJ's people have tried to make the woman look like a crack whore? Has the Prosecution even said that?

Have Mj's people accused her of anything she DID NOT DO? NO. At least they HAVE evidence to back up whatever they paint the woman and her children to be. So, what is the point of this evidence? Why is Sneddon asking? He KNOWS that it could be thrown out as Hearsay Evidence but Jurors are humans Doc Pat. To think that they will not give any and everything they hear in the Court room any consideration in their deliberations because the Judge instructs them not to, is to display your naivety in the extreme. That is why Lawyers say things they know will be objected to. You just put it out there. Surely even you, must know that.

Nevermind the misuse of the Shield Law during Bashir's testimony. There has been some serious misuse of the Law in this case so far, one must note.

Now, Star has taken the stand. It all seems very damning what he has said BUT his inconsistensies are already showing and he hasn't even been cross examined yet. His story is not standing up to Gavin's story. They can't get their stories right it seems..this is just the beginning I suspect.

He SAW MJ molest his brother twice? Why did he not tell the mother the first time? How come he went and slept on the bed the second time? Depending on who you are listening to, it's pyjamas or nudity. Depending on Gav or Star, the first night in Neverland was either spent in Mj's bedroom or in a hotel..Bloody hell! Get your story right, kids!

Gav was sleeping and Mj was playing with him. Star was watching all this and didn't scream? All this happened in the dark. Star said he was just in the room for a second, or two? Oh, sorry, 4 seconds he later confirmed. He watched this happening to his brother and having been allegedly abused by his own father, he did nothing, not even scream or try to stop MJ so we can at least hear evidence of Mj trying to stop him. He saw MJ was aroused. This happened in the dark BUT, STAR with the bionic eyes saw MJ's arousal....mind you, all this happened within 4 seconds. Count, my darlings..FOUR SECONDS, FOUR SECONDS which can go by in the blink of an eye and Star Arvizo wants us to believe he saw all this and all this happened and he went to join his sister in the guestroom without saying a word. My goodness, he might as well be a co-defendant..almost an accomplice. A good lawyer could argue that for the sake of sarcasm.

Also, he didn't tell momma..and still went two days later to SLEEP on the SAME BED with the SAME MAN, in the SAME ROOM. It gets more ridiculous as it goes on. Mind you, he hasn't even been cross examined yet. Doesn't Sneddon give them their Grand Jury depositions so they can at least be consistent?

This is a family of false accusers. They have made the same accusations before. Sexual molestation, false imprisonment and what have you.

I am so looking forward to Gavin on the stand..the last time I looked forward to something like this was in 2000 as Sampras was about to break the all time tennis Grand Slam record. I have that same level of anticipation.

Gavin can't take the stand soon enough if you ask me.

I don't really know how the case is going because we can't hear the testimony directly, only through the interpretation of writers who are there, which I think is an extreme disservice to the public.

It's extremely sad either way, I think: either Jackson did these things or this family is lying out its ass about extremely sick and serious things

Jeffrey Toobin did a good analysis of the opening statements. He noted that the alleged molestations took place after that weird documentary of Jackson was made public:

Another very interesting fact that came out today was -- you know, the prosecution's theory of the case is that, when this interview ran, it created panic in the Jackson environment, for good reason. That's when the DA began its investigation. The media descended. The children's protective services in Los Angeles, they were investigating.

What the defense pointed out, which the prosecution tried to sort of get around, was that the abuse in this case was alleged to have taken place after all these investigations started, that the two allegations of abuse only took place after all these people were investigating -- which is peculiar, to say the least.


And the Smoking Gun has the details on the discrepancies in the accuser's brother's versions of what happened. Some of it, I think, can be chalked up to the fact that he's a kid and was only about 10 at the time. But he first said that MJ just touched his brother on the outside of his clothes. Then he changed it to say it was under his clothes.

So I think the defense has some stuff to work with.

certainly there are angles being worked on all sides here and no one is spotless

Yeah, the mother/family seems shady, but so does MJ....

Unfortunately for the kids involved, it's a lose-lose proposition. Either the violations happened, in which case they've been scarred, or their mother is pushing them to lie, in which case they're scarred.

