In an interesting legal maneuver in the Michael Jackson trial, Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville has not yet ruled on a motion by Senior Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen for permission to ask witnesses for the defense about alleged character evidence against Jackson.
Released Wednesday, the motion reads in part that Jackson, "Has taken numerous children into his room and bed while heavily addicted to Demerol and other controlled substances ... has been reckless in his care and treatment of his own children by dangling one over the balcony of his hotel and by exposing the others to danger in a public crowd ... (and) maintains a large quantity of sexually explicit material and shows it to children for purposes of his own sexual gratification."
Zonen also requested permission to introduce evidence about two other boys Jackson allegedly molested during the 1990s.
The prosecutor argued that such information should be allowed because defense questioning of three witnesses who prosecutors claimed were molested by Jackson amounted to solicitation of their endorsement of the entertainer's character.
Defense attorney Robert Sanger argued against this interpretation, and the motion, in a response released Thursday saying, "It is simply evidence that Mr. Jackson did not commit lewd acts with the witnesses."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Eric Berlin
Man, that's one disturbing picture, even now, as is the Big Picture of this trial.
If the prosecutor gets that motion passed, you'd have to think that would be very not good for Jackson.
2 - HW Saxton
Since the topic of M.J.'s kids has been
raised: Where are they now? And where
were they when all of these kids and the
slumber party shenanigans were happening
I have to wonder.Mikey's always talking
about the children this & children that
but nary a mention of his own brood any
where.If he was so into "Children" seems
like he'd spend much more time with his
own, doting upon them and doing things
with and for them. Curious isn't it ?
3 - Eric Berlin
South Park covered that very topic a year or two ago with devastating effect... way to easy a target for them Matt & Trey fellers...
4 - HW Saxton
I've heard about that episode Eric, but
I haven't caught it yet. Hopefully I'll
catch it in re-runs sooner or later.
5 - james mclaffery
Sorry if already read but i posted it on the wrong thread,this was written for his kids in 2002 for the invincible album make of it as 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 wa
iting for me
by m.jackson
6 - Kate
Jackson's kids were not born at the time of the sleepovers. In addition, this current accuser says he slept in the bed and Jackson on the floor. Therefore he did stop sleeping in the SAME BED. The boy asked to share his room, Jackson said OK and slept on the FLOOR, thus he did learn from his mistakes somewhat. He is not sleeping in the SAME BED as kids anymore.
7 - james mclaffery
You know kate, what all these people who watched the bashir documentary should know that gavin arviso said about mj on the floor in a sleeping bag and gavin on the floor, to quote gavin "michael said if you love me you will sleep in my bed and i will sleep on the floor",but if you notice when the national news programs were showing that piece of footage they stopped short of the sleeping on the floor bit, and ended on the "if you love me you'll sleep on my bed bit",so all the people who hadn't watched it thought oh my god he's admitted to sleeping in the bed with gavin.News programs put a bit of artistic licence into their reports to make it shocking.
8 - linda
James I like what you said about Michael sleeping on the floor while giving up his bed. I'm an older person and many a nights my boys has jumped on my bed telling me of doom things girls have said or done eg... break-up or anything.. the point is we talk in my bed because that was where I was and they feel comfortable talking to me. Never would dirty thoughts ever go this way. I've had them bring a friend in to ask if they thought it wrong on issues they were challenging. Never thought dirty thought and they weren't my children. Of course you can say ... why the bed.. but that is where I was at the time.. talking is done whereever they are comfortable.. I also know because I'm older that we shared beds with family members maybe this is because we lacked $ as our parents were just coming to Canada and we managed what we could. Never with dirty thoughts. The hanging the baby over the rail. He had a good grip don't kid yourself... My goodness, How dumb do you take Michael I think when I see so many alegations again his behavior. They must be perfect parents... I've done things I give my head a shake now in raising my 5 children yet never would you call me a bad parent... That is for sure. Thanks James for having an open mind on this posting..
9 - RJ
"The hanging the baby over the rail. He had a good grip don't kid yourself..."
NO parent, or at least no SANE parent who actually loves his child, would EVER dangle him/her over a fucking BALCONY, no matter how "good" his grip was...
"My goodness, How dumb do you take Michael"
I don;t think he's "dumb." I think he's fucking DERANGED...
