Nice headline. However the important fact is he said he wasn't abused. Keep dreaming. I hope you aren't too dissapointed when the verdict is read sir.

I will be disapppointed only if the truth isn't served

Yeah obviously. I read your other article today too and the comments you made at the bottom of the piece. It's blatantly obvious how biased and blinkered your view is. Please don't insult my intelligence by stating otherwise. It's embarassing to listen to.

alrighty then

Mike is innocent. I question your sanity if you believe these shady characters that have scammed JCpenny and lied under oath over this man who has spent MILLIONS of dollars to help children around the world through charities. Keep speaking the truth Jack Farthing.

You know what's insulting to MY intelligence. Telling me that some guy has been sleeping with 10 year old boys for the last decade but 'there's nothing wrong with him.'

You know what else is insulting to my intelligence, telling me that all the witnesses for the prosecution are bogus because there are inconsistencies in the various testimonies, yet the defendant won't take the stand and put himself up to the same scrutiny.

Lastly, what is most insulting to my intelligence are fans who insinuate there own superiority based on not having a bias against wacko. You want to be biased, then be friggin biased. But don't claim to be smarter than someone when they don't share your opinion.

"Mike is innocent. I question your sanity if you believe these shady characters that have scammed JCpenny and lied under oath over this man who has spent MILLIONS of dollars to help children around the world through charities. Keep speaking the truth Jack Farthing."


Right. And Catholic priests that abuse kids never helped out in the community either.

Who said being a pedophile and giving money to childrens charity's were mutually exclusive.

Just a quick note to td. MJ has not yet decided on whether or not to take the stand. Just thought I would correct you.

Also, nobody here has said that they believe nothing is wrong with Michael Jackson. He clearly has issues in terms of his social abilities etc etc, but you can't paint him as a molester until he is found guilty.

I aren't biased, but I would certainly say that the defense seems to have a much stronger, beleivable case over the prosecution. After all why would Mac Culkin lie? I could understand him saying he was not molested out of court, even if he was lying, but I wouldn't imagine he would be willing to come to court and sing MJ's praises if he had been abused by him. Just a thought.

who said Culkin is lying? But just because MJ didn't do anything untowrd to him doesn't mean he didn't do anything to anyone else

If MJ is SOOOOO benevolant, what happened to the millions that he and Rabbi Schmullie collected? If I remember correctly - the Heal the Children Foundation is still missing those funds. More importantly if MJ is so concerned about the children of the world, why is his niece Stevana homeless? How is it that MJ's response to Eliza's plea for help to house and feed her was met with a fax that said - It may not be in Mr. Jackson's best interest to help her at this time?????

Look at the life of the people who are testifying that nothing happened - everyone of them is a mess. Michael did what he did - but that doesn't mean that he thought of it as harmful. It is VERY likely that he is just treating others like he was treated and that he believes his action were appropriate.

The PROSECUTION is saying Culkin is lying. That's why it's important. They are trying to paint him as a villian with lies to sway the jury. Pulling stunts like this only shows how biased they are against Michael Jackson without any evidence. The man is INNOCENT until proven guilty, and no sane person would convict him with the information we have now. Just because the man is wierd and has issues doesn't automatically make him a pedophile.

Look at the facts Eric. Jordy Chandlers Parents were so obsessed with the idea of a film carrer for their child, that they levelled the idea of a lawsuit against Jackson unless he could grant their wishes. On being turned down, allegations were made. The family then accepted Millions of Dollars rather than seek justice. I know I do not speak for everyone, but if someone inproperly touched my child I would want justice, not a pay out. I could get money through civil court.
As charges were dropped against Jackson, we have to presume his innocence.
In the current case, you only have the child and his brothers word for the molestation. The childs brother said he witnessed teh molestation from the hall way, despite saying there was an alarm in the hall. Strange?
The family is well known for its disregard for the law and other ethical conduct.
The witnesses who testified in this case with regard to the previous allegations have been largely disproved by way of the children themselves denying it. Those witnesses have also been extensively discredited.
In terms of the question, could all these people be lying. Yes! of course they could. Hundreds or even thousands of people have passed the gates of Neverland, and here we have ten, all of whom have financial and spiteful interests in MJ. The rest of these people didn't see anything untoward happening. I would beleive the silent majority over this minority.
Quote, "I almost dropped the french fries" said one staffer when describing how he had seen MJ molesting Mac Culkin. Give me a break!

Errr Eric Olsen, you have EYE Witnesses who say he abused Culkin, Barnes, Robson, Chandler and Francia. If three of them are decent people and say NOTHING happened, you have to believe those same witnesses LIED about the others.

and also, wasn't John Landis seen wandering around the courtroom? Landis and Culkin in the one place can only mean one thing - Home Alone 5 - Culkin Versus Werewolves.

The vitriol on these MJ threads must really burn the writers' butts

they were kids, they were literally in (I assume platonic) love with Jackson, they don't have to be lying to have blotted out certain memories, or to have not even realized what hapened at the time. Or the prosecution witnesses could be wrong, but the essence of these relationships reinforces the nature of Jackson's relationships with boys over a 15 year period, and bolsters the claims of Gavin Arviso

Eric, what about the memories that Gavin may be misconstruing or may have had planted by his mother?

Aaron, you reminded me of Jim's last postings with that Home Alone 5 line, bless yr soul:)

that is possible too, Mark

turns out the fella i thought was landis in a photograph wasn't landis, but just a fella with a similar beard.

and how long is this trail set for to continue?

Ey yo - who do not know that America is build up with Black knowledge - which scared some deshonest people - scared of them get it to the high - people like - MJ - Luther-Muhamed - count me yours.

like two more months, Duke, yeay!

SHUT UP RED! Being biased is 100% acceptable if it is FOR SAINT MICHAEL! Take your filthy worship of the GREAT SATAN SNEDDON where you belong!

The 20 idiots in this country who act like some jacked up looking guy who spends the better part of his life pretending that he is a prepubescent boys and frequently hosts prepubescent boys at his home, isn't demonstrating grooming behaviors and a desire to sexually exploit kids, seem to have a penchant for posting their outrage. Let's be honest. I mean, my God, look at this guy--he's sociopathic and planful in his luring of children and so many people buy into his faux-victimization, his self-entitled, self-absorbed view of the tragedy of his life. Suck it up MJ. LOTS of people have crappy childhoods. They don't spend the rest of their lives recapitulating it through objectifying young boys.

Finally, all the MJ fans seem to be constructing elaborate justifications that I am sure that many pedophiles have used in the past to cloak their denial. Society doesn't benefit from that bullsh*t. We also don't benefit from acting as if children are evil liars. Kids who are abused are grifters. And men who like to have slumber parties with boys are innocents without sexual urges.

we do get the full range of opinion, and that range has not narrowed much after 10 weeks of testimony, has it?

Eric nice to see only a half biased post(smile),but mcauley culkin being caught with marijuana doesn't imply anything, i'm quite sure he's not the only person in the world to be caught with it.It's safer than tobacco.And youv'e got to admit mark harrington has got a point about the hall alarm it would indeed of gone off which gavins brother does seem to of forgot,what i want to know is why isn't mike schaffel being interogated?,i think he's far from innocent in all this and i think he's helped set michael up,i might be wrong but i don't think mj has done anything untoward to the family i think it's his overprotective "security guards".i'm sure we'll find out eventually.:-)

"States Child Protection Agencies Collude with Judges to Defraud Federal Government" by Nev Moore http://www.sierratimes.com/02/10/18/ednm101802.htm

"National Organized Crime Operating in Child Protection Agencies" by Roger Brown

"Falsification of Records"
http://www.liftingtheveil.org/falsification.htm

MJ is a fagett and hee should be put in jail for life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MJ is totaly guilty he should be put in jail foreva!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


FUCK MJ!

I find it hard to believe that some people are discrediting Caulkin for smoking weed and showing sympathy for a range of prosecution withnesses that we in the un-American world have seen to be mainly superflous.

just to remind you somewhere across the atlantic, you could smoke weed in cafes and pay tax on it.

on the issue of porn, I am a regular consumer of porn with a keen preference for Ebony and Lesbian materials. It is legal and my prerogative. does it make me dangerous to kids, women and men? I don't think so.

I am sure most of you consume it too including sneddon or else it would not be the most lucrative internet business.

this case makes so much about silly stuff - give me break

Read and learn

Learn the Racket RICO RACKATEERIGN RACKET !!!

I think a lot of this is Perry Mason syndrome. In real life there is often no smoking gun or videotape of the crime. In real life the bad guy does not always confess on the witness stand. In real life witnesses come with baggage.

In real life sometimes you can only use common sense. If a man has done classic grooming behavior on young children that is consistent with pedophiliacs, if there are a number of witnesses that saw hinky behavior, if a man's bedroom is harder to get into than Fort Knox...that's a whole lot to just push to the side.

Is the kid's mom irresponsible and opportunistic? Yeah -- which is coincidentally (Right!) a pedo's favorite kind of parent. You cannot point a finger at the mother without acknowledging that someone like that makes it oftly easy to abuse her child just by her lack of parental skills.

And no matter how trashy the mother is, the child should not have to suffer (more) for it.

