The Michael Jackson child molestation trial touched upon almost everything we ponder: celebrity, fabulous wealth, the media, sensationalism, law, image, race, sex, eccentricity, a whole lot of cosmetic surgery, and oh yeah, he's a singer or something. We followed it.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - bhw
So, it would do society well if we could all learn to cultivate the habit of presuming people innocent until it's proven otherwise.
I see your point. However, there are quite a few vocal defenders of MJ's actual innocence -- not legal, presumed innocence. You are one of those people -- you won't even consider the possibility that he's guilty. You don't believe only in his legal innocence, you believe that he absolutely did not do it. You don't have all the facts, but you still have drawn a conclusion.
So in CA, the court has its work cut out for it to filter out not only those people who already believe he's guilty, but those rabid nutjob fans who already "know in their hearts" that he's innocent and completely incapable of the crime.
I believe it's possible he committed the crime. I also believe it's possible he didn't. Frankly, I'd be the perfect juror because I'd be willing to listen to both sides of the story with an open mind.
However, I find it understandable and I certainly need a lot more than what you have said to lead me to believe that sexual activities took place b/w MJ and some little boys.
I haven't tried to convince you or anyone of his guilt. In fact, I wrote an entry that made fun of the "big news" that MJs fingerprints were found on his own porn magazines. I don't know how solid the prosecution's evidence against him is. His and the boy's fingerprints on the same porn mags doesn't do it for me. Lots of kids find their parents "reading material" in the house. Doesn't mean much on its own.
Would you take ANY amount of money from a man you believe has molested your son? I can't imagine any mother wouldn't want to see that child molester locked up to prevent future children from being abused.
I very well might. As a parent, my job is to do what's in the best interest of my child FIRST and then worry about other people's children. I would already be living with a huge amount of guilt that I had put my child in a dangerous situation. So if my kid was going to be further traumatized by testifying to the sexual abuse in a room full of strange adults, then yes, I very well might take the settlement knowing that the perpetrator had paid at least some price and that the accusation had been reported and was on his record. Then if other parents, knowing that there were allegations of sexual abuse against this guy, decided to let their kid mooch off of him because he was a celebrity, then that's their problem and not mine. I would be comfortable in knowing that I had warned them very publicly.
Which is to say that the mother of the current accuser should be charged with child endangerment if MJ is found guilty. She allowed her kid to sleep with a grown man who'd been accused of sexual abuse: that's negligence and endangerment.
27 - JR
Sandra Smallson: You are a mother. Would you take ANY amount of money from a man you believe has molested your son? I can't imagine any mother wouldn't want to see that child molester locked up to prevent future children from being abused.
Wow, that's an astonishingly lame argument.
Andrea Yates was a mother. So was Susan Smith. And Joan Crawford. Do you really think you can generalize about what a mother would or wouldn't do?
28 - bhw
Hey, JR, thanks for lumping me in with the pyscho mothers from hell. ;-)
But it's a good point. Let's turn the scenario around: I can't imagine that any mother would let her kid sleep over at MJs house after the original accusations had been made in 1993. And yet it has happened.
Would you let your kid sleep at the home of an accused molester who had paid off the accuser?
I wouldn't.
29 - Sandra Smallson
First of Eric, I have no inside knowledge whatsoever. I am simply leaning towards innocence as firmly as YOU have been leaning towards guilt. Perhaps you need to read your various posts on the matter as to refresh your memory on what you have written. If you think your posts lead anyone to infer that you have "suspended judgment" till Trial..read'em again:) Also, Please enlighten me on the "KNOWN FACT" that leads you to believe he sexually molested boys.
30 - Sandra Smallson
BHW: I think you are a tad misguided. Somewhere in one of my posts, I clearly stated that, "should the trial start, and doubts are raised in my mind, I would be the first person to state them. You can bet on that"..Surely, that comment leads anyone thinking clearly to infer that I HAVE considered the possibility that he might be guilty. Surely, that comment leads anyone with any level of understanding to know that what I am saying is, "Don't give me this poppycock nonsense, show me something concrete"..???..Therefore, you accusing me of drawing a conclusion is based on shaky grounds, dontcha think?!