10 - sandra smallson
Honestly, if even the most active of MJ nay sayers can not see how desperate the prosecution is becoming then they've got huge problems. The prosecution KNEW that these three boys had denied from day one that they were not molested. They made no attempt to doublecheck with the three boys since they felt the boys will stick to what they had been saying all along. YET, they chose to parade servants on the stand to tell us that they saw these three boys being molested. The three boys have come to say it isn't so and now we are supposed to believe that having done that, it has opened the door for them to get another life jacket for their lifeless case? It was their first attempt at getting a life jacket that got the three boys in the Court in the first place. Jeez!
Now, whats this with the painkillers? What's the new angle? MJ was so drugged he did not know he was putting hands down young kiddies pants? Just the same way the boys were sleeping and had no clue MJ was fondling their little penises?
I hope Melville has finally taken a can of sense and reasoning and will throw this new motion out with the distaste and disinterest it deserves. I hope. Knowing Melville, he might just be daft enough to let it in. He has let in so many things already that I am sure after this Trial, the Bar might suggest he take a refresher course in the Rules of Evidence.
11 - sandra smallson
doubble neg...remove the 'not' from denied all alog that they were....olested
12 - sandra smallson
and, why am I missing some letters of words?...molested. along..etc
13 - james mclafferty
No probs LINDA and thanks for the kind words.
14 - james mclafferty
Here's a very powerful statement from TABLOID JUNKIE, written by michael jackson,i think it's brilliant.
Speculate to break the one you hate
Circulate the lie you confiscate
Assassinate and mutilate
The hounding media in hysteria
Who's the next for you to resurrect
JFK exposed the CIA
Truth be told the grassy knoll
The blackmail story in all your glory
It's Slander
You say it's not a sword
But with your pen you torture men
You'd crucify the Lord
And you don't have to read it
And you don't have to eat it
To buy it is to feed it
So why do we keep foolin' ourselves
Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on the TV screen
Don't make it factual
Though everybody wants to read all about it
Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on the TV screen
Don't make it factual, actual
They say he's homosexual
In the hood
Frame him if you could
Shoot to kill
To blame him if you will
If he dies sympathize
Such false witnesses
Damn self righteousness
In the black
Stab me in the back
In the face
To lie and shame the race
Heroine and Marilyn
The headline stories of
All your glory
It's slander
With the words you use
You're a parasite in black and white
Do anything for news
If you don't go and buy it
Then they won't glorify it
To read it sanctifies it
Then why do we keep foolin' ourselves
Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on the TV screen
Don't make it factual
Everybody wants to read all about it
Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on the TV screen
Don't make it factual
See, but everybody wants to believe all about it
Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on the TV screen
Don't make it factual
See, but everybody wants to believe all about it
Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on the TV screen
Don't make it factual, actual
She's blonde and she's bisexual
Scandal
With the words you use
You're a parasite in black and white
Do anything for news
And you don't go and buy it
Then they won't glorify it
To read it sanctifies it
Why do we keep foolin' ourselves
Slander
You say it's not a sin
But with your pen you torture men
Then why do we keep foolin' ourselves
Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on the TV screen
Don't make it factual
Though everybody wants to read all about it
Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on the TV screen
Don't make it factual
See, but everybody wants to believe all about it
Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on the TV screen
Don't make it factual
Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on the TV screen
Don't make it factual
Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on the TV screen
Don't make it factual, actual
You're so damn disrespectable
15 - james mclafferty
ERIC,I was wandering if this was any good for a post?,if not what are your opinions on it?
The trial of Michael Jackson reveals how society is more concerned with celebrity freak shows than the fate of human beings
Ian Bell, Columnist Of The Year
EVERY other news report on the trial of Michael Jackson ends with the same sentence: �Mr Jackson denies all wrong-doing.� You hope he is telling the truth; you wonder if it will make much of a difference if he is. Expensive lawyers and a court in Santa Maria, California, might yet reach the conclusion that 10 charges of child molestation and false imprisonment have no merit. In the world�s eyes, no matter what, Jacko will be Wacko for the rest of his existence.
The assumptions are easy to make. The singer�s very physical being speaks, after all, of psychological disturbances more profound than anything most of us can comprehend. His face, the work of surgeons who appear to have been guided by cartoon drawings, is an image so surreal it defies the usual definitions of pop star vanity. This is a man, now 46, who has taken cosmetic self-harm to the point of self-eradication. You are invited to draw one conclusion: the sweet, once apple-cheeked child genius of black music did not just dislike the way he looked, he hated what he was. He hated himself.
