Today on Blogcritics
Home » Michael Jackson Trial: Prosecution Motion Dangles

Michael Jackson Trial: Prosecution Motion Dangles

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

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.”

Powered by

About Eric Olsen

  • http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com/ 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.

  • 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 ?

  • http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com/ 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…

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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..

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com 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…

  • 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.

  • sandra smallson

    doubble neg…remove the ‘not’ from denied all alog that they were….olested

  • sandra smallson

    and, why am I missing some letters of words?…molested. along..etc

  • james mclafferty

    No probs LINDA and thanks for the kind words.

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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…

  • james mclafferty

    Tottally agree jay:-),bashir,s acon artist and a shame to his profession.

  • 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.”

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com 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!

  • 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.”

  • 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!

  • Eric Olsen

    that was my reaction to that part as well, SCB

  • 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!

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • james mclafferty

    Social worker: Boy denied sexual abuse by Michael Jackson.

    By Linda Deutsch A.P

    ASSOCIATED PRESS10:55 a.m. May 17, 2005SANTA MARIA – A social worker testified Tuesday in Michael Jackson’s child molestation trial that she met privately with the accuser and his family during the time they claim they were Jackson’s captives and they praised him and denied any sexual abuse. Irene Peters, a 30-year veteran of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, said she met with the mother and her three children on Feb. 20, 2003, after the airing of a documentary that drew attention to Jackson’s relationship with the boy who is now his accuser.
    Peters said she specifically questioned the accuser about his relationship with Jackson. “I asked him if he had ever been sexually abused by Michael Jackson and he became upset. He said, ‘Everybody thinks Michael Jackson sexually abused me. He never touched me,'” she said. She said the accuser told her Jackson “was very kind to him and treated him like a father.” Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting the then-13-year-old boy between Feb. 20 and March 12, 2003, plying him with wine and conspiring to hold the family captive to get them to make a video to rebut the documentary “Living With Michael Jackson,” which aired in the U.S. on Feb. 6, 2003. The boy, a cancer survivor, appeared with Jackson in the documentary and Jackson told interviewer Martin Bashir that he let children sleep in his bed but it was non-sexual. Peters said she separately interviewed the mother, the accuser’s younger brother and older sister and all of them praised Jackson. She said the mother even gave Jackson credit for curing her son. Rather than wanting to flee Jackson’s Neverland ranch, Peters said the mother initially asked if the social worker could do her interview at the Santa Barbara County estate. Peters said, however, that she wanted to see where they were living and so she was invited to the home of the mother’s boyfriend, who is now her husband. “She denied all allegations of general neglect,” said Peters. “I asked her about the relationship with Michael Jackson. She went on to say he was like a father to her children and she felt he was responsible for helping (the boy) to survive his cancer, for his cancer to go into remission. “I asked her if the kids ever slept in Michael Jackson’s room and she said no, that never happened.” Under questioning by defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr., Peters said the family members never mentioned being held against their will, being falsely imprisoned or that Jackson was trying to extort them in any way. The interview took place the morning after the family made the so-called rebuttal video which they later claimed they were forced to do by Jackson’s associates. Peters said the only thing they complained about was that they had not been asked for permission for the children to appear in the “Living With Michael Jackson” documentary. Asked about the demeanor of the family during the interviews, Peters said they were “spontaneous.” She described the mother as “very confident, kind of anxious, very loquacious, a very touchy-feely kind of person.” At one point Peters said of the accuser, “I asked him point-blankly if he ever slept in bed with Michael Jackson and he said no.” She said that at the start of the interviews, the family asked her to watch a video that Jackson had made at Neverland, showing him with the boy during the time he was having chemotherapy. That video, which has been shown at the trial, paints a loving relationship. In other testimony, a former Neverland chef’s assistant said the accuser’s sister talked with him during a two-week period after the family left the ranch and she never complained that they were treated badly or held against their will. Angel Vivanco said he had spent time with the sister after work about five or six times while the family was at the ranch, and she continued to call him after they left. Associated Press Writer Tim Molloy contributed to this report.

  • salmoncatchingbear

    it scares me when people ask “how can you believe the media? they are trying to force you to think he is guilty”, but then in place of their own opinions simply cut and paste from google news. frightening!!

    i too have kiddy-diddler-dar, and i have to say it is twitching. like a cat on a barbeque.

  • james mclafferty

    For one SALMON CATCHER,i never once stated “how can you believe the media”,and secondly i just thought eric olsen and others may apreciate reading the current reports if theyv’e missed them,and in reply to your arrogant and misinformed view of me i have put a load of my opinions down so shut the hell up if youv’e nothing intelligent to say.