Again, YOU need to re-read your posts if you think you would be the perfect Juror. You would be the worst possible Juror they could get in there. Bloody hell! Read your posts again. Perhaps we all need to refresh our memories on what exactly it is we've been writing.
Wow. So, YOU will consider taking the money. You don't want your child to go through the public trauma. I am guessing you don't want your family to go through the public scrutiny.
Yet, you can not see how Jackson might have also paid off these scavengers for the very same reason? You can not see how he wouldn't want to go through the unnecessary scrutiny? You can not see how he would have thought this whole trial would harm his career at the time or take up far too much time. You cannot see how he would have thought "If I pay them, sooner or later it won't be front page news but if there's a Trial, it will be front page News for a year"? You can not see Jackson considering these things and deciding to pay the boy. Therefore, you list it as one of the reasons why people have started with a presumption of guilt? Do you see how warped your reasoning on this matter is?
As to your last point, If Jackson is found guilty, then the mother of the child must be prosecuted as well. I have no argument with you there.
JR: That comment of mine is no more lame than your comparison. Those women were killers whether because they were evil or because of one psychological problem or the other. Like I said, I can not believe any mother would take money as compensation from a man who quite frankly, raped her child. If you find that argument lame, then there must be something wrong with you.
BH..you can't even understand your own posts. So, because Jackson was an "accused" therefore he is a child molester in your eyes and your kid can't stay there? Has it entered your head that these mothers quite rightly do not believe the accuser and so allow their children to sleep over? Hmm? So, every accused is now tainted for life? And you think you are the perfect Juror? You are a nightmare for the Legal system and woe unto the defender whose case you are to judge.. Jeez, come on!
Jackson defenders are rabid nut jobs? His attackers are??? Don't make me laugh. You so think he is guilty it's not even difficult to discern. You can't even fathom how he might be innocent. I pity the defender whose case you are selected for.
31 - bhw
BHW: I think you are a tad misguided.
But not about MJ.
I do not know if Michael Jackson is guilty or not.
Anyone keeping count?
Somewhere in one of my posts, I clearly stated that, "should the trial start, and doubts are raised in my mind, I would be the first person to state them. You can bet on that"..Surely, that comment leads anyone thinking clearly to infer that I HAVE considered the possibility that he might be guilty.
Not when you counter it with the number of times you have asserted your *certainty* of his actual [not legal] innocence. I honestly believe that nothing would convince you of his guilt, even his own confession. You'd explain it away with his naivete or something.
Wow. So, YOU will consider taking the money.
Yep.
You don't want your child to go through the public trauma. I am guessing you don't want your family to go through the public scrutiny.
Sandra, this was a hypothetical. It has not actually happened, and yet you imply that I have something in my family to hide. Oh the SCREAMING FUCKING IRONY of you trying to JUDGE me on what I said I'd CONSIDER doing in a hypothetical situation.
Just for fun, how about you apply that same level of judgment to what is factually known about good ol' MJ at this point?
But I stand by what I said. I'd definitely consider taking the money and dropping the criminal case if I thought my kid would not be able to handle the pressures of a trial on top of the trauma of having been abused.
So, because Jackson was an "accused" therefore he is a child molester in your eyes and your kid can't stay there?
Partly right. 1) My kid can't stay there. 2) If I did not know for sure that the accused was in fact innocent, and that's all the information I had to work with, then s/he's as good as guilty when it comes to getting close to my kids.
In MJ's specific case, the accusation coupled with the lack of public scrutiny of all the evidence make this a *potentially* dangerous situation for my child. My job is to protect my kid and err on the side of caution. No sleepovers for him at MJ's. They'll both have to find friends their own age.
You can not see how he wouldn't want to go through the unnecessary scrutiny?
Sure I can. But he'd rather bury the charges than prove his innocence. If I'd been falsely accused of a heinous crime, I'd want my name cleared. I'd want to show the world that the accuser was lying. I'd hold my head up and defend myself.
You can not see how he would have thought this whole trial would harm his career at the time or take up far too much time.
The career was already tanking. And as for time, how much time is your reputation worth?