Jackson�s childhood helps to explain how that might have happened. His father�s abusive violence is disputed, now and then, by some of the singer�s siblings, but well-enough documented. To the freakish life of the child prodigy was added the frightful circumstances of intense family dysfunction, fear and frequent pain. It would be strange if Jackson was not strange. Self-hatred, the attempt to wipe away your own face, is a definitive symptom of abuse like no other.
Yet is an explanation ever an excuse? Even in a world of wall-to-wall therapy, of the victim culture, of redemption through endless self-justification, most of us would be hard-pressed to agree. Hitler had a brutish father; we do not excuse the Holocaust. Many criminals have less than ideal backgrounds, but we hold them to account. Jackson had a horrible childhood, one that would have bent most personalities out of shape, yet we cannot in justice or logic say that he is excused responsibility for his actions. Lots of people have horrible childhoods and still become decent adults.
We do not actually know, of course, what Jackson�s actions may or may not have amounted to. Children, generally boys, slept with or near him: so much was admitted by the singer in a manipulated TV interview with Martin Bashir. Two previous molestation cases have been settled out of court, one for a reported $20 million. The prosecution in Santa Maria are attempting to use these facts to establish a pattern of behaviour, and behaviour, moreover, that the modern world will neither countenance nor excuse. Even in the absence of physical sexual assault, it is behaviour that would strike most people as �inappropriate�, or worse.
Nothing, for all that, has been proved. Macaulay Culkin, the former child star, appeared in court last week to deny absolutely that the nights he once spent at Jackson�s Neverland ranch involved anything untoward. We have his word against that of Gavin Arvizo, the latest of Jackson�s alleged victims, the latest to contend that the star has used his power and wealth to take advantage of the young and vulnerable before buying off their parents or crushing their complaints with an army of lawyers.
Jackson is damaged goods, and he barely attempts to deny the fact. He may simper about love and innocence, he may possess a strange Christ-complex to go with his other problems, not least a bizarre approach to marriage and parenthood. But if the charges against him are proven, he will have earned whatever punishment, hopefully substantial, that comes his way.
Child abuse is the exploitation of power. Celebrity power on the scale Jackson has experienced, if misused, should not go unchecked. If anything, there is a good argument for exemplary punishment simply because of the absurd degree of protection afforded to celebrities in a bedazzled world. In that context, a wounded psyche is no defence.
Amid the blizzard of media coverage, you have to remind yourself, nevertheless, that Jackson remains innocent until someone manages to prove otherwise. You also do yourself a favour when you notice the nature of the coverage. Even when they add the routine disclaimer based on Jackson�s denials, precious few of the reports have a neutral tone. It is as though there is an actual desire for the singer to be exposed as a criminal, to be shamed, to be destroyed.
In an obvious sense, this is as bizarre as anything Jackson himself has ever done. We want it to be true that young boys were exploited and damaged? Does it improve a journalist�s day if Jacko gets whacked because the media �know� who he is and what he is?
Something of that order is undoubtedly going on. Paedophiles accused and convicted of horrors far worse than anything Jackson is accused of attempting get far less coverage. That, of itself, is perverse. We (and by that I mean my profession) are all but saying that child molestation is less important than the identity of the molester. To reach that conclusion, you have to believe that degrees of wrong-doing depend on fame, not flagrance. We like a good moral panic, but we like it better, clearly, if some famous weirdo is at the heart of the story.
Each weekday, twice a day, Sky News will offer you one of the most cynically concocted spectacles currently available from the British media (that, of course, is saying something). With dozens dying in Iraq, with the threat of nuclear weapons, famine and climate change again troubling the world, this �news� channel will offer you, for your delectation, ladies and gentlemen, The Michael Jackson Trial. It is like watching a public hanging in the middle ring of a three-ring circus.
Here we have actors on the news: imagine that. These are actors, moreover, performing the transcripts of the Jackson hearing in some weird mutation of reality TV. Here, equally, we have evidence that such values as journalism still possesses are being crushed by celebrity culture. Jackson, guilty or innocent, is a real human being somewhere beneath all those surgical procedures. That is not the way he appears to Sky. They have their own �based on a true-story� TV movie. And they give you the sense that several pounds of superstar flesh will be required to keep them happy before a California court reaches its decision.