If this was all just innocent fun for Michael, why didn't he quit the slumber parties after he paid off the first family? Right there he knew what people were saying. Didn't the reaction to Bashir tell him something? Seems a whole lot like something he could not give up. (A man who kept having his sleepovers even though he had to have known where it would lead.)

If someone falsely accused me of something like that, I would probably die of the shame, but if I didn't, I'd be damned if I ever was alone with a child again. There is no way I would set myself up for even the appearance of that. Why couldn't he stop?

...I'd like to learn if Jackson's health status has anything to do with his sleepovers. If not Im scratching my head.
Of course it looks terrible for the defense. It looks terrible for the prosecution. I don't know we are any closer to pretending to know anything more about human behavior. I remember a fight I had with fifteen year old satan when he was a bit younger.
I wanted his dog to sleep outside because
the boy rarely wakes up in time to release said animal into wilderness to make business with bears.
But the comfort of having the dog sprawl
on his bed, hair and dirt on his clothes and bed linens. And the squarrels over fetid dog aromas close enough to the entrance of the human bathroom to be stepped in barefoot were not enough to dissuade my little beast child from his companionship.
No little boys are not dogs. How could I equate a boys best friend with a child?
I now see that Blue lives outside sleeps outside or at best in the mudroom. He is still satans dog pal but he is no longer on the inside circle clique instant message bling.
I also note that the kid I used snuggle with when he was a cute little toddler and just about strangled in public on any number of occasions as an adolescent
has regressed to his toddler impositions. I don't know why he says he wants to watch a DVD in my room when he is just going to fall asleep between me and the mrs and oblige me to carry him into his own room - that is if I have the energy or if Im not on a sail boat or a train.
But this is my son so it is an uncomplicated allowance away from physical interaction between people with peniss are we aloud to say penis?
People with penisis are dissuaded from spending time with one another outside of very specific activities.
Sleeping together or even lying together in repose is a major no no in this culture.
When I took my hip hop street savied Wrapper of a know it all wisecracker to
Egypt and dumped him off on our bare foot, gallibeya wearing wooly haired red African relatives for five weeks we just about had a melt down.
See supernegro that's one of my son's alter egos he adopts after a few days on the rough seas of the shopping mall when hes back in Cali with his mom's American
born and bred Bronx crew was getting wiggy with all the hand holding, face kissing, lay down all day together business of real Africans.
If he hadnt been kicked out of school and arrested in juvenile hall for spray paint vandelism and posession of mary j and not the singer a few months earlier , he wouldnt have been spending the summer with the old man. It was not intended the trip to humiliate or diss esteem the young not qa gentle man.
When I cam back to retrieve him after three days of guilt ridden vacation a whole village away i found that my boy was wearing gallibeya, drinking karcade instead of pop and learning how to play the hand drums. He was hand holding, face kissing and laying down on pillows all day. It pained me to learn he had somehow smuggled in a game boy which his cousins neednt have been exposed to but all in all Supernegro gave way to an actual human being. He can now honestly refer to himself as an African American without me correcting him.

Was he molested or raped? I highly doubt it though the thought did occur to me and I feel ahsamed for thinking that in retrospect. But then Im often in a situation between cultures where I learn about my own short sighted diry mind and contempt for letting things be.

As for Jackson, i don't know. When I read the testimony that he spent night after night with one or more kids joining him i think I sighed. It does seem really off. But then I remind myself that when im home in Farafra any evening is likely to end up like suprbowl sunday night in vermont.
People sleep where they may often in close contact with one another. People with penisis sleeping in the same room on the same floor on the same throw pillows wearing gallibeya!
But I also can't ever recall anything remotely sexual in any of these encounters in my twenty something years of juxtapositioning between the two worlds.
And then i recall blue the half grown puppy and the permanent bed he claimed upstairs in the boys room and nowhere else.
Im glad the boy has outgrown Blue's sleepovers and I admit that I am glad to have my angel return to me from time to time. Its not like my room has seen too many women since the big breakup.
And the one's that visit and insist on sleeping over know that if the boy is on visitation he is going to watch some dvd
on my bed and he is going to fall asleep
wedged right between us.
Ok so psycho analyse away.
I know that it is simply impossible for me to interact with any child sexually.
Im not sexually attracted to young dates either. If she isn't over thirty we can't engage in danger charade.
No drama breakdowns until after the ninth date i always say.
And maybe Im seeing the world with rose tinted glasses.
Waiting with baited breath to learn if people really believe that people that sleep together are invariably going to engage in sexual activity.
I prefer REM sleep and fully admit there is nothing so satisfying to nap with a child or grandparent, superpal or platonic lady friend...I dont know what
to think when I put my puritan witch trial glasses on again.

justice is the daughter of time. if anyone doesn't this case coming to a fold then keep looking but harder. mj is the victim of a system of prejudicial manipulation and character assassination. forgive my french; but mj could as well be gay or a molester... that is not the case at hand. the question being asked to the jury is simple - 'did mj molest, amongst other allegations, the accuser based on the material claims?' this ladies and gentlemen of the general public (and eric in particular) is the case at hand.
The law, especially in criminal proceedings has been crafted in a manner the preserves the integrity of the adage saying - 'innocent until proven guilty'. Criminal proceedings focus on the facts not assumptions of generalizations about the accused.
i have stated time and again that this is a complicated case; for those who still fail to see the complications of this case (within and outside the courthouse) up to this point in juncture, nothing can be said.
the media made the early mistake of jumping onto the bandwagon and declaring mj's guilt in an effort to capitalize on this on-going public humiliation of mj and what he represents.
mj will always be judged by the general public differently from everybody else. he is a no-race, no-sexuality, no-age character of gargantuan media value. It is almost natural not to relate to him and consider 'weird' irrespective of the facts.
mj has a very human heart; apart from having given more contributions to charity, initiated charities to the same effect, spearheaded the composure of several songs for the needy, visited Africa and other developing countries at the peak of career (where as many American stars cant replicate this feet until they are gray haired..), befriended some of the greatest hearts the world has known to date, from spiritual leaders, to Princes Diana, Nelson Mandela and Jane Goodal (who has also spent the night at Neverland ranch playing video games from his bed)...
his life choices, though private and his business, have been devoured in public and have become a source of great concern and raising of eye-brows in many corners around the world. I believe that his team will definitely be more proactive this time around in addressing the way forward in terms of what he does behind closed doors and how much of it the general public should be privy to.
irrespective of what our feelings are about the man in mirror, justice is justice and should be respected in that context. The legal system is not meant to segregate against anyone, irrespective of how weird we perceive him/ her to be! Lets let justice take its toll and keep personal convictions at bay to avoid undue prejudice guised in 'objective critic'.
...justice is the daughter of time

Oh, for feck sake snap out of it Eric! Culkin says he was NOT molested. Now, ulnless you or I were there, we will have to take his word for it and not come up with amateur psychoanalysis of how he has probably blocked it all out. Get a grip! i know it's devastating to you to watch your dream of a case proven beyond reasonable doubt leading to a guilty verdict wash away. Too bad.

I can not read all the posts but here is my view...

The cook, lover and thief or whoever else saw MJ put his hand down culkin's pants are not credible. Why? Accuser and accused say it did NOT happen. On what basis are we to disbelieve them and instead believe disgruntled employees out for a buck as they have returned to their poverty stricken lives?! No basis at all. Therefore, the whole Culkin, Robson, Barnes angle of the case is shot right out of the water as the Prosecution should have known it would be.

Now, any thirty something year old man who enjoys spending time with ten yr old boys and sleeping in beds with them, clearly has issues. However, NEWSFLASH.... Olsen and his ilk, the man is not being prosecuted for being a strange fellow with issues. He has been accused of far worse. There are millions with strange traits that can lead others to believe that they are capable of criminal acts BUT these strange freaks might just be what they advertise...STRANGE FREAKS AND NOT CRIMINALS.

To indulge in a more reasonable and sensible form of analysis, it comes as no shock to me that a boy who did not have a childhood would spend his adulthood behaving like a child. A former friend of mine who married at 21 and is now 34, chases women like he gets a million bucks for each one he beds. Why is this? He married too early. When he should have been playing the field, he was married with child. Now, he acts like he has just discovered his dick and pursues any woman in sight and is no longer my friend actually because he decided to come after me and ruin a perfectly decent friendship.

I do not say that ALL people will react the same way in the same circumstances but it is clear and understandable why some people act the same way later on in life. While his mates were off to amusement parks, MJ was rehearsing, touring, told what to wear or how to look..constant criticism from pushy papa and so on and so forth. It is no wonder he now wants to play and recapture the childhood he never had. Does this make him strange? Absolutely! It still does not make him guilty of sexually molesting Gavin, Jordy or that Francia boy.

The Prosecution closed with the whimper that they started with. That last witness was a disgrace. His so called diaries must have been stage props in this circus.

There is not one single prosecution witness who did not have previous inconsistent statements, a shady past or a motive for testifying against MJ. NOT ONE. I find it hilarious that anyone with an atom of sense would expect the reasonable man to convict MJ or any man for that matter of such serious charges from the words of the Prosecutions collection of scavengers, vagabonds and poverty stricken parasites. It is indeed laughable.