The real shame of it will be if MJ is guilty in fact but the defense is able to present reasonable doubt because the mother is a grifter.

I'm sorry but this case has got way to many contradictions in it the prosecuting family will and are digging their own graves. If happened what they say happened then why are they all telling a different account from each other and why if you notice was star arviso finishing sneddon's questions for him if this kids family aren't scripting themselves then i'm a monkeys uncle and as lyn says just because somebody's different to what we ourselves percieve as normal doesn't mean he's a bad person (eccentric and childlike i'll give you)if a persons not doing any harm then we should let them get on with their choice of lifestyle. I just think because he's had a bad child hood he wants to do as much as he can to give under priviliged kids the childhood he didn't have and act like a surrogate father figure to them. If you believe he molested this kid then you may as well say he molests his own kids COME ON!. Right :-) that's me off my soap box folks all i can say is that the truth always comes out whatever the truth may be eventually.sorry for the rant but it's how i feel ttfn :-))

James, I agree: if he's not doing any harm then let him do his thing in peace, but it is far from clear he hasn't been doing any harm

bhw, agree totally: sucks all the way around. If he is found not guilty, they will probably go to civil court a la OJ, nad perhaps win there with the lower standard of proof.

This case will not be lost on a technicality. By that I mean, if MJ is found "not guilty" in this case, no matter what you think of him, it is safe to say he is not guilty if the Prosecution's case continues to disintegrate as it is doing at the moment. You can think what you want of the 1993 case. That never came to Trial so everyone can draw conclusions from the settlement as they see fit.

If Jackson wins because the family have been found to be liars and the evidence put together just does not hold up to what the accusation is, then, that's that! The defense is not just poking holes in the allegations, so you can not say, MJ might have done it but the defense are good.
The defense is poking holes in the Prosecution's case and using those holes to support their defense that this is a sting. A set up. Now, they may present testimony or evidence during their run, to support this alternative view point they have provided. I hope they do. If all this is done and Mj is found not guilty, then it is BECAUSE he is not guilty of the allegations.

The defense points seem so little but they make a huge point..little things like wine..

Star is confused..one minute it is red, one minute it is white, one minute he looked in the can, next minute he saw just the top..and he had never tasted wine till he got to Neverland, or saw girly mags etc.

I know what 9plus year old boys these days get up to and it should come as no shock if it is alleged that Gavin and Star tried the alcohol themselves or checked out the porn themselves. No computers in Neverland. Gavin had a computer and all he did on it was what? Look up academic sites? Till Mj showed him porn sites right? Yah right! Come, Come, Boys... Go sell crazy someplace else kids, I'm all booked up here.

I think it highly possible there was a "sting" aspect to it, at least from the mother's point of view, but that also some/all of the allegations are true, hence the possibility of dueling scummatry

Hi sandra and all.it is 1.30pm here in telford england and await the next screening of the sky news reconstruction which is on at 2.30pm is anybody else watching these reinactments and what do they think about the way the are being done?. And for the people who think he hasn't been in touch with the real world i quote a line from "childhood":People say i'm not okay cause i love such elementry things it's in my fate to compensate for the childhood i've never known". now to me that shows an awareness of what people think of him so with this knowledge do you think he would really write about these things and then do exactly what people think he is doing? even if your not an mj fan maybe you could read some of the words in his songs as they are very revealing about the superstar that is mj also another line from they don't care about us is "i'm tired of being a victim of shame you put me into a class with a bad name i can't believe this is the land fom which i came". Any views on this also?:-)

good points James and I am eager to hear what you think of the reconstructions, which i have not yet seen. But self-awareness does not equate to immunity from compulsions

As a fan of mj i appreciate peoples views which is why i have decided to join your debate eric.(didn't realize it was your website i'm impressed!).I am following only official court releases and statements so that i get the actually facts of what is going on if you can get to see sky news then the reconstructions which are very good will be on at 9.30am and 2.30pm english time(i'm assuming theres not only people from the uk on here).I will try and give the best interpretation of the sky news program that i can without sounding totally biased because i expect you would like neutral opinions. ok i'm gonna get ready to see the next installment i think star arviso is the witness again for his second day this week.ttfn:-))

thanks James, very cool of you

I am following the reconstructions James. They are fantastic. If you can't have the real thing, this will do. Now, I am more interested in what is being said than the mannerisms of the actors because that's just a matter of interpretation..However, I must admit that when you read the transcripts and watch the reconstruction, the actors are saying and acting just as you visualise the speaker acting while you are reading it yourself.

