Jackson Trial: Punch, Counterpunch, Potty Break
Published March 08, 2005
Yesterday the 14 year-old younger brother of Michael Jackson's accuser took the stand and made some shocking accusations:
"I saw directly onto the bed," the boy testified about the first of the two 2003 incidents. "I saw my brother was outside the covers. I saw Michael's left hand in my brother's underwears and I saw his right hand in his underwears."
The boy said he wandered onto a similar scene between Jackson and his then 13-year-old brother at the singer's home two days later. "I went upstairs. The same thing was happening but my brother was on his back. My brother was asleep and Michael was masturbating while he had his left hand in my brother's underwears."
"I didn't know what to do," the boy said. "I just went back to the guestroom where my sister was sleeping."
The boy also said that prior to the alleged molestations, a sexually aroused Jackson presented himself naked in front of him and his brother. "Me and my brother were grossed out."
The witness also said that Jackson showed them pornographic photographs on the Internet during their first visit to Neverland. "Females ... they didn't have clothes on."
But today the defense struck an equally powerful blow when Jackson attorney Thomas Mesereau induced the boy to acknowledge under cross-examination that the singer didn't show him a sex magazine that the prosecution had introduced into evidence, and admit to lying under oath in a separate civil lawsuit.
- The teenager, who visited Jackson's Neverland ranch for the last time in March 2003, became confused after Jackson attorney Thomas Mesereau showed him a copy of Barely Legal magazine dated August 2003. The boy had testified on Monday that the magazine was one of those that Jackson had showed to him and his brother.
Confronted with the conflicting dates, the boy said: "I never said it was exactly that one. That's not exactly the one he showed us."
He said he had looked at the magazine with District Attorney Tom Sneddon before it was presented as evidence.
Under further 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 the molestation occurred.
....Mesereau asked the boy Tuesday about an alarm system in Jackson's house that alerts the singer when anyone is in the hall outside his bedroom.
"So the two times you claim you saw Michael Jackson touching your brother in bed, that alarm went off?" asked Mesereau.
- Jackson Trial: Punch, Counterpunch, Potty Break
- Published: March 08, 2005
- Type:
- Section: Culture
- Filed Under: Culture: Media, Music: News, Politics: Law and Rights
- Writer: Eric Olsen
- Eric Olsen's BC Writer page
- Eric Olsen's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
the "lying" I was specifically referring to for the boy was his admission in court today of having lied in the earlier civil suit - I have no idea if he is telling the truth or not about Jackson. And I said Jackson is a liar too, please note.
That may be so, Logie, but the damage is already done - having a witness admit he lied (plus the reporter says Jackson's attorney "induced" the boy to admit his testimony about the sex magazine was shaky) has got to call all his statements into question.
On the other hand, the jury has to be wondering what (other than the obvious) might have motivated Jacko 's hasty dash to the restroom -- especially if it ocurred during the boy's testimony about "underwears."
certainly possible - the video in which the family slavered Jacko with praise that they showed on Friday didn't help the prosecution either, even though the family says it was scripted
Logical, no one is expecting anyone to have bionic memory capabilities BUT when you accuse a person of such a crime, it would be helpful if you don't have selective memory capabilities. It's no use remembering everything that suits your case and then saying the obviously coached mantras of "I don't remember" or "I was too young" when you are caught in a lie.
I am not saying MJ is not a "liar" though what it is he has lied about in this case and been proven to have lied about, escapes me. If you can enlighten me I would be very grateful. PLEASE, do not tell me what YOU THINK he has lied about. Tell me what has been proven to be a lie by MJ. Thank you..or any previous inconsistent statements MJ has made in this Trial.
So far, two of the most important witnesses have appeared coached and are not credible. They have both admitted to lying under oath. Who's to say they are not lying now? This case is a he said/she said/they said..whichever way you look at it. There is no tape of the molestation..no forensic evidence..THEREFORE, statements by supposed witnesses need to be consistent and they need to be credible. The case stands or falls on their comments.
If they can't even be trusted to keep their stories straight, why should we think they are saying the truth about MJ? If they have lied under oath before about a case they brought scarily similar to this one, why should we trust them? If they can't even keep their events of this particular case straight, then what the hell was Sneddon doing when he decided to pursue this Trial?
The Magazine error was such an amateur mistake, it is ridiculous to think he didn't realise it beforehand.
The Clocks issue..Clocks all over the place, yet you tell police you were kept away from them and in the same breath admit you were allowed to wander all over the place. Star's explanation for that? The clocks were wrong..Mesereau rightly says" Well how did you know they were wrong since you claim not to have known the time"?!
Eric has raised the alarm vs. sleeping/snoring point..I mean. there are so many holes in the testimony so far.
Mj clearly got frustrated at some point and in order to prevent being held in contempt of Court, probably preferred to leave the Courtroom..he could also have an upset stomach. If MJ is innocent, I can imagine him being disgusted and unable to believe what he is hearing from people he helped.