The Prosecution have been unable to be so potent in poking holes in defense witnesses, though they have tried. Culkin was a 5 star witness and his comment that NO ONE from the prosecution's end EVER tried to find the truth of the cook or butler's allegations by contacting Culiin himself just shows what the Sneddon's motivation is. Sneddon thinks MJ is too weird and he has brought a case and is trying DURING the Trial to fit his case to his own personal beliefs and not to the evidence and testimony surrounding him. No self respecting prosecutor having looked at the character of his witnesses and the testimonies and the holes in them would have spent tax payers money bringing this case forward.

My lasting memory of the Prosecution's case will be their current suggestion that Wade, Brett and Culkin must have been sleeping when they were molested. They seem to have forgotten that the cook, the theif and the butler, THEIR OWN WITNESSES did not say that the touching they saw happened while the boys were sleeping. The whole prosecution is a joke.

The trial continues.

Sandra you forgot to mention the candlestick maker.

So, Eric, when they send Michael back to be the Mayor of Crazy Town do you think you will get to write about stuff less icky?

Eric has definitely fallen on his sword covering this topic for the good of Blogcritics.

Thus is the fate of all doubters at the altar of MJ;)

as long as I am allowed to take periodic breaks to purge my system, I will soldier on

What about acquaintances of serial killers who say, he can't possibly be a serial killer! That's just ridiculous! because I've been with him and he didn't kill me!
Besides, Mack and the other two boys who say Michael didn't molest them are not his type. Yes, they are young boys (definitely his type), but they are (eew) white. Michael only molests los ninos latinos. Check out the overseas media where they are not enjoined from publishing names and photos -- you'll see that all the boys who have accused him of molesting them are stereotypically hispanic looking. I certainly understand how this, as I exclusively like latinos myself -- but only 30+ year olds need apply, thanks.

ALL the boys who have accused hi. ERM.. You mean this crowd of two people ???

isn't it three we currently know of? The two he paid off in the '90s and Gavin?

oh, and by the way, I did not include Culkin's recent legal problems to impeach his testimony -- who gives a damn if he was found with pot and some Xanax? -- but simply as newsworthy information

Given the slim evidence against Jackson, it seems unlikely he will be found guilty. But in the court of public opinion, there are no restrictions. People are free to speculate as they wish, and Jackson's eccentricity leaves him vulnerable to the likelihood that the public has assumed the worst about him.

To some observers, the Michael Jackson story illustrates the dangerous power of accusation, against which there is often no defense--particularly when the accusations involve child sexual abuse. To others, something else is clear now--that police and prosecutors spent millions of dollars to create a case whose foundation never existed.

Was Michael Jackson Framed?
The Untold Story
Mary A. Fischer
GQ, October 1994

Yes Eric I am sorry that makes three indeed. Although the poor guybwho alleges he was tickled does not look latino to me...
No pattern here. Just wishful thinking... AS USUAL

t the very least, mj is guilty of being dumber than cat shit. after what he went through in the early 90s, why would he continue to sleep with boys? grown men do not sleep with young boys in our society. is he too stupid to have known that it just is not done? grown men sleep with sex partners, spouses, their own child on the rare occasion the child is scared and needs comforting, or themselves. it is no more acceptable for him to sleep with young boys than with young girls. those mothers sold their sons' innocence for gifts and cash. shame on them.

Yeah well who cares about your opinion on what is right and wrong ?
What is important is to find out whether something illegal happened. So far nothing relevant has come up...

I didn't once mention right or wrong -- I talked about his stupidity in continuing to sleep with boys even after it was made abundantly clear to him that it was not acceptable and could get him in trouble. Maybe you are as dumb as he is?

And even if he his not PROVEN guilty in court, that doesn't mean he is innocent of what he is being charged with. OJ was found innocent in court, too. Last time I served on a jury, we all believed the person was guilty as hell, but we exonerated him because the prosecutor did not sufficiently prove his case.

and we all know how dumb cat shit is, don't we jar?

um-hum, but that's Mr. Boy to you.
:-)

apologies

Forgive me Dawn, ha ha ha, How could I?!....the cook, thief, lover and the candlestick maker

Poor Macually Culkin! I Feel So Bad For Him Having To Lie For Jacko

Ok, so let us ASSUME that the defense intends to call 1000 Macaulay's to the stand and that each and everyone of them will state ON THE RECORD that MJ NEVER touched them in ANY inappropriate manor - LETS JUST SAY THAT, OK?? Were ANY of those 1000 people present when MJ Alledgely molested those children who claim that he did it??? NO - Not one of them was there - so let the Prosecution stipulate to the fact that EVERYONE of those 1000 little boys will say MJ was fine with them - as long as the Defense will Stip - that none of them were present when Jordie Chandler was "alledgely" molested or Gavin or the others.

The celebrity smoke and mirrors - that the defense is trying to mount is rediculous. The ONLY things that matter are whether or not MJ acted inappropriately and then if he knew of the attempts to keep the family on site and tried to intimidate them etc.

Look at the facts and forget for ONE Minute that this is MJ - anyone else would have been convicted and imprisoned years ago. Who says that justice is blind - look at OJ and Robert Blake - oh yea and lets not forget Hally Berry's DWI - Hit and Run and Robert Downey Jr.

WAKE UP - if it were your kid - would you have let him sleep with a 40+ year old man???? BE HONEST WITH YOUR SELFS

I have been a prosecutor for several years and have prosecuted several kiddy diddlers. If MJ is not a kiddy diddler then the earth is flat, Ted Bundy was innocent and Richard Simmons is straight.

WAKE UP PEOPLE! He exhibits just about every single indicator of being a depraved peodephile that the DSM-IV(Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) lists.

Get a clue and read this book.
http://tinyurl.com/9k8gj

Mathias, the reason, Culkin, Robson, and Barnes were called to the stand by the defense is because the desperate prosecutors brought in 'witnesses' that claimed to have seen them being molested by MJ.

Now, they say they were not..what do you expect? They came to testify for their own reputations just as much as defending their friend. If you stopped for a minute and forgot all MJ's eccentricities you will see this case for the hogwash that it is. Culkin and gang were not brought in to disprove the truth of this particular case..they were brought in to discredit the prosecutions supporting evidence that MJ is a serial child molester. The Prosecution knew they had not proven Gavin's case at all so they needed Bra support, and they got it. Now, they are falling on their own sword.

It is the idiotic Judges fault allowing those previous allegations in. the Prosecution were ecstatic. Well, if you live by the sword you die by the sword. They brought in previous allegations knowing full well that several of the alleged victims have denied from day one that anything happened to them. This is the response they get and if you Mathias, and whoever else expected anything else then you do not understand the first thing about legal trials or the Law in itself.

Therefore, the issue of whether Culkin adds little or nothing to whether Gavin was abused, is irrelevant at this point because it was the prosecution who brought Culkin's name into this Trial and not the defense. Again, it was the prosecution who brought previous allegations and the defense is duty bound to submit that there are boys out there who have slept on Mj's bed and have made no such allegations. Surely, that is easy to understand?!

REAL DA, which pedophile do you know has childlike tendencies and attitudes? Since you claim MJ has all the traits. Everybody has just gone mad with this stupid idea that MJ exhibits the exact profile of a pedophile. NONSENSE! Was Walt Disney a pedophile? After all, he created disneyland and all the childrens programmes and what have you...was he a pedophile? so where on earth do people get this idea that because MJ is an adult, him living in a place like Neverland is a clear sign that he is a pedophile because he is trying to entice children...poppycock!
There is no doubt that some pedophiles probably seduce children by giving them icecream or things that they like to gain their trust but the reverend fathers, or fathers or uncles that do that, do not necessarily adopt that method.

So, i don't care what expert they put on the stand, MJ shows no such traits. The man likes to play with childrens toys and likes children to come and see what wonderful toys he has and he befriends some of them and they play games etc. This is a case of arrested mental development amongst other things but to suggest that these are traits of a pedophile is to imply that Walt and HannaBarbara and whoever else makes things for the enjoyment of children has the tarits of a pedophile....and to suggest that MJ has been molesting almost every single boy that has slept on his bed without more concrete evidence than majority conclusion that he looks too weird and is just too weird , there's gotta be something wrong with him..ah..that's it! he sleeps with little boys and touches them too is another senseless form of reasoning.

Go sandra,go sandra,go go sandra!,you speak very logically sandra half these people aren't interested in the truth and are part of the "want to be popular brigade",:-)

Michael Jackson defence invokes immunity grant to put witness on stand,also a possible sexual relationship between gavins sister and a neverland worker when she was 16?

