Former child star Macaulay Culkin, 24, is on the witness stand in the Michael Jackson trial today and has denied that the singer ever did anything improper to him, calling the accusation "absolutely ridiculous." He added, "I've never seen him do anything improper with anyone."…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - sandra smallson
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.
77 - td
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.
78 - Mathias
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????
79 - td
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?
80 - james mclafferty
Mr OLSEN,hi,what my good sir is your opinion on people posting news reports that are relevent to the post?.
81 - Eric Olsen
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.
82 - james mclafferty
Thanks ERIC:-),I'll ignore jarboy then i think he's just looking for an arguement.
83 - Mathias
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.
84 - james mclafferty
MATHIAS,You can't be arrested for having your opinion mate,:-)
85 - Mathias
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.
86 - Eric Olsen
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.
87 - james mclafferty
iraq anybody?,you can get killed for stealing a mars bar!.
88 - Eric Olsen
or flushing a Koran
89 - james mclafferty
excuse my ignorance eric but is that a holy book?.
90 - td
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.
91 - Jim Jackson
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.
92 - james mclafferty
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.
93 - Eric Olsen
very interesting James, thanks
94 - james mclafferty
Hi ERIC and thank you sir,i just thought the article was of great interest,and maybe shed some light on things:-)
95 - Eric Olsen
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 I still find convincing.
96 - james mclafferty
Fair comment ERIC,i actually now, think gavin AND mj are both innocent parties, and that the mother is behind all this. I might be wrong but that is just a thought don't you think?
97 - Eric Olsen
the mother sucks and always has, but does she suck harder than Michael and his henchmen? I don't know.
98 - james mclafferty
Day 59 Mother of the Accuser Admitted Fraud to Paralegal in Prior Case and Taught Children to Lie.
WWW.MJJSOURCE,
WWW.AP
Created: Wednesday, 25 May 2005
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Day 59 was a day of star-studded testimony Tuesday from "Rush Hour" star Chris Tucker and "Tonight Show" host Jay Leno. However, in the midst of the celebrity witnesses, a paralegal named Mary Holzer offered the most stunning information concerning the fraudulent past of the mother of the accuser and how she taught her children to lie in a former case which she received a large amount of money.
At the end of the day, lead defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. said Mr. Tucker would be the final defense witness. After he finishes, the defense was expected to formally rest its case, and prosecutors will begin a rebuttal that is expected to last at least a day.
Mr. Jackson's attorneys will then be given an opportunity to respond, followed by closing arguments, which probably won't begin before next week.
As he left court Tuesday, Mr. Jackson declined to discuss the decision not to testify. Instead, he smiled, pressed his palms together and said he couldn't comment.
But speculation that he might take the witness stand was fueled by Mr. Mesereau's remark during his opening statement that jurors would hear from Mr. Jackson on certain issues.
They did hear from Mr. Jackson when his attorneys played nearly three hours of videotaped interviews with the entertainer in which he talked about his feelings for children, which he said were innocent and loving.
"I haven't been betrayed or deceived by children," he said at one point. "Adults have let me down."
Mr. Tucker, who costarred with Jackie Chan in the "Rush Hour" movies, testified Tuesday that he met Mr. Jackson's accuser at a benefit while the boy was battling cancer in 2000. He said the boy's father introduced himself at the Laugh Factory comedy club in Hollywood and asked him to take part.
Mr. Tucker recalled how the boy once called him asking for money to help cover the costs of his treatment for cancer, even though jurors have heard that the alleged victim was covered by medical insurance.
Mr. Tucker said that a few days after the benefit the boy told him it hadn't made any money, so he wired "probably $1,500 or more" to a foundation for the family.
Mr. Tucker said he also took the boy's family to an amusement park and on shopping trips to a mall.
Another celebrity, television comedian Jay Mr. Leno, said the boy had called him several times in 2000 or 2001.
Mr. Leno told jurors that he thought at the time the boy was after money even though he never asked for it directly.
Mr. Leno, who said he makes many calls to ill children, said he grew suspicious when he began receiving overly effusive voice mail messages from the boy in 2000. He said he thought it strange that a 12-year-old would tell a comedian in his 50s that he was his hero.
"I'm not Batman," Mr. Leno said, to laughter throughout the courtroom.