Look at that card Gavin sent him? He said he stole the words off a card in the shop, from grandma's house? LOL..unfuckingbelievable! After this Trial, Mrs Arvizo should be arrested for child abuse on three counts. She has destroyed the lives of three of her children using them regularly and persistently for things like this.
It is unfortunate. This is a family who are experts in extortion. This is their means of livelihood. Leno was smarter than Jacko and didn't fall for their trap. They have tried several celebrities but Mrs Arvizo knew that with two boys, there was only one JACKPOT. That daft, naive wierdo called Jaco who is so vulnerable and everyone remembers 1993..let's get in there kids. This is the result of her machinations and I truly hope she gets nothing but shame and scorn for this nonsense.
I do hope today is Gavin day. I am looking forward to Gavin..I just can not wait:)
BTW, Eric, if that rebuttal tape was scripted, then we have some Academy winning actors and actresses on our hands. It wasn't just what they said, it was how they said it and how relaxed they seemed. Meanwhile, we are to believe that they were under pressure to make that tape. Watch it again folks. Pressure? Threats? Could have fooled me.
seems like a good analysis of what has happened so far Sandra, and I agree the family/mother are looking scummier all the time.
Re Jackson as liar, he hasn't made any statements in the trial so he hasn't lied there yet, but among the whoppers of the past tha come to mind are the claims in the Bashir film of no plastic surgery other than one or two operations to make it easier for him to breathe, and his claims of abuse when he was arrested.
Oh, I know about those Eric. that's why I specifically said "in this case/trial".
Some might argue, a liar can lie about anything. Well, that may be true. However, I think the defense scores more points because it is one thing MJ lying about his nose, it is quite another the Arvizos lying under oath in similar circumstances and even in statements relevant to the case in question. That's a whole other ball game so you can not say both parties are liars in this case. It must be put in context.
The part where Michael did the "I can't hear you" and talked directly to the judge was interesting. Score one for MJ in that exchange. The guy they have playing the judge in the re-enactment does seem to mumble and I wonder if the real judge is like that. Have the time I can't tell what his rulings.
I think it's important to remember it's still wayyyy early yet in this trial and as pointed out during last night's re-enactment: people liked Mark Gerragos (Scott Peterson's attorney) in the beginning too. That didn't stop the jury from convicting Peterson.
MJ has an uphill battle in that these charges are despicable and IMO it's going to take a lot more damage from proesecution witnesses with shaky credibility to let MJ go free. MJ's own words and actions that are indisputable (like the careless act with the child dangling) hurt him in this case, despite how jurors are supposed to not have carry any preconceived bias or notions. I think it's impossible for anybody to come into something without at least a little bias.
yowsa, should use preview there ...
"Half the time I can't tell what his rulings are." was what I meant to say LOL
I'm going to have to remember to check out a reenactment - thanks TD
The E! Reenactment may not be the best source for this.
It is cheap, creepy, foolish and lurid -- and those are its good points -- but "The Michael Jackson Trial," a bargain-basement reenactment of the day's proceedings on the E! Entertainment Network, does have a sticky irresistibility, like a glazed doughnut that's gone all gooey. You know better, yet you've just got to have a few bites of it, and before you know it you've eaten the whole thing.
And you feel kind of sick.
DrPat - it's a dramatization taken from the court transcripts. Like I said in my intial comments, there is bias everywhere.
TDavid, if you think ANY Jury regardless of their preconceived opinions, would sentence MJ to almost 20 years in prison for CHILD MOLESTATION because he dangled his baby from a balcony, regardless of the holes poked in the prosecution case, then you are are clueless.
It will take more than baby dangling and nose jobs to find MJ guilty in this case. It is the Defense that are now fighting an uphill battle and quite honestly, if this case is supposed to last for 6 months, I haven't a clue what it is we will be talking about come the end of March?
What's the rumour? It must be a 4-6 week Trial. Any further stretch is just to waste time because we will learn nothing new unless the 93 case is allowed in.
Mind you, this Judge Melville has not impressed me at all. He has allowed in far too much Hearsay. He has allowed far too much misuse of the Law such as the Shield Law and the Hearsay Rule. I am astonished that he didn't know the Law well enough to rule on the spot as to whether Bashir was in contempt of Court for refusing to answer any questions. Now, he is "reserving" Judgment on allowing or disallowing the 1993 case. What will help him decide? How short or long the Trial is looking like lasting? Who is doing better? Surely, the Law is the Law?! Make the decision before the frigging Trial and let's roll.
He refused to allow in cameras to prevent a circus. His handling of matters is already a circus act if you ask me.
Sandra, so far your predictions on the strength of the case look pretty good
Somebody said "He has allowed in far too much Hearsay." What that "Hearsay" is what Michael Jackson said, through his attorneys, is being said. Michael Jackson keeps lying to his fans so they
will buy more of his cds. Wake up mj is a liar.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/26453)
yeah, tell me what you ate for dinner on sept 4 2004, who was in the room, what you wore and if you ate everything. Then tell it to a few people, and see if the story changes. The only liar caught completely on tape for the world to see is MJ, who lied in the span of one hour. I give the kid the benefit having to remember details of events, salient as they are, that occured 2 years ago.