It matters, sometimes, to repeat the obvious: if Jackson is guilty, condign punishment will count as a minimum. But if the singer is guilty, you can only hope that someone will stop to ask another simple question: who and what made him the way he is? The media coverage speaks of a weird relationship with fame. For a brief while we like to hear about the numbers of records or tickets or books they have sold. We love hearing about how filthy rich they have become. In the end, for all that, we like to hear how merely filthy they have been. Then we like to put them to the sword in the most public manner possible.
As often as not, abusers have been abused, and we abuse them for it. Jackson may turn out � and this I sincerely hope � to have been foolishly kind, dangerously simple-minded and so detached from the world by vast wealth and fame that he never guessed how his actions would be perceived. If not, not: the media, at least, will accept no excuses for a muddled or doubtful verdict. And if the charges are proven, I will have no problem with that.
We lose things of profound importance from our world, nevertheless, when the celebrity freak show becomes our only interest. Whatever anyone tells you, it matters little that Jackson�s Thriller album has out-sold every other record ever made. It doesn�t even matter if he has squandered hundreds of millions of dollars in pathetic attempts to work out what wealth and fame might be for. It matters a great deal that any child can be brutalised by anyone.
The truly difficult thoughts amid the Jackson firestorm run as follows. What if the allegations against him are true? And what if it transpires that he behaved as he is alleged to have behaved because he was attempting to give some other lost boys the love he never received? And what if he never once understood why such gestures are, and always will be, catastrophic for all concerned?
That, I suspect, might be the last line of defence for Jackson�s eloquent and expensive lawyers. What do you say about a man who may have put himself beyond the pale? What do you say about the people who may have put him there? And what do you say about the rest of us, finding entertainment in calamity and ruin?
Nothing consoling, nothing good, and nothing that will prevent another child star from one day winding up as the caricature of a human being.
15 May 2005
16 - Jay
This needs to said somewhere because I havent heard anyone say it yet...The Bashir documentary was complete bullshit...Martin Bashir is complete bullshit...That was the most disgusting piece of trash I've ever seen...I love how his narration completely contradicts his attitude in the film...And all these reality show lovin dooshbags all buy in to it...
17 - james mclafferty
Tottally agree jay:-),bashir,s acon artist and a shame to his profession.
18 - Eric Olsen
HI James, this guy's title is Columnist of the Year, like Emperor For Life?
Anyway, I would think a "columnist of the year" would already have been aware that society cares more about celebrity freak shows than the fate of human beings - has it ever been otherwise?
As to the column: starts out great, then wanders off into irrelevance. What is the point other than to decry media culture?
How many people actually watch the reenactment shows? I've never seen it once and I'm "following the trial."
19 - DrPat
I'll step up and admit to watching the reenactments on E! I like the pro-defense and pro-prosecution analysis, and the fact that every word comes from the transcripts.
Even so, we don't see the evidence the jurors see, and we absolutely do not hear every word uttered in their hearing. It's still just grist for one's own judgement.
And all bets are off as far as it being predictive of the jury's decision!
20 - james mclafferty
latest trial news
Jackson video takes the stand
Documentary outtakes aired in court give pop star chance to defend himself without testifying
BY TINA SUSMAN
STAFF CORRESPONDENT
May 16, 2005
SANTA MARIA, Calif. - A constant question in the Michael Jackson trial has been whether the beleaguered star will take the stand to defend himself against child molestation charges. With one deft defense maneuver, the question has turned to whether Jackson needs to take the stand.Jurors last week saw nearly three hours of Jackson, unplugged and unedited, as his lawyers showed outtakes from a videotaped interview, footage that never aired on TV and that amounted to Jackson addressing the courtroom himself, with one important twist: His celluloid self couldn't be cross-examined.
Not only was it a smart tactical move, but even if Jackson testifies after all, he will be under far less pressure to explain himself than had the video not been shown, said lawyers watching the trial. "He has already educated the jury to who he is," said former Connecticut prosecutor Susan Filan. "They'll [the jury] be listening to him not to see if he's weird - they know he's weird - but to see if they believe him."