  • salmoncatchingbear

    Apologies, James, if i offended you, I see that you too watched the Bashir documentary where it was stated that kids did indeed sleep in his room, and that he slept on the floor. However, this is in direct contradiction to the statements made later by Jackson and his minions that he has a massive suite, that when he saus “bedroom” he actually has more space in there than the average working class american has for an enitire family home. It was said that the children sleeping “in his room” were actually in different parts of the suite, different rooms to jackson.

    i feel i did not make myself entirely clear about where my post was directed. there are many people who believe that by simply regurgitating MJ’s lyrics all doubt will be removed and MJ will be revealed as the saint that he truly is. Just because he says its all lies doesnt mean that it is all lies. most abusers (sexual and non-sexual, abusers of children, adults, geriatrics) will deny their behaviour…. they dont want to go to prison do they?!

    the simple fact about Michael jackson is that he is refusing to take the stand and defend himself under cross-examination. he has nothing to say for himself. his advisers feel that if he is asked anything then he will crack under pressure and let himself down, that he’ll end up in prison… if i was being accused of this stuff, and i was innocent, i would rather defend myself, and know that i had done my best even if i ended up sent down.. can you imagine sitting in prison with a sore ass, broken ribs and a newly acquired set of tattoos, thinking “i didnt speak for myself when i had the chance”? no? well neither can i.

    Children have taken to the stand and they have been subject to the same treatment that Jackson is avoiding. If he refuses to stick up for himself, why the hell do you all seem to think you should do it for him? pasting his lyrics on a blogsite is all good and well, but if he cannot think of anything to say for himself in the most important event of his life, do you really think they prove anything?

    as an aside, I feel also that you cannot logically state that i made an arrogant post and then follow it up by implying i have nothing intelligent to say… an arrogant statement from your own PC i do believe?

  • james mclafferty

    SALMON CATCHER,Apology accepted no worries, but i was posting the lyrics thinking it would convey a psychological analyses of mj the person, the star i wasn’t trying to ram anything down anybody’s throat.I have stated numerous times that i AM admittedly a mj supporter but, was not blind to the fact he could be guilty, but surely at the moment youv’e got to concede that it doesn’t look like the allegations have any substance.The social worker who’s job and interest is to prove definatively whether abuse occurred,has said on the stand that in her experience and knowledge that she couldn’t see anything bad that had gone on,and janet arvizo told her this.Why?,if all the allegations are true did janet not tell the social worker what was going on she wasn’t under any pressure to lie,it was just her and the social worker at the arvizo’s home.You seem, because i am an mj supporter that i am naive,that is a very unsubstanced thought.Believe me at times during the prosecution statements iv’e thought to my myself why would so many witnesses lie?,and then the defence have misproved these statements.And he’s not refusing to take the stand we still don’t know whether or not he will.And he’s not a “god” or a “saint”, he’s a human being, the point is don’t be so dismissive of people.The reason i posted the lyrics of “you are my life”,was simply because (and i can’t remember who it was),somebody had said mj never mentioned his own kids so it was merely in reference,so those lyrics were posted with good cause.I think eric olsen has come to understand where i’m coming from and admit that sometimes i’m vague, but i never claimed to be a columnist.

  • salmoncatchingbear

    crikey me neither!! i dont think i could stand the pressure of being a jouno, would kill me!

    the problem with social workers is that they dont always spot stuff happening. refering to an earlier post on here somewhere, think it was on “some mothers, why?”, i said that it seemed the mothers really were more interested in the money than the kids. it could be quite easy for her to lie in that situation if she wanted another piece of jackson pie.

    i am sorry if you feel that i directed my negativity at you.. there have been one or two people on here who have been so intent on deifying him that my back has been up almost permanently (i’m sure you understand what i mean. it is frustrating to hear either “he is guilty” or “he’s not guilty” as absolutes. “he might be” is how i feel)

    x

  • james mclafferty

    No problem SALMON CATCHER,i’m sure your a decent person(smile),i totally agree with you it’s very frustrating,it’s been interesting so far though,might be guilty is a very possible assumption,but i hand on heart can’t see at the moment that he is.I do think we should hope that he is innocent though for the sake of a another kid being hurt.:).P.S i would say theres a case for neglect on the mothers part.