Mr. Leno said the boy left so many messages that he finally approached comedian Louise Palanker, a friend who was among several comedians helping the boy's family.
"I said, 'What's the story here? This doesn't sound like a 12-year-old. This seems a little scripted,'" Mr. Leno testified. But Mr. Leno said the boy never asked for money and he never gave him any, though he did send "Tonight Show" memorabilia and a picture.
The defense has said Mr. Leno was so concerned about the boy's calls that he called police, but Mr. Leno said Tuesday it was police who contacted him. He said he probably did tell police he believed the family was looking for money.
"In the business I'm in you hear from a lot of crazy people and I'm reluctant to follow up. But when it's a child I do follow up," he testified.
Jurors took special notice, craning their heads to watch, as the bookend star witnesses arrived in court, but it was a paralegal named Mary Holzer who offered the most compelling defense evidence Tuesday.
Mary Holzer, an assistant for a lawyer who once represented the family told jurors the alleged victim's mother appeared to have coached her children to lie under oath in a civil lawsuit that later earned the family 150,000 dollars.
Ms. Holzer said she became friendly with the accuser's mother in 1999, when the family sued JCPenney after they were assaulted in a parking lot by security guards. Ms. Holzer was an office manager and paralegal at the personal injury law firm that represented the family in its civil suit.
Mr. Jackson's defense claims that the mother is a con artist who coerces her children to lie as part of her fraudulent plots. Mr. Mesereau suggested during the mother's testimony that her bruises in evidentiary photographs used to secure the $152,000 settlement were actually given to her by her abusive husband, whom she has since divorced.
Prosecutors previously showed jurors the pictures, depicting dark purple-and-black welts from head to toe on the mother's legs, arms and face.
"What did she tell you about the photographs?" Mr. Mesereau asked Ms. Holzer.
"She told me that the bruises were inflicted by [her husband] that night, after the altercation at JCPenney," Ms. Holzer said in a shaky voice, clearly nervous on the stand. "It scared me ... When a client admits to fraud, it's kind of scary."
Ms. Holzer said she was terrified when the mother warned her eight or nine times not to tell anyone because her husband's brother-in-law was in the Mexican mafia and they would kill Ms. Holzer and her 9-year-old daughter if she snitched.
"She stated she was scared for me and my daughter and she didn't want anything bad to happen to us, because she considered me a dear friend," the witness said.
"Did you consider her a dear friend?" Mesereau asked.
"Not at all. I was just doing my job."
Ms. Holzer testified that she drove the family to "multiple, multiple" appointments because they had no car, and she described a physical tantrum the mother had in the driveway of a medical center.
"She threw herself down on the ground, started kicking and screaming, carrying on that the doctor was the devil, and the nurses were the devil, and they were all out to get her," Ms. Holzer said.
The mother, according to Ms. Holzer, revealed that she prepped her kids on what to say during the examination, and that she had put her children in acting classes because "she wanted them to be good actors so she could tell them what to say and how to behave."
The mother insisted on being present when doctors examined her sons and told Ms. Holzer that while she was confident the oldest boy would "get the story straight," she could not be certain the younger one would remember to tell the story as the family had rehearsed it, Ms. Holzer said.
But why, prosecutor Ronald Zonen asked Ms. Holzer during cross-examination, if she was so concerned about the mother's Mexican mafia connection and fraudulent acts, did she help the woman and take her to see a divorce lawyer years later?
Ms. Holzer, like so many witnesses who have testified for both the prosecution and defense, said she honestly felt sorry for the woman.
A nine-year-old granddaughter of acting legend Marlon Brando also testified about the alleged unruly behavior of the accuser and his brother when they were staying at Neverland.
Mr. Tucker, the 50th and final defense witness, will continue direct examination Wednesday, when the defense is expected to rest its case.
Source: MJJsource / AP / AFP / Reuters
99 - salmoncatchingbear
sorry, a little late, but for all those of you who ask why we dont accuse Walt Disney of peing a paedo, here is a good reason.... i have scoured this article, and no-where does it say that he invites kids into his bed or private home, or that he lived in his theme parks etc etc etc... just a thought.