Linda Deutsch
Canadian Press

Friday, May 13, 2005

Michael Jackson leaves the courtroom at the Santa Barbara County Courthouse during a break. (AP Photo/Justin Sullivan,pool)




SANTA MARIA, Calif. (AP) - Michael Jackson's lawyers sought to put an unindicted alleged co-conspirator on the witness stand using a government grant of immunity, saying prosecutors decided not to call him because his statements didn't support their allegations in the child-molestation case.
The defence told the judge in a written request that the prosecution abandoned plans to call Jackson associate Vincent Amen as a witness after he was interviewed by law enforcement and contradicted statements by the family of Jackson's accuser.
By the time they learned he did not support their evidence, the document said, prosecutors had granted Amen "use immunity." The defence asked to now be allowed to have him testify with the same promise that nothing he says can be used against him in a future prosecution.
Amen is one of five Jackson associates alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy with Jackson to hold his accuser's family captive in order to force them to do a video praising the singer.
Earlier, a Las Vegas lawyer who worked for Jackson testified men who took over Jackson's management diverted nearly $1 million of the pop star's money and he believed it was for their own benefit.
David LeGrand was called in a defence effort to portray Jackson as a victim of a conspiracy by his associates - the same men the prosecution claims he conspired with to hold his accuser's family captive. The defence has tried to show there was no captivity conspiracy and the associates' actions were for their own financial gain.
"I became suspicious of everybody," LeGrand said of Jackson's associates.
"It seemed everybody wanted to benefit from Michael Jackson in one way or another."
The testimony was followed by a courtroom flap in which Judge Rodney Melville sternly issued a warning that former Jackson lawyer Mark Geragos must obey a defence subpoena and take the stand Friday morning.
"That'll give me time to get the warrant out when he doesn't appear," Melville said after discussions over when Geragos could testify amid commitments to other cases.
It was unclear what Geragos would testify about. He represented Jackson while he was under investigation but was let go in April 2004. A Geragos colleague said he would inform Geragos and judges in courts where the lawyer has appearances scheduled Friday.
Jackson is accused of molesting a boy in February or March 2003 and plying him with wine. He is also charged with conspiracy.
Prosecutors have sought to show Jackson had deep financial problems that motivated the conspiracy to compel the family to make the video in response to a damaging documentary. The accuser appeared in the documentary with Jackson, who said he let children sleep in his bed but it was non-sexual.
LeGrand's account echoed earlier testimony from Jackson's ex-wife Deborah Rowe, who claimed her husband was a victim of "opportunistic vultures" in his inner circle. LeGrand said he was brought in to straighten out a maze of transactions involving Jackson when he met Ronald Konitzer and Dieter Wiesner, two of the unindicted alleged co-conspirators. But he said he was fired within two weeks of writing Konitzer a letter asking him to account for $965,000.
LeGrand said he discovered they had the ability to divert Jackson's assets and thousands of dollars had been dispersed to them.
LeGrand also said he met the accuser's mother at Jackson's Neverland ranch at least once and she "seemed satisfied with being there."
He said her children were running through the house "having a pretty good time."
Prosecutor Gordon Auchincloss focused on the negative fallout from journalist Martin Bashir's Living With Michael Jackson documentary and suggested Jackson was planning with his inner circle on how to respond when it aired.
LeGrand acknowledged Jackson was concerned but not about the same things everyone else was concerned about.
"He seemed very concerned about blurring the images of his children (on the video) and enforcing his agreement with Mr. Bashir to view and edit the video before it was aired," he said.
Asked if Jackson was worried the documentary would not be positive, he said: "Mr. Jackson didn't use the word positive. He expected accuracy, sincerity."
In another development, prosecutors said they should be allowed to present evidence of the singer's alleged moral failures to witnesses who take the stand to testify he has good character.
In a motion, prosecutors said they should be allowed to tell character witnesses Jackson has shown children adult materials and given them wine and the singer has allowed children into his bed "while heavily addicted to Demerol and other controlled substances."
They also want jurors to hear details of a boy's allegations in 1993 that Jackson molested him.
The prosecution's motion did not include evidence supporting their allegations. In court, they have presented dozens of sexually explicit books and magazines seized from the singer's home and the accuser and his siblings have accused Jackson of giving them alcohol.
The prosecution also tried to block testimony that the teenaged sister of Jackson's accuser had a "quasi-sexual relationship" with an employee at Jackson's Neverland ranch when she was 16.
The sister was a key witness against Jackson, testifying his associates tried to control her family's whereabouts for a month and Jackson served alcohol to her brother.
Prosecutors said the testimony about the girl's activities is irrelevant and "a transparent attempt to smear this victim of the current offence."
© The Canadian Press 2005

How many of you people knew eric wrote for playboy at one point?(tut tut),;-)

If Eric indeed wrote for Playboy at one point, that makes him all the more credible. Why tut tut? Is writing for Playboy in someway bad or illegal? More power to him. "you jus jealous"

No jarboy:-), it's not bad at all (lol),didn't you notice the wink at the end?,i was actually quite impressed,if you want to know where i heard it is public knowledge,just click on the blogcritics interview bar and select eric olsen i'm sure he wouldn't mind you listening,there is a 46 minute radio spot recorded,So eric you know hef then do ya got any babes numbers to hand?,(laughing),

First of all let me clarify that I in fact DO have a clue about the American Judical System, Rules of Court and Evidence. I have been an Investigator for nearly 30 years in both the public international and private sectors. I have trained hundreds of investigators and presented evidence in more criminal cases than I can recount. I personally despise innept law enforcement, hate - hate - hate the thought of crooked or tainted or dishonest cops and believe without any doubt that:
a) A subject in an on-going investigation has no independant requirement under the law to tell the truth - thus the 5th amendment., and
b) You are innocent until proven guilty

The prosecution in this case ended on a weak witness - I wouldn't have advised it - but in MANY normal cases - (DA correct me if I am wrong) - the prosecutions rests matter of factly. They have some problems in their case - but - the FACTS reflect that there was a memo written telling the guards not to allow the family to leave - the FACTS reflect that previously no such writing or oder was issued - the FACTS reflect that the boy slept in the same bed as a 40+ year old man previously (on multiple ocasions) accused of molestation - the FACTS SHOW the MOTHER is an IDIOT and so is MJ - we teach things like reasonably prudent individuals - and gross culpable negligence - MJ was in no way prudent and is as culpably as any convict currently serving time.

Again I ask the questions -

1) Were the 1000's of people coming to MJ's defense PRESENT (In the room PRESENT) when the allegded actions took place??? (NO THEY WERE NOT)

2) Would you let your child sleep in the same bed with a 40+ year old man previously (on multiple occasions) accused of molestation? ( NO - I THINK NOT)

3) Have you READ the prior declarations filed by Jordan Chandler? (Again - probably not - I have - it was posted on the smoking gun)

4) Why is it that he (Jordy) is conviently out of the country when the prosecution was attempting to serve him with a subpoena? - He generally doesn't travel abroad in that he was in school and then working successfully in the financial industry. (HMMMMMMMMM) Could it have anyuthing to do with the non-disclosure clause in the settlement?

5) Can ANY of this be used to convict MJ? (NO) proof is proof - everything else is circumstantial and probably not even admissable.

God, Gavin and MJ know what happened and the jury has to do their best to wade through the crap and decide whether or not they believe the prosecution. Whatever happens, the court of public opinion is devided to say the least.

On a personal note - I believe him to be guilty. I have my reasons and they as well as my opinion are my own. I would question why the prosecution did not call others like Wayne Broussard to the stand - he would have been a far better closing witness.

Just my two cents worth.

Mathias, brava on your vast experience. Seriously, Brava!

The facts also reflect that the 'boys' were hooligans driving ranch cars and indeed it was told to some security men that they should not leave the building.

The facts reflect that the family left Neverland numerous times and at no point tried to escape or try at least to let someone know they were being imprisoned and their lives were at risk. Did you forget those facts?

The facts reflect that previously no such orders had been written because the facts reflect that there is no testimony that there was any need previously to issue such instructions about any other guest.

The facts reflect that the boy slept in the same bed with a man previously accused not CONVICTED of child molestation charges..and last time I checked, the fact IS, there is no law against sleeping in the same bed with a man regardless of age differences. Odd it is, to many of us, but hey..odd has never been criminal. Now, MJ is an idiot simply because of his naivety..the mother is an idiot because she was probably born an idiot and clearly has some mental problems. Still, if idiots were being imprisoned, there will be few people left to wander the streets. I shan't name any names but I am sure my point is clear.

Again, I ask the question..were the thousands of people concluding that Mj is guilty present in the room when any of the alleged acts took place? NO THEY WERE NOT.

I probably wouldn't let my son sleep in the same bed with any man previously accused of child molestation but if the man happened to be a dear friend or someone I trust whether rightly or wrongly, I might just let my son share the same bed because I would believe that the accusers must be deranged to accuse this man I know of such actions. so, you might not allow it, Mathias, but others might. Different strokes for different folks.

I have read the previous declarations by Chandler and as far as I am aware the accuser in this case is not Chandler. JORDY had his CHANCE to bring his case to court so that the world could hear BOTH sides of the story. He and his family chose to take the money and run..so I'm afraid this supposed ace card that Jackson accusers throw up of chandler, like its the clincher cant possibly work on any discerning mind because all I know is Chandler said this, MJ said that, Mj offered money, Chandler took it. It wasn't thoroughly investigated from both angles and as far as I am concerned its a closed book and has no bearing. Jordy had his chance but he wanted money instead. I guess the molestation wasn't that traumatic after all.