They are depicting most of the emotion accurately according to my interpretation anyway.

Eric, there is a point which I think is very important before people can argue that it is still possible for both sides to be telling half truths at least. These "alleged molestations" happened in the aftermath of the "disaster" that was the Bashir Documentary.

I find it astonishing that educated people and even semi literates can not see that these allegations have all the hallmarks of a sting. A complete set up.

In this time when there was panic, mayhem and confusion in the Jackson camp, admited by all parties..MJ is alleged to have then molested Gavin FOUR TIMES? During this time when Sneddon decides to start another witch hunt, MJ chooses this time to molest this Gavin boy? Quite frankly, it is no coincidence in my opinion that the molestations are said to have happened after the investigation started. It is a SET UP. Plain and simple. Jackson has been with these boys for months on end and all of a sudden when he is being investigated by a man with wacko bloodlust, and what little is left of his reputation is in shreds after Bashirs hatchet job, he begins to fondle lil' Gavin. It is preposterous and the fact that it came to Trial shows that the American legal TV dramas truly base their storylines on the reality that is the American legal system. Anything can happen. It's all entertainment.

Of course I am enjoying reading about it and having debates online and with friends at home BUT..the more I hear, the more I feel justified for my position on this case. Perhaps, something will happen and I might think otherwise but it better happen soon because it's looking like I am right. Also looking forward to DR Katz(spell?)...Perhaps he can give us a psychological explanation as to why the accounts of the crime differ so much from when they told him to during the Trial. One would think what they told Katz should be far more accurate if anything did happen since it was nearer the time of the crime. Why they insist on not remembering that, and insist on us believing that accounts in Trial are more accurate is a mystery to me and I dare say anyone with any sense.

Well folks this could be the start of the end for the arvizo family. Star arvizo has just totally wrecked his credentials as a prosecution witness. Firstly i don't know if you know that star arvizo told police that michael jackson had shown them the adult magazine barely legal, and that the particular picture was of a blonde woman in shorts pulling her top up. The court showed him the alleged picture and star arvizo said it was the one. BUT! what the boy failed to notice was the picture was from a copy of the magazine that was in fact bought 3 or 4 months after the family left neverland expalin that one ha ha!. And he also admitted lying under oath. Now if the allegations you are putting forward are true you would have no reason to lie.So why did he under oath go ahead and lie?.It sort of makes you look forward to the rest of the family testifying because they have all put a good case forward for the defence what ever people thoughts, tell me this doesn't look one sided?.And before i forget star also said that there were not any computers at all in neverland, the only person he said had a computer was this tyson bloke on mj's security team which i might add the boy himself said the computer was only on when tyson was on the computer. So on the one hand he said mj showed him porn on the internet and then the next said there wasn't any computers in neverland which on is it?. I will let you draw your own conclusions on todays events what does anybody else think about this and is there anything i might of missed?

What I think of the whole madness, is directly above your post, James. Please, What site do you read your transcripts from? Sky? Or?...

isn't that the testimony from yesterday, though? I talked about it here

Yes, it's yesterday's testimony Eric, which is why I am curious as to where James is reading his transcripts.