100 - james mclafferty
Hello, SALMON CATCHER:-), fine thanks yourself?,heard you had a proposition from jarboy?. janet arvizo is a right "muppet",(the americans may not understand that comment), if by some chance mj is guilty she's totally put it in doubt she's a plank short of a plank.As an aside i think she will be lucky not to go to prison for benefit fraud?. The reason i am so intent on him being innocent is because my judgement of character is at risk. I have bought into everything he has tried to put to us about his beliefs of the world and how evrybody should help each other instead of fighting and so on. I have also invested my money in his albums so if he's guilty it will be like being kicked hard in the "cream crackers", i must just say though mariah carey and brian adams are my two favourite artists,you may be surprised to know?. But if mj is genuine in the message he has tried to send out then people maybe able to learn from him. Some people only choose to see what's directly in front of their face "can't see past the end of their nose", we'll know soon enough, "If" found innocent will you respect the the jurys verdict?
101 - salmoncatchingbear
i will always respect their verdict, being on the jury is very hard, but i also have knowledge of how easy it is to be in a jury and sway other jurors opinions. i do not envy their position at the moment, they will be verbally lynched whatever they decide wont they?
i have only been and bought one of his cd's, and that was "number ones", as i wanted a few of the tracks.
dont let it be a kick in the knackers if he is found guilty. take his messages of peace etc, the ones that have inspired you so much, and use them wisely. even if he ws insincere, it doesnt mean that you cannot use the words and sentiment yourself.
eg, look at the bible. the amount of people who say it's a load of crap. however, the christian set of morals basically says "be nice to people". my idea of heaven and hell is this... if i can lie on my deathbed and know that i have never intentionally hurt anyone, and if i have i have repented, then that is heaven. to have a clear conscience. hell would be lying there in turmoil thinking "if only i hadnt done that".
so back to MJ, his words may well have been sincere, he may be one of the type of people who are suffering from severe mental illness, he may not know that what he's doing is wrong (which i think is really quite probable), hemay well have wanted world peace and for everyone to be kind to everyone else, children, animals any human. as i read somewhere else, the poor misguided fella thought he could have reached out to Hitler and made him love and care. hsi words may have been insincere, he could have read them elsewhere, some guru could have said "say this michael", but they are good words, keep them with you, turn them into something real.
oh, and yes, my dear jarboy did proposition me, i found it quite nice to be appreciated for my sense of humour for once!! it's nice that no-one can see me to be honest, gets annoying when men are only after one thing because of how i look! this time it's for how i talk!!
102 - Eric Olsen
I think one thing has become clear: the Arvisos are scummy scammers, but if Jackson is guilty I would really hate to see him found innocent because of the scumminess of the Arviso family.
103 - james mclafferty
SALMON CATCHER,no disrespect but i found him rude,even if he was only joking about.Were you really impressed by that?.
104 - salmoncatchingbear
i'm not so desperate as to be impressed as such, but my insults are always meant comedically, and i think that his response was good humoured (for once!)
eric, i'm with you, i would hate to see a guilty man walk free because of a family of scum. some people pick their victims for that reason. my own father, git that he is, got the town alcoholic round the one day. she was on the wagon, but he gave her £20, which was quite a bit 15 years ago, and sent her to the off-license (liquor store) to get herself a drink. of course she came back with vodka and bacardi, and drunk both bottles. he then carried her to bed. i'm certain that he would ahve done something to her (he really is scum of the earth), but who would believe her?! likewise, i could never present this and all the other evidence i have of his dodgy dealings to the police now could i? it'd be like the jackson case all over again. who would believe me with no evidence? who would believe the motley crue of alcoholics and drug users, and possibly even prostitutes, that would be presented to the court over this upstanding member of the community?
105 - james mclafferty
Absolutely ERIC,that would be an injustice,SALMON CATCHER,it seems youv'e been through the mill a bit yourself,i have also my biological father beat the crap out of me and my mother,and he was a black belt third dan in ju-jitsu,so it was quite severe,i changed my first and last name to get away from association with him so don't think that i'm coming from an unknowing background i understand,but i try not to let it cloud my judgement of things,i have also mentioned previously that a good friend of mine as abused by her brother and her father,how sick is that?.So i also have experience of abuse that doesn't mean i think everybody who is accused is guilty,do you understand what i mean?,:-)
106 - salmoncatchingbear
i do, but it does mean that i look at the world with curious eyes, which i feel can only stand me in good stead. the fact that i am capable of love and trust means that i am dont have clouded vision per se.
my statement wasnt necessarily aimed at MJ, sayig that was what he had done, but just pointing out that people do often select unbelievable people to be their victim. a bit like an insecure person will make sure that they get ultimate control of their partner by bullying them to the point of major insecurity. just trying to point out that even though the family are scum, they COULD have been chosen for that reason... does that make sense?