Mathias, are you with us? On earth, I mean? Jordy hasn't spoken to his own mother in eleven years..The prosecution were planning to serve what subpoena? what are you talking? Mj's side wanted nothing to do with the previous allegations. Jordy has BEEN out of the country and wanted nothing to do with the trial... perhaps he doesnt want to have to come and say under oath that he and his family just exploited MJ..has that entered your mind? NO. All that is in that clouded judgmental mind of yours is the fact that he must have left so as to help MJ. How do you even figure that one out? Nonsense.

Like you said, opinions, opinions. You have yours, I have mine. The jurors have theirs. My point however, is quite simple..the prosecution have not proven beyond reasonable doubt that MJ molested Gavin Arvizo or that he had anything to do with imprisoning the Arvizo family and you might have forgotten but THAT is the trial we are discussing and not the life and times of MJ which seems to be what a lot with your point of view are basing their inference of guilt on.

Deal with what is infront of you. Not what you think. Who cares what you think in the broad span of things? we all have opinions. Our opinions mean diddly squot in the broad span of things but if we are going to debate the trial as it is, then it would do us all good to stick to it as the trial it is and not start telling tales of our views on the life and times of Mj. That is not what this is about.

Building neverland is not the reason people believe MJ displays pedophile traits.

Yes Walt Disney liked kids, and yes he build a similar place where kids could have fun.

That's where the comparison ends.

Walt Disney didn't sleep with kids. Walt Disney didn't have problems maintianing relationships with women.
Walt Disney never paid out 20 million in settlements to a boy who accused him of sexual abuse.
Walt Disney didn't take young boys on trips and treat them like his companion.
Walt Disney never had to deal with the stress of going from 'The King of Pop', to spending 200 million on a album that barely sold, and being ridiculed as Jacko.
Walt Disney didn't seek emotional comfort primarily from the kids he was around because he had a solid group of family and friends to support him through tough times.

I agree with other who poitn out that the only things that really matter in this case is the word of MJ and Gavin. Sure the rest can be taken into context, but it basically comes down to the following:

1) Did Jackson have the opportunity, and motive?

2) Is Gavin lying?


1 - Nobody contests that Jackson had the opportunity. As far as motive, the jury will have to decide if Jacksons lack of heterosexual relationships, his penchant for sleeping with young boys, and the prior allegations are sufficient enough circumstantial evidence to deem that he is capable of the crime.

2 - Judging by reports of his testimony, you certainly can't say that he definately was lying. Certainly it is possible that his mother has put him up to this. And many employees saw nothing to indicate a problem.

However, it's not imporbable that many employee's would have seen nothing. It's not like MJ was chasing after kids naked yelling 'Let's play doctor!'

Also, if the mother came up with this plan while Gavin was still at neverland. Why didn't she just tell him to walk out of MJ's bedroom naked everytime an employee came around. In other words, there are many way one came imagine to frame MJ that would have been more effective than just hearsay. I know it sounds silly to say that 'lack of evidence' is evidence. But, taking into consideration the defences allegations against the mother I think it has to be considered.

Sandra,

Touche' however I think that you missed my point slightly. I stated that this case will be for the jury to decide. I said and clarified what was my opinion. What I intended to present in this forum was simply this - what WE think has and will have no bearing on what the jury decides. I also attempted to represent that I have a huge disdain for faulty law enforcement and believe that law enforcement should be held to a higher standard. I tried to express that I believe it to be the prosecutors charge to present evidence to a jury and should have added not to waste the tax payers time and mony with frivolous litigation. I an certain that I wanted to represent that people who can afford better lawyers generally get better defense attorneys. And I would hope that people understand that although I personally believe that MJ has a perpencity towards little boys, that he is getting his day in court and that the jury will decide.

Additionally, I made specific note to other witnesses that could have been called and weren't - you have your opinion as to why Jordy isn't present and I am entitled to mine. If you read the Declaration of Jordan Chandler and whould still allow your child to spend the night in MJ's bed - shame on you and you should be held to answer if anything untoward transpired. As a parent, my children would never be allowed in his bed with him there with them - not his or anyone elses. His celebrity is not so great as to warrant me relaxing my guard when it concerns my children's safety and well being.

What MJ did or did not do will be officially decided in court and ultimately answered to to God Almighty for those of us who believe. Those who believe him to be innocent will continue to do so regardless of what verdict the jury returns and vice versa.

On a slightly different note - feel free to post your perception of facts, feelings and opinions in any public forum - that is your constitutional right - a right which, by the way, many have defended to the death to protect for you. Please understand that as those who went before - even though I strongly disagree that what you say is correct, I would defend to the death your right to say it.

Lastly, Sandra - I am dealing with the facts, the facts as I know and believe them to be. There is a possibility that there are some people in the world privy to information you do not possess -would additional information change your mind - probably not - you seem to have a preconcieved notion of MJ's innocence - if there was one shred of evidence to prove his was innocent however I would certainly change mine. And for your own personal edification, I have no idea weather or not Sneddon and crew PROVED their case - but I doubt it - I believe that MJ will probably NOT be convicted, but I believe that the verdict will be a reflection of the prosecutions presentation of the case not necessarly the TRUTH of what happened or did not happen behind the closed doors of MJ's bedroom.

Right on TD,

In addition, Walt Disney lead a HEALTHY male adult life. His obsession with Peter Pan and Neverland ended with the financial bottom line, unlike MJ who - as in the interview with Jeraldo said he immulated James Matthew Barrie the author of Peter Pan. Doing the research on Barrie was quite revealing and I only did so after Jeraldo made an obvious point of "avoiding the comparison". Barrie too was always in the presence of young boys, he frequently was questioned regarding his sexual proclivities and even though he wed, he was not able to produce off-spring ( for undisclosed reasons). There is more, much more but looking at Michael's (what?) "roll-models" for lack of a better word, his life-style, it is obvious that he is a mess to say the least.

You make great points about he said, he said and what will ultimately be weighed by the jury is exactly that.

The whole process again sheds light on the bravery displayed by the woman we reports a rape - doesn't it almost always seem as though the rapee's lifestyle, dress, alcolic consumption and the lot are the focus of the trial rather than whether or not the guy forced his thing into her thing???

Koodos for those who have the courage to stand up for what is right and to stop preditors from preying on others.

TD, you have answered your own comparisons by the last paragraph in that litany of aimless comparisons. The main point is that Walt disney was not a child star from the age of 4 or 5 and thrust into the limelight, thereby missing his entire childhood. As you yourself have stated 'Walt Disney didn't seek emotional comfort primarily from the kids he was around because he had a solid group of family and friends to support him through tough times.'

Mj unfortunately is not so fortunate and has for better or worse tended to seek love, acceptance and comfort from kids. Who knows how Walt would have reacted were he in Mj's boots? I made the initial comparison because it has been argued that MJ fits the pedophile profile because there is no reason for a 46 year old man to live in a place like Neverland and be Peter Pan. My point was and is, what say you to the likes of Walt disney and even the current living adults who make entertainment for children? Do they fit the profile? Of course, none of us know if any of these kiddie entertainers have fallen asleep on the same bed as a friends child while baby sitting. Perhapos if they had and the child sought cash, we might think the fact the guy makes cartoons shows he has the traits of a pedophile.

I'm sorry, in a case like this, unless there is a fact that can not be explained in any other way, I see no reason to infer guilt. I don't care how many boys he has had in bed. Culkin says sometimes there were like 5 of them in bed at the same time. What busy hands MJ must have, huh? Spare me that nonsense. The fact that MJ sleeps in bed with young boys or forms bonds with young boys rather than people his age does not in anyway mean he is sexually molesting them. I think many of you understate the magnitude of these allegations and imagine that your views of MJ as a strange freak suddenly means he is also a serial pedophile. Meanwhile, there is no hard evidence to support that assertion.

I don't know where on earth you came up with those two daft questions as some sort of guideline to the verdict...opportunity? every freaking person who has been near a child has the opportunity. So what the hell are you on about? Are we to drag out every 46 year old man who has been alone with a young boy and lash him because it is quite possible that he had the opportunity to molest? What on earth could be Mj's motive to screw Gavin? Sexual gratification? then the world at large can be accused of having motive at any given time to touch any person..

Do you know the word vague? Those questions are so vague? the possible answers so broad that if that were the guideline, there would be a mistrial..and finally I rest my case on having any constructive discussion with you because in your last sentence you seem to imply that lack of evidence can be evidence.

Mr TD, there, my dear man, you lost the plot right there. You CAN NOT, even in third world countries accuse a person of such an act and then use hearsay, scavengers, vagabonds, parasites, proven pathological liars, and a prosecutor on a witch hunt, still come up with no evidence and then tell the world that lack of evidence might just be THE evidence. What utter nonsense? I have never heard such crap.

Mathias, you and I will just have to agree to disagree because neither of us will ever convince each other. I can tell you that I dreaded being proved wrong by the Prosecutors but I left myself totally open for it even though from the beginning, I felt the case had no leg to stand on. I can safely say now that from week one, I knew that my initial instinct was right. MJ in my opinion, is not guilty of sexually molesting Gavin Arvizo.