Most legal experts say it would be folly for Jackson to take the stand, for several reasons. One is his unpredictable behavior in court in the past. When Jackson testified in a 2002 civil trial unrelated to the current case, for example, he goofed off famously and at one point wiggled his fingers in the air behind his head as if to don devil horns. Jackson lost the suit, which alleged he had failed to put on two promised concerts, and was ordered to pay the concert promoter more than $5 million.
Another reason not to have Jackson testify is the belief that it's best to keep the accused off the stand whenever possible, said Santa Barbara County prosecutor Craig Smith. "There's a name for defendants who testify. They're called convicts," Smith said, citing a long-standing and oft-quoted legal maxim. In this case, it would be particularly foolish, even "greedy," for the defense to call Jackson given the prosecution's shaky situation, he said.
"It's still early in the defense, but at this point I think to put Michael Jackson on the witness stand, you're snatching defeat from the jaws of victory," Smith said.
To explain how defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. was able to offer video that cannot be cross-examined, one must recall the first day of testimony, Feb. 28, when prosecutors showed the televised 2003 documentary, "Living With Michael Jackson," by journalist Martin Bashir. The documentary, which showed Jackson holding hands with his eventual accuser and stating that he had shared his bed with children, led to the criminal case now under way. Legal rules required that the defense be allowed to counter the edited version by presenting the outtakes, to put Jackson's comments into context and to bolster Mesereau's contention that Bashir set up Jackson for a hatchet job.
The video presented to jurors, who watched it on a huge screen on the courtroom's front wall, does an efficient job of that. Bashir comes off as nauseatingly obsequious as he gushes to Jackson and laughs uproariously at the pop star's lame jokes. "You've got a wicked sense of humor!" Bashir exclaims when Jackson cracks during pre-interview banter that he can't tell one pope from another. "Why do they all look alike?" Jackson muses during the rambling chitchat. "It confuses the heck out of me."
Jackson appears hazily indifferent to Bashir's pandering and more interested in checking his hair and makeup, discussing art, animals and children, and lamenting the childhood he never had.
"I was raised in a world with adults ... I'm compensating," Jackson says as he explains his obsession with Peter Pan and all things kid-like. As he speaks, the whistle of the choo-choo train that Jackson installed at his Neverland Valley Ranch is heard in the background, a reminder of the lengths Jackson has gone to cloister himself in his fantasy world.
In some of the most effective parts of the video, Jackson speaks convincingly of how fame has controlled his life. He reveals that he can't sleep without bright lights on, so accustomed is he to the glare of the stage, and he talks of his wish to see a movie, take a walk or go grocery shopping without attracting curious mobs. "They lock you in the aisles, staring," Jackson says in his feathery whisper of a voice.
"They're so quick to call you strange or weird, but you're forced to be," he says of his critics. "You're almost forced to be a hermit."
To be sure, there are times when he seems delusional, as when he compares his child-advocacy efforts to those of Mother Teresa, or when he speaks in all seriousness of wanting to throw a party for animal stars such as Benji, Lassie, Cheetah of Tarzan fame, and his pet chimp, Bubbles.
Jackson also comes across as clearly obsessive about children, even picking up a magazine during one break and tearing out a page that features a large photograph of children standing together. Yet he also seems utterly non-sexual and is clearly embarrassed when he says his two children with ex-wife Deborah Rowe were conceived naturally.
A couple of times, Jackson displays clear signs of irritation, as when the interviewer pushes him on sensitive subjects such as plastic surgery. Jackson's posture becomes rigid, and his right hand begins loudly slapping - almost pounding - a table beside him.
"Can we get on with this ... this is tabloid garbage," he says sharply, after repeatedly insisting he has only had two nose operations.
Even taking into account such apparent lies, the overall impression of Jackson was as an innocent oddball - just what his lawyers needed, said Anne Bremner, a Seattle defense attorney following the trial. "It was a very good tactical move."
21 - salmoncatchingbear
"The truly difficult thoughts amid the Jackson firestorm run as follows. What if the allegations against him are true? And what if it transpires that he behaved as he is alleged to have behaved because he was attempting to give some other lost boys the love he never received? And what if he never once understood why such gestures are, and always will be, catastrophic for all concerned?"
i may have read this out of context as i have a horrible cold, but my response to that is "erm, yeah, and?!" how on earth are all those "what if"s a good defence? if, as it states, the allegations are true and jackson was just giving the love he never received, then he has a pretty screwed up view of what love is doesnt he?! when you're a kid you're not meant to be fondled as an act of love!!!
i'm going to sleep!