You cannot see how he would have thought "If I pay them, sooner or later it won't be front page news but if there's a Trial, it will be front page News for a year"?
Not really. The better scenario is that his lawyers convinced him not to take a chance in a criminal court -- you never know about those juries! -- and to prevent the criminal trial from ever taking place. If the kid drops the charges and they stay dropped until the statute of limitations runs out, then MJ never has to face the prospect of going to jail. I thought defense lawyers always tried to get the charges dropped if they could so they'd be assured that their client couldn't be found guilty of anything.
Where does this reasoning fit the scenario: If these were false accusations, then paying the accuser is acquiescing to extortion. By paying, some people think it looks like MJ would rather be extorted and leave the tawdry accusations floating in the air than show them to be false AND thereby prevent another extortion -- like the one we potentially have right now -- from occurring. If he'd gone to court and been found not guilty, this second boy's accusations would probably have fallen on somewhat deaf ears, don't you think?
Has it entered your head that these mothers quite rightly do not believe the accuser and so allow their children to sleep over?
It has occurred to me that they think they *know for sure* that MJ didn't do anything wrong, whereas I continue to understand that I don't *know* if he did or not. In the absence of conclusive evidence, my kid sleeps at home. In their case, in the absence of conclusive evidence, they're willing to take the risk with their kids. That's their perogative.
So, every accused is now tainted for life?
If the facts are not completely out in the open AND my child comes into play, then yes, someone accused is tainted for life. In the case of accused child molestors getting near my kids, I need to KNOW that the accusations were false, not just work on the legal presumption of innocence. That's a completely different set of conditions/standards than the ones MJ should be legally held to. I'm just talking as a parent.
Jackson defenders are rabid nut jobs?
Um, yes, especially the ones who have traveled to CA from around the globe to stand outside the courtroom and hold up signs declaring his innocence.
You so think he is guilty it's not even difficult to discern.
I don't know if MJ is guilty or not. I believe that he might be factually innocent or guilty, and that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt for him to be found legally guilty.
You can't even fathom how he might be innocent.
See above.
I pity the defender whose case you are selected for.
I don't, because I can keep an open mind and wait until the facts are in before making statements like, " I do not think for a moment that MJ molested that boy."
32 - Eric Olsen
Sandra, here's why I think he is a pedophile, and please note I said "think" - not "know," not "am certain": his emotional dependency upon children is not in dispute. He's Peter Pan, he never grew up, etc etc. From what I have read and observed from a variety of sources, there appears to me to be a sexual element to it, and it appears to involve boys, whom he treats very differently than girls.
In addition to that, he truly does not seem to be in touch with reality; his judgment is incomprehensibly bad, which leads me to believe that he may not even KNOW where the line is between appropriate and inappropriate behavior and relationships.
Examples: his statement for all the world in the Bashir film that it is normal and loving, etc to sleep with children not his own.
The "baby-dangle": "Whee! I'm Michael Jackson - the fucking rules of gravity don't apply to me or to anything I touch. The baby and I could fly off this balcony right now if I wanted to. Whee!"
From anyone else, this would be considered insane. Other examples of dangerously bad judgment are myriad and manifest: it's a plain as the nose on his face.
33 - bhw
Or the one that used to be.
34 - Eric Olsen
exactly my point
this kind of seemingly compulsive self-disfigurement -- "Who me? I haven't done anything to my appearance (maybe one nose job way back), and the skin color? That's a condition! Are you going to make fun of my condition? That's hurtful! -- shows extreme lack of judgment, lack of touch with reality, and he has lied pathologically about it, denying repeatedly what anyone in the solar system can see as plain as day: he has had dozens and dozens of surgical procedures which have transformed him a completely different person.
35 - Sandra Smallson
Eric sweetie, I DID NOT ask you to tell me why you think MJ is guilty. I asked you to enlighten me on these "KNOWN FACTS" that you claimed existed that would lead to an inference of guilt. I suggest you read your posts again. I am waiting...
BHW, should MJ confess, I would believe he is guilty. Should evidence contested in Trial raise doubts in my mind and not evidence on smokinggun.com or from Mr drudge, I may consider him guilty. I believe I have said this in a previous post.