107 - james mclafferty
Absolutely,salmon CATCHER,believe me if it was up to me (i'm a 6ft blue eyed 17st stone bloke),i'd go and knock the crap out of him but i don't think it would achieve anything.And i understand the theory of being chosen.It's a pity you don't live in telford you seem pretty level headed and would be a good friend(hope that doesn't sound weird?),my current friends have had relatively easy life and don't understand things so much,but we learn as we get older:-).
108 - salmoncatchingbear
just because i dont live in telford doesnt mean we cant be email buddies!! i just dont want to disclose any personal details on here, open to stalkage then arent we?!
109 - james mclafferty
SALMON CATCHER,i'd like that,my email address is telfordmc1@activemail.co.uk.if you want to chat,if youv'e got telewest you can use the e-mail function on that.
110 - james mclafferty
ERIC,can i order a bucket of ice for jarboy's head i think he needs cooling off,i just hope there isn't any kids reading this.
111 - jarboy
i take back my offer, jimmy -- i don't like blue-eyed white boys.
112 - james mclafferty
SALMON CATCHER,i'd like that,my email address is telfordmc1@activemail.co.uk.if you want to chat,if youv'e got telewest you can use the e-mail function on that.
113 - salmoncatchingbear
there's an email in your inbox as we type... i hope!
114 - james mclafferty
Hi salmon catcher,i recieved it:-),just to confuse you i have given you another email address to use,use that one instead,i didn't want to put the second email address on here because it's private.The telewest one isn't such a risk because it only recieves text.
115 - james mclafferty
SALMON CATCHER YOU OUT THERE?
116 - salmoncatchingbear
was in a meeting! be there in a tic!
117 - jarboy
i'm going to be green if sal and jim hook-up, leaving my ass out in the cold.
118 - salmoncatchingbear
not going to happen jar, dont hulk on me!
119 - james mclafferty
JARBOY,It's not that serious mate,we don't even know each other.I've decided to just post on here anyway.Like salmoncatcher said "you can get to personal with people if you don't watch it",look forward to talking to the both of you on here though mate.
120 - james mclafferty
SALMONCATCHER,I wasn't trying to chat you up i just thought you wanted to chat about the case i think we had some crossed wires somewhere?.I'm sorry you got the wrong idea,conversation will be restricted to blogcritics.
121 - jarboy
i was just joshing u, jimmy. sal is already hooked up, and is thr faithful type. but u wouldn't be doing to bad if you could get a bird as intelligent and funny as she. feel free to talk offlist. u need a friend like her. i think her f-stick is cool with her having male friends. she's too smart to have it any other way. love, jar
122 - james mclafferty
JARBOY,yeh i know you were only joking mate,and i wish them happiness and i totally agree with you about the intelligent thing.The reason i'm only gonna post on here mate is, i was having a problem with my email account and sent her too many emails accidently,i didn't think the first lot had got to her so she thought i was hassling her,nevermind no harm done i'll stick to blog sites from now on.And i suppose your funny in sick kind of way;-P.
123 - jarboy
hey james, sick is the only way i know how to be funny. this world is so fuct up i cant afford to take anything too seriously. boys just wanna have fun ya know. speaking of boys, you may want to reconsider limiting yourself to half the available population and add sausage to your sexxual diet.
124 - james mclafferty
JARBOY, no thanks i like women too much.And your half right about ,the world being fucked up,but life is what you make of it remember that.:)
125 - james mclafferty
Right onto the mj case again,gavin arvizo and his head case of a mother,along with family psychologist could all be called to the stand once again but for the defence this time!,it could either give the prosecution a boost or drop them into a quagmire,i'm betting on the latter(even if the video of the police interview is shown),it's just a last ditch attempt at a faultering cause for mr sneddon,and also mj looks like he's keeping his home and his lifestyle thanks to a unknown firm taking the debt for him and negotiating a different payment plan.Bang goes the bankruptcy theory.