Sorry about missing your post sandra and others i'm full of the flu and probably overlooked it.I get some of my facts from mjjsource.com,(ok you could argue they would be biased but i think they are taking both sides because they print both negative and positive court recounts),sky news.com and reluctantly from the smoking gun.Are you in the united staes eric? if so here in england we get the information later than you (i think, not sure now, bloody hell i sound like star arvizo ha ha!).I agree about the half truths to a certain degree but i think it is clear (at the moment) that the allegations of molestation hold no ground, sorry if repeating myself can't think straight at the moment:-)

Oh by the way sorry for the typing problems i am rsa qualified but my keyboards old and when i start typing i haven't noticed the unprinted letters.If any of you know any better sites i would be grateful as i want the most accurate info thanks again:-)

no prob, James, thanks - AP seems o be the quickest in getting reports up, but they aren't transcripts

Iv'e just been reading the mounting evidence section of your site (eric).And the stuff about the scandel of finding his fingerprints on his own stuff is quite funny and witty. I might be wrong but at the start of this forum you seemed quite against jacko have your views changed at all about him and why?.

James, the fingerprint story was bhw's, she's funny

I have a wide variety of feelings regarding Jackson and always have. I was a very big fan of his as an entertainer, I have felt sorry for him regarding his lost childhood and emotional fragility, but I also think there is nothing remotely close to an excuse for much of his behavior and find what he has done to his appearance appalling and reprehensible. And I think his relationship with children is unhealthy whether or not he has committed specifically criminal acts.

I don't think this trial is going very well for the prosecution so far, and I am trying to be neutral and honest regarding the progress of the trial, which is somewhat separate from whether I think he did what he was accused of.

But I would also say I am less sure he did the things he has been charged with now than I was at the beginning of the trial, so you are right about that.

There's a long way to go, however.

New story up here, by the way

Thanks for your honest answer eric. But i think the subject of his plastic surgery goes to a deep level of his psychie(spelling?) it is well documented that jo jackson was quite ruthless with his children and that he particularly picked on michael about his nose saying it was ugly and that he was nothing. It is also confirmed that joe would beat mj if he didn't do what he told him to do, by this i mean he wasn't allowed to play with his local kids he had to practice and perform from the age of 5yrs old, mj has also said that he was scared of his dad to ridicoulous degree, you shouldn't be petrified of your parents, not at 5yrs old, it is also documented that he had extensive plastic surgery on his scalp and forehead after the infamous pepsi ad tragedy where the pyro technic lights set his head on fire. What youv'e got to consider also is the fact he is an african american so where as scars aren't noticable on us so much he would of had a white scar the full circumference of his head, so yes he did have plastic surgery but it was neccesary, as for his nose mate mj says that because he looked like his dad, he hated looking at his face, this was because of what his dad represented to him at the time, and so changed it erase this memory, yes it is a bit dramatic but in a roundabout way i understand why he has done it oh well back to the case. Hi sandra what are your thoughts on gavin arviso's statements because i missed most of sky news's reconstruction and haven't a clue whether wev'e got any further?:-)

correction to last post:i meant scars on caucasion people hope i didn't offend anybody by saying us?:-?

Whoops he is under threat of arrest as he is trying to blow off court again. This time he has a back-ache, the Court ain't buying it.

Michael Jackson in prison should be an interesting thing to watch.

Although admittedly not a strong enough reason for missing trial, I think he maybe under a severe amount of stress and this can cause what they call "phantom illness" although psychologically driven it they have what appears to be very real symptoms, i suppose like phantom pregnancies, this is just theory but it's certainly not going to do him any favours, lets hope he sorts himself out.:-)

Or, he's just a drama queen.

to listen to some people on the other forums on this site it's a witch hunt not a modern day trial.ie: A person is a witch if they float?, and if they drown theyr'e not?,now either way the innocent/guilty person loses their life,in other words is somebodys guilt based on whether somebody "thinks" they are thank god we have modern day trials is all i can say!.I know a slightly different version of this is repeated by me on the other forum but i wasn't quite sure which one it applied to?lol!

from mjj source.com(c)
Day 8 in Michael Jackson's trial brought the accuser to the witness stand. He said he once considered Mr. Jackson "the coolest guy in the world."

The 15-year-old was not asked about the molestation allegations before court ended for the day, but described viewing adult Internet sites with Mr. Jackson present and said the singer told him to "call me daddy" during the taping of a documentary.

With an expression that appeared to verge on a sneer, the young cancer survivor said 'yes' when District Attorney Tom Sneddon asked him if he recognized the defendant.

The accuser followed to the stand his 14-year-old brother, who testified amidst a list of conflicting stories.