Now, you can take the 'not guilty' verdict if or when it comes, I say when, anyway you want. Whatever makes you sleep well at night. If it gets you through the night to say, it doesn't prove the truth but it proves the weakness of the Prosecution's case..then go on. Believe that. I don't care. A not guilty verdict will be the correct verdict because it will prove that the prosecution had NO CASE. It will prove that the prosecution are just people like you Mathias, who find the man too frigging odd and jumped on his statement in a documentary to accuse him of charges.
Just imagine, if MJ had not said voluntarily that he slept in the same bed with boys, we might not be here today. Just imagine, that we are to believe he molested Gavin, AFTER this documentary..ha! ...and you do not see the possibility of MJ being framed,TD? Or a set up?

Look, it's pretty simple. sneddon tried to get him in 12 years ago and he didn't. MJ made a comment in a documentary and Sneddon's pants were on fire and he hunted this family down till the desperate family angry at being yesterday's pizza as far as MJ was concerned, decided to come up with this cock and bull story. Now, here we are. In this circus.

...a thousand apologies..'accuse him of charges' bloody nora...I meant to say accuse him of molestation..accuse him of charges is almost as bad as saying lack of evidence is evidence in a sexual abuse trial, then again, maybe not that bad..

my apologies..and TD, you ought to apologise for spewing such nonsense. Lack of evidence is the evidence in this case? You should be boiled, tarred and feathered!

Sandra,

To say the least, no-one can fault you on your lack of conviction, and yes we are agreed to disagree. As I stated, from what I have seen and heard, I am not convienced that Sneddon and Co., proved their case - I was not in the courtroom at all times. I am not privy to what evidence or lack there of was presented and / or portrayed. Again, I believe what I believe because I do. MJ is not a freak in my book by any streatch of the imagination - he was robbed of his childhood and youth. MJ was thrust into a world that few of us know or understand. His father was absolutely less than kind - he DEMANDED perfection and dooled about abuse with a heavy hand. He lost his career because Katherine got pregnant and spent his life in a Steel Mill in Gary Indiana. I know those steel mills and I know that Joe picked potatos from the fields on his way home to feed his family - even though he KNEW he could have been one of the greats. If you follow the story, Joe wanted to ensure that his children did not suffer the same fate as he did and therefore would not let them throw their careers away on women.

Was Mikey abused / molested in HIS youth - WHO KNOWS? Does that matter?

Again we go back to the fundemental question of:

Did Sneddon and Company remove all reasonable doubt from the minds of 12 jurors? We don't know.

From the other side the questions waxes:

Can the defense team install that one extra iota of doubt in that one mind in twelve to get a hung jury or acquital? Again, we don't know.

In that I am a gambling man however - I know that money follows money so I would put the odds in favor of the acquital and the world will never be agreed either way. The system is not perfect but it's all we have - for it to work at all we have to stand behind the decisions of the jurors selected to hear the case.

and Sandra - I don't think boiled, tarred and feathered works anymore. Run out of town on a rail maybe - but I think the world frowned on boiled, tarred and feathered some time ago.

Through it all I remain your tired cynic and believe that the entire truth shall never be known.

This song was written for his three kids in 2002 on his invincible album.Make of it what you will.

Once all alone
I was lost in a world of strangers
No one to trust
On my own, I was lonely
You suddenly appeared
It was cloudy before but now it's clear
You took away the fear
You brought me back to life

You are the sun
You make me shine
Or more like the stars
That twinkle at night
You are the moon
That glows in my heart
You're my daytime my nighttime
My world
You're my life

Now I wake up everyday
With this smile upon my face
No more tears, no more pain
Cause you love me
You help me understand
That love is the answer to all that I am
And I?m a better man
You taught me by sharing your life

You are the sun
You make me shine
Or more like the stars
That twinkle at night
You are the moon
That glows in my heart
You're my daytime my nighttime
My world
You're my life

You gave me strength
When I wasn't strong
You gave me hope when all hope is lost
You opened my eyes when I couldn?t see
Love was always here waiting for me

Jacksons ex lawyer envisioned disaster

Mark Geragos, a high-profile criminal defense lawyer, began representing Jackson in early 2003 following the airing of a TV documentary that included Jackson's now infamous admission that he shared his bed with children.

Geragos worked for Jackson for 16 months until the entertainer, citing Geragos' commitments to other clients - including Scott Peterson - replaced him with Thomas Mesereau Jr.

Geragos met the eventual accusers, who at that time had not made allegations against Jackson, in early February 2003 during a visit to Jackson's Neverland Valley Ranch.

After being warned that the mother and her three children may be trying to get too close to Jackson, Geragos said, he conducted an investigation of the family and feared they would try to take advantage of Jackson.

Several months later, the mother accused Jackson of molesting her 13-year-old son and of holding the family against its will to force them to make a video casting Jackson in a positive light.

Among other things, she has testified that Jackson's business employees put them under surveillance to ensure they didn't contact police. Geragos cast doubt on that, saying he ordered an investigator working for him to report on the family's movements.

Like other defense witnesses, he also tried to downplay the possibility of a Jackson-led conspiracy against the family, saying Jackson's powerful cohorts called the shots at Neverland and kept their boss in the dark about major decisions.

Sanda,

First, I find it funny that on one hand MJ supporters get angry when people make fun of him, and say they hope he gets his justice in a jail cell. But on the other hand they have no objection to calling other people names, and suggesting they be, what was it, "boiled, tarred and feathered" just for voicing an opinion.


Anyway, back to the case.

As I thought I eluded to clearly before, people don't say MJ fits a pedophile profile because he spends time with children. Nobody has said that. They say it because of the combinations of a variety of activities. The following are generally accepted Pedophile characteristics.

- He carries on what can be termed "a special relationship" with a wife. Often pedophiles have failed marriages due to their sexual interests but remain in the marriage to mask their true intentions.


- He displays a fascination or unusual interest in children.

- He makes frequent references to children in exalted or exaggerated terms such as "pure," "innocent," "God sent," "blissful" and other descriptive labels that seem inappropriate and excessive.

- He has hobbies or interests that commonly belong in the realm of a child's world such as toy collecting, building models of cars or planes. His home or room is decorated in a child's theme.

- He is over 30 years of age, single and has few or no friends his own age.

- He has systematic and prolonged access to children. Pedophiles, because of the wide age disparity between themselves and their victims, cannot just hang around children. The pedophile has to find a way to legitimize his contact with kids.

- Pedophiles are also very adept at locating troubled or withdrawn children.

- If the target is a troubled child, the pedophile will comfort and sympathize with him or her. Often, over a period, the child will develop feelings for the offender even though he is being actively abused.



Now, i'm not going to disagree that these are vague traits, and not everybody who matches the profile is a pedophile. However, I don't believe you can exclude the knowledge gained from 1000's of recorded cases.


Concerning my mention of Opportunity, I only mentioned it because it is one of the contingencies necessary to convict. In any case both opportunity and motive are neccessary, because as you mentioned, many people have the opportunity to commit a crime. Conversely, many people have the motive to commit a crime, but not the opportunity. (A convicted rapist who is seen in New York one day could not have commited a rape whcih occured at the same time in LA.)

As far as the questions being 'vague'. Well, that's the nature of many sexual assualt accusations. You don't always have concrete evidence. In many cases, it is the word of the accuser against the word of the defendant.

So if you believe that all the eye-witness accounts should be ignored, which the jury CAN choose to do if they want, then you still have to decide if Gavin or MJ is lying. And even if you think all the eye-witness accounts are invalid, you may still believe that an assualt occured.

Personally I don't think all the eye-witness accounts are invalid. Just because a witness isn't a completely stand-up person, it doesn't mean they are lying. Many of societies most dangerous criminals are put away on the eye-witness accounts of fellow criminals. Should all those judgements be overturned?

Maybe MJ is innocent. I have no problem saying that because I do not have definative proof. I was not in the room.

Can you say the same? Can you say that maybe MJ is guilty? Because all you have to base your belief of inoccence on is your opinion that Gavin is a liar. An opinion that you cannot prove, because you weren't in the room either.

Here, Here - TD,

Well said - The sad truth as it appears to me is that many (NOT ALL) MJ fans hold him in an exhaulted position in an almost God-like-manner and therefore believe him free of sin. The key-word is believe. Why do those of us who believe that God - (Or fill in the appropriate religious figure of your choosing) exists believe so - FAITH, that faith is based on - well - FAITH. Why do MJ followers believe in his innocence so adamantly - because they have FAITH in him.

I don't fault those who hold their convictions dear and believe what they believe because they believe it - but I don't think that ANYONE who is so deeply convicted can be impartial. On the other hand - I think, feel and yes believe that MJ is probably guilty - based on what I know, have heard and my interpretation of the facts - I think he did it. HOWEVER !!!! - if I was seated on the jury and heard HARD and FACTUAL EVIDENCE to the contrary - I would as JD states - change my vote to innocent.

Zellots - and fanatics caused the crusades, inqusition and more than one or two wars because they believed that ONLY THEIR opinion was acceptable - are MJ Fans so far gone that they could not hold an open mind IN CASE the actual EVIDENCE was ever presented???

Have you ever considered how difficult it is for the victim of ANY sexual assault to stand - up and "Tell their story"? How much more difficult must that story be to tell as a 13 year old? More importantly - if (AND I SAID IF) the molester were Michael Jackson, an Icon to say the least - how conflicted, tormented, scared and harrassed must that child be?