BHW, temper, temper! I was not judging you. Calm down. What I meant by protecting your family from public scrutiny is that, I guess and assume that would be something a person willing to take money from the man who raped their child would take into consideration.I am saying"you" because I am discussing with YOU. Okay? Calm down.
I also stand by my point of understanding MJ paying off the nuisance. With people like you around, judging him for his nose and baby dangling, no verdict would have been good enough to clear his name. No evidence goood enough. The ALLEGATION alone is good enough for you, Eric and your ilk, so it was a no win situation and he went with the one that spared him all the drama. I can certainly understand that.
We will have to agree to disagree on your qualities as a prospective Juror:)
36 - Eric Olsen
Sandra, love muffin, we all know the same facts, it is my interpretation of those facts that leads me to believe he is a phile of peds
37 - Sandra Smallson
Eric, for the sake of accuracy I have posted your comment on which I would like you to elaborate on. Enlighten me on what facts that are known, that make it seem more likely that he SEXUALLY MOLESTED little boys. Please try not to give me why you "think"..I am well aware of your opinions on his behaviour and appearance. Try to stick to these "known facts" that you say exist. Here is your quote;
"Is it possible that there has never been any sexual aspect to his relationship with children, and specifically boys? Yes it is, but to me it seems unlikely and contrary to the facts that ARE known."
38 - Not2Curious George
Sandra = Smegma ?
39 - Sandra Smallson
Ah, Eric, honey crumbs, you posted as I was posting so I didn't get to read your response. Hmm. Am I to understand that your "Known facts" are that MJ sleeps in bed with little boys. Has mainly litle boys as friends. Disfigured his face and skin. Dangled his baby from a balcony.. and all the other weird and eccentric things he does? These things now lead us to believe he is a Pedophile? Is that your submission? Tut,Tut, babe. I gave you far more intellectual credit than that. I am disappointed in you, not for the first time:)
40 - sadi
several of these children were and are able to describe his penis, from what i read and more, their descriptions matched what the cops apparently photographed. Awful as the thought is of having one's genitals photographed etc etc. and being handled that way, i think Jackson has given ample evidence that he has perhaps behaved more than a little inappropriately toward young boys. As i said, the genital describing, the fingerprints on the porn magazine, the sleeping in the same beds, etc. - and no, it would not be normal even for a biological father to sleep in the same bed as his thirteen year old girl or boy - it would be WEIRD. Just my opinion. The rest , about MJ's genitals, has been proven again and again and it's awful and sad, but that's enough evidence for me.
Have i convicted him, no. But i would NEVER let my son stay at his house and nor would i have anything to do with him. You tell mehow a young kid can describe the skin markings on an adult's genitals - it's weird. and if he does have vitiligo as he says he does, then the depigmentation of skin would make sense and would also appear first on the hands and genitals (i had a friend who had this and am a medical writer) these are where it shows up first. So, if his skin is naturally whitening as he claims, then his penis would be losing pigmentation as well as these kids have claimed to see.
Isn't that kind of weird that they say the same things and know this? To me, that's more than enough.
I'm with Dawn, Eric and the rest here. Sorry....but this is enough for me to say "no." Sure, i'll wait until the trial is over and try to keep and open mind, but given what we know to be fact, that is pretty hard to do --
41 - Eric Olsen
the endless sleepovers, the fixation on one child at a time (and NEVER a girl), the routine of looking at sexual material with said boys, the '93 payoff, the Bashir doc, his effeminacy and gender nullification through surgery clothing makeup etc
42 - sadi
& etc etc ad infinitum...
43 - Eric Olsen
I remember being told in 1980 by a co-worker whose husband was in the entertainment biz (this was in L.A.) that Michael Jackson was "sweet," which at that time and place meant something very different than it does now. I said no way. She said "he likes young boys." This was 25 years ago - it appears she was right.
44 - HW Saxton
I'd suggest to anyone with any doubts of
MJ's guilt go to www.thesmokinggun.com
and read the police reports from the '93
case.There is just NO way this kid could
make up the kind of shit that freakboy
MJ is supposed to have said.