22 - Eric Olsen
that was my reaction to that part as well, SCB
23 - salmoncatchingbear
thank god for that, i thought i was going crazy.
i think this is the bit that still smarts for me. you and i can both se that he may well be entirely innocent of the allegations, but that he needs to redress the issue of how he behaves around children. on the other hand there are many people out there who believe that he is innocent and will make excuses for his behaviour, saying it is an act of purity and love.....
you have to wonder when people are happy to dismiss his actions in such a way, are they abusers themselves? are they vixtims of abuse who are still in denial and believe that it was a "special" game they played with daddy? or are they actually part of something deeper? the paranoid part of me kicks in a cult conspiracy, but that's just me i guess!
24 - james mclafferty
Jackson chef says accuser's brother demanded booze.
TIM MOLLOY
Associated Press
SANTA MARIA, Calif. - A former Neverland chef's assistant testified that the brother of Michael Jackson's accuser once demanded he make him a milkshake spiked with liquor, and threatened to get him fired if he didn't.
Angel Vivanco was one of several witnesses called to the stand Monday in a defense challenge to prosecution claims that Jackson exposed the children to alcohol and adult materials as a precursor to molestation. The defense suggested instead that the boys found the items on their own.
Vivanco's testimony, which was scheduled to continue Tuesday, may also be important to the defense's claim that the accuser's family fabricated its claims to get Jackson's money.
The defense said in a motion last week that the accuser's sister once told him her mother and the mother's boyfriend were planning "something big" involving Jackson.
Like other witnesses Monday, Vivanco described bad behavior by the accuser and his brother. He said the brother once demanded he pour liquor into a milkshake for him.
"He told me if I didn't do it he would tell Michael and I would get fired," Vivanco said.
Vivanco said the brother also came up behind him and held a kitchen knife an inch from his neck. He said he didn't realize what was happening until someone else scolded the brother.
The witness also said Jackson's accuser once cursed while demanding food.
"Give me the (expletive) Cheetos," he quoted the boy as saying.
When the alleged events occurred was unclear, and defense attorney Robert Sanger struggled to pin Vivanco down on approximate dates. At one point Vivanco said he stopped working at Neverland in 2003, which he described as "six or seven months ago."
In other testimony Monday, Neverland security guard Shane Meredith testified that he caught Jackson's accuser and his brother with a half-empty bottle of wine, and maid Maria Gomez told the jury that she once saw adult magazines in the brother's backpack.
The defense attacked the family's claims of being held against their will, calling witnesses who said there was no hint of captivity when the mother went to a spa for a body waxing or when her children went to an orthodontist to have their braces removed.
Before Vivanco took the stand, Judge Rodney S. Melville sided with the prosecution by agreeing that he would not be allowed to testify about 14 statements the sister allegedly made to him unless the defense can prove they are relevant.
Prosecutors said the adult Vivanco had a "quasi-sexual" relationship with the then-16-year-old sister and that the two kept in touch after her family left Neverland in March 2003.
Prosecutors said in a motion last week that the relationship made the sister "a victim of felonious sexual misconduct by a defense witness employed by the defendant."
Defense attorneys said they did not plan to ask Vivanco about the alleged relationship.
Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting a 13-year-old former cancer patient in February or March 2003 and plying him with wine. He is also accused of conspiring to hold the boy's family captive to get them to rebut a TV documentary in which the boy appeared with Jackson, who said let children sleep in his bed but it was non-sexual.
Outside court Monday, Jackson spokeswoman Raymone K. Bain said the defense expects to call CNN's Larry King to testify Thursday. The defense is expected to asked whether attorney Larry Feldman once said the accuser's mother made up the molestation story.
Feldman, who has denied that story, was contacted by the family after they left Neverland and he referred them to a psychologist who reported molestation suspicions to authorities.
---
AP Special Correspondent Linda Deutsch contributed to this report.
25 - jarboy
i was groped when i was a child by a family friend right in our kitchen. you've heard of gaydar? well i have kiddie-diddler-dar, and believe me, mj is a kiddie-diddler. no doubt, bro.