TD, I have called MJ a freak amongst other things so I doubt I get angry when people make fun of MJ. The only time I voiced distaste for jokes was when on the one hand, I was being preached to about how this was a serious matter and the same culprits were found on another post cracking jokes about the case...make up your minds people..that's my view on that.

Yes. Anyone who says "lack of evidence is evidence" in a trial such as this should be boiled, tarred and feathered. I will not do it. I do not encourage violence;) but you know what I mean.

Now, to your verbiage. Mj carries on a relationship with a wife? Come off it, TD. You are stretching here. MJ got married in his 40s twice. Everybody knows neither of those were really marriages that were supposed to camouflage anything. Lisa Presley was madness and Rowe was for the kids. Neither was long lasting. Neither could have misled even the most amateur of investigators so throwing that as a trait that indicts MJ in this profile of yours is rubbish. Jordy chandler was in 1993. Was MJ married before then? What? He wasn't a pedophile for jordy but suddenly bore the traits for gavin? Gimme a break!

Bloody Hell, TD. Heaven forbid anyone should think children are pure, innocent etc. Lock Angelina Jolie up while you are at it and lock Madonna up. Lock all the childrens charities up who use words like that and the exact words MJ uttered as their slogans for promoting their charities or encouraging people to help children. Unusual interest in children? Gimme a break!

I am not even going to touch the hobbies similar to children or the no friends his age story because I think we've covered that or at least I have covered that as a consequence of his childhood which is perfectly understandable to any reasonable person who is not looking at it as a piece of this ridiculous puzzle you have created.

Can you tell me what is unique about Mj's access to children? What special access can he have that others do not have? Plus, it can never be that he gravitates towards troubled children because he identifies with them and understands what they are going through and is just trying to help and make things easier for them because of his own experience. Give them the support, love and attention he did not have while they go through their difficulties? NO. It's gotta be some plan to screw them all. Again, gimme a bloody break!

TD, why have you convenienetly forgotten all the eye witness acounts that DO NOT support the claim that ANY of these children were molested. ESPECIALLY those by the alleged victims themselves such as culkin et al? Why have your rendered those invalid? Hmm? gimme a....BREAK!

Maybe MJ is guilty. I have no problem saying that, so it was a weak challenge if that is what it was. Maybe he is. I just happen to think he is NOT guilty. Why do I think Gavin is a liar? BECAUSE he has admitted lying under oath..because he has inconsistent statements and outright lies in his testimony..because THE FACT IS and the EVIDENCE proves that the boy is a liar.

Now, that a person is a proven liar does not mean they are lying all the time. However, seeing as his lies are present in this particular case and are ABOUT this particular case then it leads one to think that he is lying about this case. Whatever it is, he is not credible enough for us to convict a man on a case based on he said/he said when the accuser lacks the certain oomph to convince us that his version of events is the truth. Without ANY of us actually being in the room, I'm afraid, TD, sweetie, that's how we are gonna have to play this.

Sandra,

First, what I had said concerning lack of evidence is evidence was refering to the claim that Gavin's mom had planned this all from the beginning. I never said that lack of evidence was proof the MJ was guilty. My suggestion, which is all it was, is that had the mom planned this all out then she could have had Gavin ensure that 'more' evidence, ie: witness acounts, occured. If you want to use those words against me fine, but please do it in the same context I used them.

As far as the 'traits'. If you want to challenge them don't argue with me. Take it up with these people:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/pedophiles/7.html?sect=19

They wrote the traits, not me.

The fact is that MJ matches the characteristics of a pedophile according to people who study pedophiles.

As far as the testimony of witnesses, the jury can decide what they believe and what they don't. Personally, I don't think that you can discount the testimony of a 15 year old boy right off had because of a few inconsistencies, or even because he initially lied about the incedent. He's trying to remember the exact details of a series of tramatic assaults that happened years ago by someone he trusted, and he's being question by some of the best lawyers in the country. Many abused children have acted exactly in the same way.

But if that's your justification for inoccence then let's see MJ take the stand and be able to testify without the prosecution making it seem like there were inconsistencies in his testimony.

TD,

One seemingly important note lies in the "cycle of abuse". The abused child becomes the abuser or conversly seeks out another abuser to become co-dependant on. Why? Because they are raised that way. I have intimated here and elsewhere and continue to contend that MJ could take and pass a polygraph if asked only ONE question - Did you molest Gavin? I submit that MJ was absolutely being honest when he stated words to the effect of "Sharing your bed with someone is an act of love". I submit that MJ was himself sexually molested as a child on the road etc. and that the "Jackson Family" convinced him the actions were "love" not "evil" or inapropriate and therefore he truely believes that he did nothing wrong.

Again - if you are ALWAYS told that a behavior is normal to act otherwise would be abnormal. For MJ to act other than he has would be abhorant to him because he truely believes that what he did (again - providing he did it) was and is proper and normal.

If you raise a child from birth as a Jew and teach him or her all things Jewish in the strictest of senses, to ask that child later to believe that the Roman Catholic Religion is REALLY the only true religion - would be unthinkable.

So, if Joe and family are / were as incestuious as LaToya and others indicated, why not think that MJ truely believes himself innocent of ANY and ALL wrong doing?

Is the tar hot yet????

huh?

Are you agreeing with me, or disagreeing with me?


I believe MJ is guilty. And it would seem as if you do as well. So what's with the Tar reference?

Mr OLSEN,hi,what my good sir is your opinion on people posting news reports that are relevent to the post?.

Hi James, technically, you aren't supposed to copy whole stories from other sources (supposed to partially copy and provide link to original source), but since you are doing it for informational purposes only, the worst that would happen is we would be asked to take it down.

Thanks ERIC:-),I'll ignore jarboy then i think he's just looking for an arguement.

TD,

Absolutely agreeing with you - the reference to the Tar is that I am sure that MJ supporters will now want to have us both "boiled, tarred and feathered". It was an attempt at humor albiet a poor one and at showing solidarity with you.

Sorry that it wasn't more clear.

MATHIAS,You can't be arrested for having your opinion mate,:-)

James,

In the U.S. and most other countries that's true but without getting into another blog topic - there are still places where not only can you be arrested for a contrary opinion, but jailed, fined or executed.

Maybe we take that freedom too much for granted at times -

By the way - I am certain that with my frequently unpopular opinions I would have drawn and quartered, shot at dawn or stoned to death a long long time ago.

Thank you however for the vote of confidence - I thruely do appriciate it.

the list of ped characteristics sure is damning of MJ, but in a way it's irrelevant because the list is only a composite of chracteristics for the purposes of being wary, and only Japanese soldiers who haven't heard about the end of WW2 yet are unwary of Michael Jackson.

iraq anybody?,you can get killed for stealing a mars bar!.

or flushing a Koran

excuse my ignorance eric but is that a holy book?.

Mathias

ahhh,

That's kind of what I though. I have difficulty with the whole text-sarcasm thing.


Anyways, I'm not too afraid of the tar and feathers. Just don't make me look like Jacko.


That's a good point too about the ped characteristics eric. Let's just hope none of those soldiers have any 10 yr. old grandsons.

Go to about.com, search - "profile of a pedophile". You know, something just occurred to me...kinda funny(?), don't you think, that a man SO OBSESSED with germ's, shares his bed with children! LOL! It doesn't get much more intimate than that and children are not always the utmost hygenic, nor masterful when it comes to practicing germ prevention. Really makes you go, hmmm... btw, I wish you well, Macaulay Culkin - when you're ready to deal with your repressed memories about the abuse you suffered at the hand's of Michael Jackson, you'll find you won't have to 'self medicate', anymore, and will finally find the peace that still eludes you :( good luck - hopefully, the memories will resurface in time to prevent any further corruption of innocence at the hand's of MJ.

FindLaws Writ The Testimony of Michael Jackson's Former Attorney Mark Geragos

WWW.FINDLAW.com
Created: Monday, 23 May 2005

Why It Was Allowed to Happen, Why the Judge Was Irritated By It, and How It Undermined the DA's Conspiracy Case
By JONNA SPILBOR