Of course MJ wasn't guilty of that one
though either.Rather than spend all that
money on a lawyer to clear his mentally
unbalanced ass ($16,17 Million?)MJ just
thought it would be gracious of him to
pay the kid off for all the problems he
caused for him right?Yeah sure,thats it.
45 - Eric Olsen
I agree HW, it does seem very difficult, though not impossible I suppose, to believe that all of this stuff, over all this time, is just made up out of thin air
46 - bhw
Wow, I didn't realize The Smoking Gun had the '93 police reports.
47 - Eric Olsen
that's a fairly recent addition
48 - bhw
Those TSG guys are amazing in their ability to get their hands on stuff.
49 - Sandra Smallson
Sadi, my young cousin can describe my breasts. I have never molested the boy. He can simply describe my entire naked body in fact because he has seen it. If I am baby sitting and having a shower, I do not lock my doors, nor do I lock it while dressing up. Now, perhaps when he gets to round about 13 onwards, I will think twice about that, but I do not see the kid's "ALLEGED" ability to describe MJ's genitals as some sort of smoking gun. As far as quoting smoking gun? Enough said. They are as fair, balanced and unbiased as Fox News. You know what that means...NOT AT ALL.
I believe the 1993 boy will be called to testify? I hope so. Look, you guys fail to see the point. If MJ truly molested these kids and the Prosecution have the evidence to prove it, it won't take too long for that to become obvious once the Trial starts. Nopne of you know what the Defense counter'evidence is. Keep reading Smoking gun, Fox and drudge. Add that to your opinions on the wierdness of MJ nd convict him of sexually molesting this little boy.
I have seen or heard nothing to lead me to believe that he did. I would like to hear the Defense case first which, no thanks to people with the reasoning process of you lot, is something society provides. If the Defense does not counter the prosecution claims with anything concrete, THEN I will begin to have doubts. Till then, I am afraid I can not conform to the school of thought that subscribes to the notion that a person who looks strange and acts in a way I consider strange is a child molester when there is nothing that has been leaked that can not be countered pretty easily.
It's a shame the trial won't be televised. I would have loved to see this boy on the stand along with his mother and hopefully the 1993 boy.
50 - HW Saxton
Sandra, "smokinggun.com" has nothing to
do with bias towards either party.They
just have the reports available for the
perusal of anyone who's interested .Take
what you want out of what you read but
they are not defending anybody nor are
they really trying to crucify anybody.
Besides, who does not take a cheap shot
at MJ these days anyway?It's not always
appropriate but can be awfully funny at
times nonetheless.
In regards to Michaels willie: The fact
the kid can describe it,discoloration &
all,is not a good thing in my book.Just
why would MJ be undressed around them in
the first place for any extended length
of time ??? I don't know that Michael J.
did anything (anymore than anyone else
does at this point in time) and I truly
hope he IS innocent because then it is
one less child who has been hurt & who
has to carry the spiritual/psychological
scarring of this physical manifestation
of anothers mental illness(es).
Harold
51 - Sandra Smallson
Harold, I am in complete agreement with you on the issue of MJ being naked infront of those kids. I think it is completely inappropriate. I am also in agreement with you that, this doesn't lead to the conclusion that he played with their own genitals. The issue of what discolouration, size or mole they can describe on the genital is something I will not believe until the Prosecution present their pics of his genitals and we are certain that the 1993 boy's testimony stands true. The current accuser, I don't care about because I wouldn't put it past Sneddon to have shown the boy and/or his mother those pics that they supposedly have.
Now, I also hope MJ is innocent. Not only will it mean one less child scarred, it would also mean one less celebrity saved from the greed of poverty stricken individuals. Saved from blackmail and extortion. We await the Trial.
52 - TDavid
If the glove fits, they won't acquit. Sandra, I'll enjoy reading what you have to say when MJ's verdict is read -- either way: goat or gloat.
53 - Robert Maxey
I suppose I should jump in and defend Mike Jackson. I am not saying he is completely innocent, but like it or not, he deserves a fair (yes, I am also laughing) trial. He should stop acting like a self-absorbed superstar. Those days are gone.