Mr. Jackson's defense contends the family has a history of filing false claims to get money.

The boy said Mr. Jackson invited him to Neverland the first time they talked. He said Mr. Jackson called his hospital room as he was being treated for cancer, and they later talked on the phone about 20 times.

Many times the accuser has been heard saying that Mr. Jackson is the reason he is alive today, that Mr. Jackson had a great deal to do with his recovery from cancer. However, today, under questioning by Sneddon, the boy stated that he had been told to say that.

When asked if that was true, the boy said, "Not really. He was hardly there during my cancer," and that other celebrities such as comedian George Lopez visited him more often while he was sick.

"Did you admire Mr. Mr. Jackson?" Sneddon asked.

"I thought he was the coolest guy in the world. He was my best friend ever," the boy said.

Earlier Wednesday, the accuser's younger brother, under cross-examination by defense lawyer Thomas Mr. Mesereau Jr., admitted major contradictions between his testimony and his other accounts of allegedly seeing Mr. Jackson molest his brother.

During questioning by the prosecution the boy told of twice looking through the doorway of Mr. Jackson's bedroom as the pop star molested his sleeping brother.

Mr. Mesereau confronted, pointing out another glaring discrepancy, the witness with a previous statement to sheriff's investigators in which he said that during the second incident he was in the room curled up on a small couch pretending to sleep.

When Mr. Mesereau asked if his account of the second molestation had changed, the boy suddenly interjected that there were actually three incidents, although that has never, ever been alleged.

(Excerpts from Transcripts - March 8, 2005)

ACCUSER'S BROTHER: I was nervous while I was doing the interview.

MR. MESEREAU: Because you were nervous you didn't get the facts right?

ACCUSER'S BROTHER: Yes.

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

MR. MESEREAU: Now, you've indicated the first time you ever discussed any alleged inappropriate touching by Michael Jackson was with Psychologist Stanley Katz, right?

ACCUSER'S BROTHER: Yes.

MR. MESEREAU: And you have admitted that you gave Stanley Katz a different description than you've given in this courtroom, right?

ACCUSER'S BROTHER: Yes.

MR. MESEREAU: In fact, you never mentioned the third event that you've described today to Stanley Katz?

Accuser's Brother: Because I might have forgot about it.

MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.

(End of Excerpts)

Mr. Mesereau also showed jurors a video of Mr. Jackson befriending his accuser, and another of the boy's brother playing TV host for a glimpse at Mr. Jackson's Neverland ranch.

"Hi from Neverland, USA," the brother said on the second video. "I'm the host of the Neverland Channel."

Contrary to all appearances on the video, the younger boy said he felt tired, not excited, when he interviewed Mr. Jackson's elephant trainer and talked to children at Neverland's amusement park, and indicated that Mr. Jackson wasn't as close to his brother as the other video made it seem.

In a musically scored production that was apparently part of Mr. Jackson's personal video archives, the singer is seen with the accuser, then a ghostlike figure with little hair during the time he was undergoing chemotherapy.

Jurors saw the boy in a wheelchair being pushed by his brother. Mr. Jackson walks alongside with his umbrella, then walks with the boy to a tree where he spreads a blanket for them to sit on and look out over the lake at his Neverland ranch.

Michael Jackson trial is one of the cases that gives world an idea about the kind of
legal system USA has got "Pretty Stupid" for an example "OJ" trial, after the OJ trial i really think that any thing is possible in USA's legal system and if Michael Jackson is guilty there is posibility that he could be freed and also he can be sent to jail "anything is possible!" all he needs are bunch of good defense attorney maybe one OJ used
because the real decision is to be made by jury "members of the general public
whoose minds can be changed very easily not by some judge who has some real experince in this system".One who have enough money/power/public support wins
other one loses theese trials are not about is Michael Jackson guilty or not?
its about who has more "money/power/public support"
im from india and here in india our legal system is quiet slow and and few may fid it not good enough but sooner or later one reaches justice "Thanks you mahatma gandhi for our democratic system"

we all shod pray that there is justice at the end of the day.................