It wasn't the first time Mark Geragos had swaggered into the Santa Maria Courthouse amid a flurry of cameras and fanfare. But for this veteran defense attorney and one-time lawyer for Michael Jackson, it was no ordinary day in court. On Friday, May 13 - day fifty-two of Jackson's child molestation trial, and day seven of the defense's case-in-chief - famed attorney Mark Geragos breezed past counsel table, and took a seat on the witness stand.
Geragos had represented Jackson from February 2003 until April 2004, when Jackson replaced him with his present counsel, Thomas Mesereau Jr. In this column, I will explain why Geragos was able to testify despite having once been Jackson's attorney, and discuss as well, the effect of his testimony - including why it severely undermines the conspiracy charges here.
Why Was Geragos Allowed to Testify?
The attorney-client privilege, as readers will be aware, guards against the unauthorized dissemination of confidential communications between a client and his lawyer, during the course of the lawyer's representation of the client.
It thus serves to prevent attorneys from discussing - let alone openly testifying about - such communications. If an attorney tries to do so without a client's consent, he may be silenced or sanctioned by the court - or even worse, disbarred. If an opposing attorney tries to elicit such communications - during a deposition or at trial - the attorney may object, and the judge will typically uphold the objection.
The client holds the privilege. That means the client can force the attorney to testify, despite the privilege, even if the attorney would rather not do so, just as he can prevent the attorney from testifying even if he would prefer to do that. In legal parlance, this means the privilege is the client's to "waive" or "assert."
Here, Jackson agreed to waive the privilege - but it turned out he sought to grant only a partial waiver. In other words, Jackson wanted to allow Geragos to testify about some - but not all - of their communications.
California law permits this kind of partial waiver - and rightly so. Attorneys often represent clients for more than one case, and/or more than one purpose. It makes sense, then, to allow clients to divide up their waivers of privilege, rather than to have to find a new attorney every time they have a new issue to discuss in order to preserve their waiver rights.
Forcing a client to choose between total waiver and no waiver at all could, in some cases, be grossly unfair. Clients should not have to give up confidentiality on one issue, to waive it on another issue.
The Judge's Reaction to the Way the Partial Waiver Was Asserted Here
When Geragos began his testimony, he informed the court that he had been told that Jackson intended to waive his privilege. Geragos also noted that that the waiver had not formally been made on the record, nor had it been reduced to writing - but, he said, it would be.
To either put the waiver on the record, or memorialize it in writing (with a copy to the judge, and one to the defense) from the start would have been good practice: If Jackson one day were to claim that Geragos violated the privilege, the written or otherwise recorded waiver would be a defense to that charge. Also, it would have fully informed the judge of the extent of the waiver.
Recall that Geragos had represented Jackson from February 2003 until April 2004. Jackson, it turned out, wanted to waive the privilege only from February 2003 to his arrest date, about nine months later- not all the way through April 2004. That is, Jackson wanted to keep post-arrest-date confidential conversations off-limits, while opening up prior communications for Geragos to discuss. Again, this is clearly permitted under California law.
However, the limited scope of the waiver was not made clear during Jackson's direct examination, by his own attorney, Mesereau. Only when assistant prosecutor Ron Zonen began cross-examination, did the limited nature of Jackson's waiver become clear. That happened when Geragos (quite properly) refused to answer a question that went outside the scope of the waiver.
All this reportedly "irritated" Judge Melville. He halted Geragos's testimony, cleared the jury from the courtroom, and ordered each side to submit briefs as to the validity of the "partial" waiver.
In so doing, Judge Melville ignored an option that would have allowed him to avoid all this briefing: Because Mesereau's direct examination stayed within the strict time frame of the waiver, Judge Melville could have simply held that Zonen's questions were beyond the scope of the direct examination - as, indeed, they were. Cross-examination cannot go beyond the scope of direct examination, for its only purpose is to try to raise questions about direct examination. If an attorney feels he has not gotten - or cannot get - far enough in cross-examination with a given witness, he is always free to call that witness to the stand himself, for direct examination. And if the witness is "hostile," he will get particular leeway on direct examination.
After briefing, Judge Melville said that he believed lead defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. had misrepresented the waiver; that he felt "deceived"; and that he had even considered "sanctions of some sort" against Mesereau. (The possibility of sanctions remains open, even now).
Nevertheless, Melville permitted Geragos to continue to testify under the qualified waiver, despite prosecutors' protests. At the same time, Melville forced Geragos to assert the attorney-client privilege after each and every question he refused to answer. That elicited quizzical sneers from the jury - meaning that, unfortunately, Melville's irritation at Mesereau, so far, may have ended up hurting only Jackson.
The more appropriate course would have been to limit the prosecutor's questions to the relevant time period, and uphold a general defense objection - asserted just once - to questions ranging outside that period.
Judge Melville's forcing Geragos to repeatedly object based on attorney-client privilege not only punished the client, Jackson, unfairly, it also represented a double standard within the trial. When the accuser's mother asserted her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when she was cross-examined as to whether she committed welfare fraud, the judge did not make her assert it over and over again - as Geragos had been forced to. After she once asserted the privilege, the judge made sure defense questions were off limits.
The same approach should have been taken with Geragos: Once he objected based on the limited waiver of the privilege, the judge should have made sure the prosecutors stayed within the bounds of the waiver.
Did Geragos's Testimony End the Prosecutors' Conspiracy Case?
After all of these procedural gyrations, the substance of Geragos's testimony proved a boon to the defense. In particular, it may well have been the last nail in the coffin for the conspiracy charges in this case.
These charges have been much less publicized that the charges that Jackson molested the accuser, a then-twelve-year-old cancer patient. They are based on allegations that Jackson and five "unindicted co-conspirators" together agreed to hold the boy and his family captive at Neverland.
According to prosecutors, the reason for this conspiracy was to force the boy and his family to participate in a video designed to undue the damage caused by the pop star's unflattering portrayal in the Martin Bashir documentary. In the now-infamous documentary, "Living with Michael Jackson," Jackson admitted to sharing the same bed with children - an admission that has been used against him in the molestation case.
By the time Geragos testified, the prosecution's conspiracy case had already been greatly weakened. The defense had established that when the accuser's mother claimed she was "falsely imprisoned" on Neverland's sprawling grounds, she managed to get her nails done, visit the dentist, and enjoy a "full body wax" off the estate. She did, complain, however, that she was being "followed" and surveilled. Until Geragos took the stand, the defense had not yet rebutted this testimony.
Geragos's testimony weakened the case for the conspiracy even further. It suggested there was no such conspiracy by Jackson. Indeed, it suggested that if any conspiracy was brewing, it was among members of the accuser's family, and its purpose was to "shake down" Jackson!
Geragos recounted learning that the accuser's mother had alleged sexual abuse against retail giant J.C. Penney, winning a large damage award, and observing that she insisted her children call Jackson "Daddy" - even though Jackson expressed discomfort about this. Based on information such as this, Geragos testified, he began to fear that his client was about to become a target.
So he hired private investigator Bradley Miller to keep tabs on the accuser and his family. No wonder, then, that the accuser's mother testified to "being followed" and surveilled; it was happening. But its purpose was legitimate - to prevent Jackson from being victimized - not conspiratorial (i.e. to prevent her from leaving the estate.)
Only after the accuser's mother realized she was being followed, did she leave the estate (interestingly, no one stopped her from leaving). Only then, did she make her claims of a conspiracy by Jackson.
My take? She knew the jig was up - and looked for a new method to profit from Jackson.
A Spill-Over Effect: Why Weakening the Conspiracy Claims Weakens the Molestation Claims Too
Not only did Geragos's testimony make short work of the conspiracy charges, it may have raised even more reasonable doubt on the molestation charges.
The arguably credible evidence in favor of these charges boils down to the testimony of two witnesses; the accuser and his younger brother. That's because the other witnesses who testified to molestation tended, as Mesereau has noted, to self-destruct on cross-examination.
The accuser's mother's testimony was a disaster. (How much reliance could a jury ever put on the testimony of someone who had to take the Fifth Amendment?) And even apart from this issue, the mother was not credible.
Meanwhile, none of the various Jackson employees who claimed molestation provided credible, compelling testimony, free of financial self-interest. Worse, some were clearly Jackson's enemies for reasons having nothing to with alleged molestation. And others claimed molestation of victims who later either swore, testifying for the defense, that they had never been molested or failed to show up at court.
So the molestation case comes down to this: Will the jury put all the adults' disagreements' aside, and believe these two kids?
There is, at this point, plenty of reason for them not to. After all, if this family was plotting to "shake down" the pop star, the kids' credibility is all but shot.
Of course, it's highly unlikely that the jury will find the children masterminded such an elaborate plan. But they may well find that the kids' influential mother roped them into it. After all, they and their sister have admitted lying before, to say what they thought their mother, or authority figures, wanted to hear.
The outcome? Absent a rabbit in the prosecution's hat, I predict Michael Jackson will be acquitted of all charges. Not only that, he may emerge with what all those who are criminally accused hope for: Vindication.
Vindication rarely comes from a not guilty verdict alone. But when a prosecution case is a debacle, as this one is, the defendant's victory can, indeed, seem to be vindication as well. If Jackson is acquitted, it won't be because the prosecution failed by a hair's breadth; it will be because the prosecution failed by a mile.

Jonna M. Spilbor is a frequent guest commentator on Court-TV and other television news networks, where she has covered many of the nation's high-profile criminal trials. In the courtroom, she has handled hundreds of cases as a criminal defense attorney, and also served in the San Diego City Attorney's Office, Criminal Division, and the Office of the United States Attorney in the Drug Task Force and Appellate units. In 1998, she earned certification as a Court Appointed Special Advocate with the San Diego Juvenile Court. She is a graduate of Thomas Jefferson School of Law, where she was a member of the Law Review.

very interesting James, thanks

Hi ERIC and thank you sir,i just thought the article was of great interest,and maybe shed some light on things:-)

I will attempt to regenerate my interest in the case, but lately it's just bash the Arvisos, and they are already well-bashed. I fear that Jacko may well be acquitted on all charges, and yet I do not have the sense that he is innocent, so that leaves me uneasy. I have never been convinced about the kidnapping conspiracy stuff and I think the weakness there has shed negative light on the molestation charges, which