To be clear, I think Jackson has problems, but he also needs his time in court. Anything less hurts us all in the end.
I do wonder about the all star lineup on the Jackson defense witness list. If you Google those on the list, you will discover that as a group, the list has had their share of problems with the law. What the prosecution does not know, will likely be dug up. The witnesses should fear what their friends and minions have to say to a tabloid with a large checkbook.
You can bet the prosecution will (or can) use the problems of the Jackson witnesses to their favor, and it will not bode well for these witnesses.
Bob Maxey - Salt Lake City, Utah
54 - DrPat
Anyone else hear that the jury selection is complete? (I heard a brief bit on the radio this morning, and nothing more...)
Apparently it consists of 8 women and 4 men, and the news commentator made a point that "none of [them] are black."
55 - Eric Olsen
yes, you're correct DrPat, that was super quick, just five court days.
56 - DrPat
Rats, Eric - the link appears to be broken. Either that, or it's another site that requires pop-up windows enabled. [grin]
57 - Eric Olsen
don't know what the link problem was but I took it out
58 - DrPat
Your latest should be linked here though: Michael Jackson Jury Selected Quickly. Thanks again!
59 - lillian
I've been apathetic about the whole thing from the start for the main reason that there has been so MUCH to happen surrounding jackson. Yesterday I was reading an erotic lit site of all things and found a 'michael jackson' rant that brought everything together into one harshly realistic article. It was not what I was expecting to read but even though it was crude it made sense out of what I feel. Looking back at his life I have to believe he is guilty and also disturbed. The article was on darkeyeddemon.com. If you're unsure read it. It's mean but it's good.
60 - Eric Olsen
thanks Lillian, I have taken a break from reporting on the first couple days of the trial because it's been nothing new so far, and I am sick of it already, but we will return to the appalling mess shortly
61 - DrPat
Defense attorneys have opened the case with blanket denials: "Michael Jackson's lawyer told jurors in a powerful opening statement Tuesday that authorities found no DNA evidence in the entertainer's bedroom to support child molestation charges and had to change the dates of the alleged crimes because the accuser's story changed."
62 - lynn
what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
There are so many scumbags out there trying to get money in any way they can.
I don't believe any of the tainted crap on TV. I believe MJ is such a kind-hearted and sincere person, he is and has been taken advantage of.
Michael Jackson may be very different, and probably not understood by most people, but it is his life to live as he sees it. Why are people so afraid of individuals who are different?
People who have to put other people down do it to make themselves feel better. I cannot see Michael Jackson causing harm to anyone or anything.
63 - swingingpuss
Lynn, I agree with you. There is nothing wrong with a grown man admitting that he likes to sleep with kids in the same bed. Most of us put locks on master bedroom just to keep the tykes out but its party time in MJ's bed.
Innocent my ass!
64 - lynn
swinging pus, let me just guess
you are from a RED state, in case you don't know what that means, it alludes to "uninformed, uneducated, narrow-minded, red-neck, chicken-fried steak-eatin' W-lovin' homophobic."
Now, I feel better!
65 - sydney
lynn,
choose your attacks on the republicans more wisely! We can't be identified as supporting micheal jackson.
Innocent or not, he clearly isn't sane. HE's as fucked up as they come and given his history, it wouldn t surprise me if he was a pedophile.
Ar you sure you arn't caught up in your 80's MJ fandom?
66 - swingingpuss
If you are done throwing muck left right and center, I guess your naive, bilious temperament clearly show you to be one of the parents who would love to put your child in bed with the snow white MJ.
Your visceral reaction shows you lack the ability to participate in rational discussion. Calling your beloved MJ for what he is does not make me a homophobe. The homosexuals I know do not go around preying on young children - they would horrified to be mentioned in the same breath as Michael Jackson.
Oh, BTW, I love chicken fried steak, don't ya?
67 - Aaman
Lynn, that playbook you've got - get rid of it. It sucks
No intelligent person, liberal or not, would connect gay-bashing or homophobic attitudes with the MJ brouhaha.