Ah! Gav is done on the stand. I learned that he is a liar, a more worldly 13 year old than Sneddon wants us to believe he was. A very rude and know-it-all boy. A vindictive creature who wants to get back at MJ for abandoning him. Its amazing how you can claim to be molested by a man and still want to be his friend and be devastated and angry when he changes his numbers and wants nothing to do with you.

The inconsistensies are too many to mention but it is safe to say, he evoked no sympathy at all. I found him confrontational and well rehearsed which only leads me to stick to my original point that MJ is being framed.

The boy lies even about little things it's ridiculous. When you have a witness trying to give a speech rather than answer the question asked, or trying to justify the non answer he is about to give you or trying sarcasm..you know you've got a rehearsed witness and a damn liar. Let the trial continue.
As an aside..Mesereau's cross examination skills is the reason little kids grow up wanting to be lawyers. The man is inspirational. This should have been televised and Mesereau's bit used in Law schools the world over. My love for trials is returning because of him though I shall still stick to being a solicitor because I just lack the patience that appearing in Court demands. I would fly off the handle in no time..might have slapped the arvizo kids several times...

I'm right with you there, Sandra: my mouth would get me into nothing but trouble as a trial attorney. I was pre-law in college, but turned down another street and never went back (yet)

Michael jackson is Innocent!!
he is INNOCENT!!!!!
media wants his money!

^_^
sajjad_michael_jackson@hotmail.com/yahoo.com

As Bill Maher said "He might not be touching them but he is certainly dating them."

exactly SP, I heard him say that too - great line and observation

Nobody KNOWS which way a jury will go.

Toss a coin---50-50~

I thought Scott Peterson would get off;

I thought Robert Blake was guilty as hell.......

and OJ ............!!!! heh heh

I keep wondering: if i WAS Scott Peterson--and was REALLY innocent---to be thrown in jail and then tried & convicted for the horrible killing of your wife and unborn child---then to be sentenced to death~~~ I'd probably actually go insane if that was the case.......what a true horror!

And what IS up with that testimony that never made it into the trial about Lacey walking in on a birglary in a home on her street that day..?????

Reasonable doubt IS reasonable doubt---and there was almost NO concrete evidence in the Petersen case---it was almost entirely circumstantial~~~
then to not only CONVICT the man of murdering his wife and unborn child---but to sentence him to DEATH---
on CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ....????

There is something seriously wrong with our judicial system----

What exactly are we going to do 3 months after we have injected Scott Peterson with a lethal Injection and murdered him---then find out what REALLY happened and who REALLY murdered LACY ~~~ there IS no reversal of an EXECUTION.

The fact that we could possibly EXECUTE one single innocent human being is the only reason we need to abolish the death penalty.

ALL statistics PROVE beyond any doubt that the Death Sentence is NOT a deterrent in capital cases.

Almost every single murder is done in a state of "passion"---and in those states--an individual does NOT stop and ponder: "oh! if I do this I might face the death penalty"~~~~

It is NOT in place as a deterrent---
the reason it still exists is soley for REVENGE...............
Are we still such primitives that we need that as part of our "Justice System" ---- we should be embarrassed and mortified to admit that we are members of a society that has as a practice to show people that they should not "kill people" of KILLING PEOPLE!
That is insanity.

Dawn and I were discussing this today, and I was explaining to her that the system is set up to protect the innocent at the expense of letting some of the guilty go free: the "reasonable doubt" thing. It does lead to some strange results.

I agree with you about the death penalty

We see what we are capable of seeing. This trial isn't about the person, but about the ideas he represented. This trial is about culture and the views it allows.

Satisfied with the entertainment he provided, We never commented on those ideas. Because we never saw the value of those ideas, we now can't see the bigger picture and the steps taken to control our view of that bigger picture.

This case starts in '90 and continued in
'92. This case merely builds on the impression created then.

um, so what are those ideas?

Billy, Gene is not my lover...?

she's just a girl who says that I am a pedophile

...but the child is not my fun...

Now that Johnny Cochrane isn't around Michael probably can't use the famed Condom Defense (aKa The "Glove" Defense)..."If it doesn't fit, you must acquit"