68 - james
Hi peeps i dont want to cause any friction but it's now the 6th of march and there has been the first week of trial. I am admitedly a huge mj fan but i haven't got my head in the clouds if he was found guilty then i would wash my hands of anything to do with him. BUT! the trial so far has looked EXACTLY like this is a conspiracy plot (so far) the prosecution witnesses have said nothing i have thought sounded alarming. Bear in mind one of the witnesses was the alleged victims sister and all she could say was that she was too young to remember exactly what was going on come on she's 18yrs old and the boys sister are you telling me if there was something going on she wouldn't know what was going on the family are con artists and i can back this theory up. I don't know if any of you heard about them claiming handouts of celebs like eddie murphy,chris tucker,and others for the supposed treatment of there very ill son. The fact is and this is documented! is that the alleged victim was in fact getting free treatment in a hospital anyway under the families insurance so she didn't in fact need the 300,000 she collected for the so called hospital bills. That's a crime in it's self hope iv'e not lost lost the run of what i'm trying to say but this case could either make or break a human being that has been in the spotlight since he was a kid and in the guinnes book of records for his efforts with children i sincerely hope he's innocent but 'IF' proven beyond a doubt that he's guilty i'd have to accept it to be honest it's DODGY FROM BOTH SIDES! oh well better stop doing your heads in and have agood night all. james in telford ,england
69 - Sandra Smallson
James, I could not agree more. I have been looking for an MJ post discussing, poster's views on the Trial so far and I can't find any. Here I was, on my travels, without the internet, thinking I was missing some great Jacko debates on Blogcritics...:)
Like, you've said, nothing in the first week has raised even half a second of doubt in my mind. I find myself thinking, sooner or later one of these coached Arvizo people is going to crack on the stand. The sister herself is ditzy if the transcrpits are anything to go by. Sneddon probably felt like punching her when Mj's lawyer dismantled her on cross examination.
As for the SIX day PR person, she was just proof to me that the prosecution are desperate for witnesses and corroboration. She had never met MJ, never spoken to him, never been to NeverLand..what the hell does she know?! She was there to testify on Hearsay evidence and this Judge has lost his mind. The amount of Hearsay evidence he has allowed in in the first week alone is enough to have the verdict thrown out should it go the way of the Prosecution. It is ridiculous. He allows it in "furtherance blah blah blah" RUBBISH. None of the evidence goes to the truth of the allegation so whay are we allowed to hear it? Are all the people quoted going to be called? NO. So, it should not be allowed. Not even in America.
A pundit who has come round to my point of view said " it seems MJ is going to be judged for what he is, not what he did". I couldn't have said it better myself. Of course MJ is a lunatic. What are all those dolls about. The man is a wierdo. God help us. That's who he is though. It is clear a deprived childhood is his prob. Since he was 4 years old, he's been on stage with a less than supportive father. Donny and Marie had good parents. MJ had JOE. What about that, don't people understand?!
The boy has issues...but did he get Gavin drunk so he could touch him sexually? NO. I bloody hope the Prosecution have got more than they have leaked and they have shown so far. If we are already hearing from the family last week and this week..surely, there can't be anything else?! Just bitter ex workers, probably coming to do their Amber Fry moment so they can get Gloria Alred to get them a book deal. Poppycock! Set MJ free and let's be done with this circus.
70 - DrPat
Sandra, we give our authorities extraordinary latitude in cases involving children. This informs the judge's decision to allow the hearsay testimony, I'm sure.
That it is heard does not mean that it will have inordinate weight - TV courtroom dramas notwithstanding.
71 - james
Thanks for taking the time to read what i think sandra i will be watching the case very closely and try not to read the tabloids as they put the story that sells the best. I have a gut feeling mj will come out of this exhonerated and that his career will sky rocket again. I hope there are some constuctive arguements on this case and i think there is no need to get to insulting about peoples views whether for or against we need more stars like mj to get things across to people hope to confer with you and anybody else over the coming trial. I'm 27yrs old and have been a fan since i first heard thriller and i watched moonwalker 9 times! in the cinema with various friends ttfn:-)
72 - Sandra Smallson
Dr Pat, don't be naive. Hearsay has been allowed in many instances in this Trial that it makes a nonsense of the rule itself. Do not sight unknown exceptions.
(Vinny told Ann that they would make the woman look like a crack whore? Mr X said it was "contained"...)
Is there any evidence that MJ's people have tried to make the woman look like a crack whore? Has the Prosecution even said that?
Have Mj's people accused her of anything she DID NOT DO? NO. At least they HAVE evidence to back up whatever they paint the woman and her children to be. So, what is the point of this evidence? Why is Sneddon asking? He KNOWS that it could be thrown out as Hearsay Evidence but Jurors are humans Doc Pat. To think that they will not give any and everything they hear in the Court room any consideration in their deliberations because the Judge instructs them not to, is to display your naivety in the extreme. That is why Lawyers say things they know will be objected to. You just put it out there. Surely even you, must know that.
Nevermind the misuse of the Shield Law during Bashir's testimony. There has been some serious misuse of the Law in this case so far, one must note.
Now, Star has taken the stand. It all seems very damning what he has said BUT his inconsistensies are already showing and he hasn't even been cross examined yet. His story is not standing up to Gavin's story. They can't get their stories right it seems..this is just the beginning I suspect.
He SAW MJ molest his brother twice? Why did he not tell the mother the first time? How come he went and slept on the bed the second time? Depending on who you are listening to, it's pyjamas or nudity. Depending on Gav or Star, the first night in Neverland was either spent in Mj's bedroom or in a hotel..Bloody hell! Get your story right, kids!
Gav was sleeping and Mj was playing with him. Star was watching all this and didn't scream? All this happened in the dark. Star said he was just in the room for a second, or two? Oh, sorry, 4 seconds he later confirmed. He watched this happening to his brother and having been allegedly abused by his own father, he did nothing, not even scream or try to stop MJ so we can at least hear evidence of Mj trying to stop him. He saw MJ was aroused. This happened in the dark BUT, STAR with the bionic eyes saw MJ's arousal....mind you, all this happened within 4 seconds. Count, my darlings..FOUR SECONDS, FOUR SECONDS which can go by in the blink of an eye and Star Arvizo wants us to believe he saw all this and all this happened and he went to join his sister in the guestroom without saying a word. My goodness, he might as well be a co-defendant..almost an accomplice. A good lawyer could argue that for the sake of sarcasm.
Also, he didn't tell momma..and still went two days later to SLEEP on the SAME BED with the SAME MAN, in the SAME ROOM. It gets more ridiculous as it goes on. Mind you, he hasn't even been cross examined yet. Doesn't Sneddon give them their Grand Jury depositions so they can at least be consistent?
This is a family of false accusers. They have made the same accusations before. Sexual molestation, false imprisonment and what have you.
I am so looking forward to Gavin on the stand..the last time I looked forward to something like this was in 2000 as Sampras was about to break the all time tennis Grand Slam record. I have that same level of anticipation.
Gavin can't take the stand soon enough if you ask me.
73 - Eric Olsen
I don't really know how the case is going because we can't hear the testimony directly, only through the interpretation of writers who are there, which I think is an extreme disservice to the public.
It's extremely sad either way, I think: either Jackson did these things or this family is lying out its ass about extremely sick and serious things
74 - bhw
Jeffrey Toobin did a good analysis of the opening statements. He noted that the alleged molestations took place after that weird documentary of Jackson was made public:
Another very interesting fact that came out today was -- you know, the prosecution's theory of the case is that, when this interview ran, it created panic in the Jackson environment, for good reason. That's when the DA began its investigation. The media descended. The children's protective services in Los Angeles, they were investigating.
What the defense pointed out, which the prosecution tried to sort of get around, was that the abuse in this case was alleged to have taken place after all these investigations started, that the two allegations of abuse only took place after all these people were investigating -- which is peculiar, to say the least.
And the Smoking Gun has the details on the discrepancies in the accuser's brother's versions of what happened. Some of it, I think, can be chalked up to the fact that he's a kid and was only about 10 at the time. But he first said that MJ just touched his brother on the outside of his clothes. Then he changed it to say it was under his clothes.
So I think the defense has some stuff to work with.
75 - Eric Olsen
certainly there are angles being worked on all sides here and no one is spotless