  • james mclafferty

    Hi again SALMON CATCHER,are you a mother or a father?,it’s just i assume you have children?.:)

  • salmoncatchingbear

    it is interesting, and of course i do hope that he is innocent, but there is more than a whiff of the inappropriate about it all, even if he has never laid a finger on said kids, it would be very very wrong to have those kind of friendships. it’s not nice for him, as people suggest, to rekindle his lost youth, it’s not lovely that he spends so much time with the kids, it’s plain odd and it shows a complete lack of social functioning which needs to be addressed. it shows a problem with his mental health and it is wrong that these kids have gotten used to being in bed with an old man… imagine if he hasnt done anything, but he has led them to believe that it’s ok for “uncle marty” or whomever to say “spend the night with me”… does that make sense?

    i am neither a mother or a father, i miscarried one child which saddened me, and i have witnessed abuse on many levels during my own childhood. i despise abuse as a result, and i am aware of how negligent schools, social services, local communities and the police can be. many times they are too afraid to say anything, or just too selfish. it is very easy for a child to be too fritghtened to tell aniyone, and if these children were being abused by proxy, mother sends them out to work MJ for his moneyby any means necessary and she is all they have and/or has threatened them if they dont go along with it, they may well have been in a situation where they thought it was for the best to put up and shut up.

    are you a father?

  • james mclafferty

    SALMON CATCHER,No i don’t have kids:)i wish i did, i’m 27 and have a 13 year old sister who was at risk of being messed about with by a very respected badminton coach.He asked her if she wanted “personal”coaching lessons, luckily we declined to let her and later it was found out that he was taking these young girls and abusing them when the parent’s thought he was teaching them badminton skills.But you shouldn’t let personal experiences cloud judgment of people,(i know it’s easy for me to say),and i believe people(men and women),who abuse kids should be strung up it can never be advocated.I really believe he is innocent,you seem a nice lady and hope to confer with you over the term of the trial,have a really good day:).xx

  • salmoncatchingbear

    well bless you for thinking i’m a nice lady! i’m only 26, so that makes me feel a little elderly!!

    i try not to let personal judgement cloud stuff, it just makes you think a little harder about the wider issues surrounding cases like these doesnt it? it’s not just a man and a kid in a room in these situations, there are external influences.

    you have a great day too

    x

  • james mclafferty

    SALMON CATCHING BEAR,your welcome babe:),only a year younger than me then;),are you in the uk or u.s.a,only i don’t know if we see the same tv programs?.Do you watch the sky news reconstructions?.

  • jarboy

    JAMES MCLAFFERTY IS GUILTY, even if mj is found not guilty. it is illegal to copy and paste entire articles into public blogs, even if you credit the source. next time, put a pertinent quote with a link to the article — or i’ll have to call the copyright cops.

  • james mclafferty

    GO FO IT JAR OF JAM BOY.And if you notice i leave the part about who wrote it at the botTom of the post so it’s perfectly legal.

  • td

    I think that when someone, anyone, matches the characteristics of a pedophile, they should be looked at with scrutiny.

    And if said person is also accused of an abuse, the claims should be given very serious consideration.

    —————————

    Here are the characterstics of a pedophils:

    – He carries on what can be termed “a special relationship” with a wife. Often pedophiles have failed marriages due to their sexual interests but remain in the marriage to mask their true intentions. Sadly, the wife sometimes knows about her husband’s preference, but prefers to keep quiet to avoid social stigma and disgrace.

    – He displays a fascination or unusual interest in children. If an adult has an inordinate amount of interest in pre-pubescent children, it doesn’t confirm he is a pedophile, but it should at least arouse suspicion.

    – He makes frequent references to children in exalted or exaggerated terms such as “pure,” “innocent,” ”God sent,” “blissful” and other descriptive labels that seem inappropriate and excessive. Remember that a pedophile cannot help the way he behaves and therefore will inadvertently reveal aspects about himself during speech.

    – He has hobbies or interests that commonly belong in the realm of a child’s world such as toy collecting, building models of cars or planes. His home or room is decorated in a child’s theme. And often, that theme will reflect the age bracket of his preferred victim.

    – He is over 30 years of age, single and has few or no friends his own age. He may also have frequent and unexplained changes of residence.

    – He may be unable or unwilling to discuss why he lost his last job. He may have a military discharge that he cannot explain and a past that he can not easily talk about.

    – He has systematic and prolonged access to children. Pedophiles, because of the wide age disparity between themselves and their victims, cannot just hang around children. The pedophile has to find a way to legitimize his contact with kids. He usually accomplishes this by obtaining employment in a field where he is forced to deal with children on a daily basis. Jobs like schoolteachers, bus drivers, camp counselors, photographers and sports coaching(14) serve their needs perfectly. They will always volunteer for activities in which they are left alone with children with no parental supervision (Lanning, p. 19).

    – Pedophiles are also very adept at locating troubled or withdrawn children. This is a skill they have acquired through years of trial and error. They have come to identify what usually works and what usually doesn’t.

    – The most common technique used by pedophiles to obtain sex from children is the seduction method. This process is very similar to the classic boy/girl courtship. Though the child might be under 10-years-old, the pedophile will lavish gifts upon the target, take him or her to amusement parks, museums, restaurants and other places of interest.

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

    —————————–

    Of course, just because someone displays these characteristics does not mean that they are abusing children. But these characteristics have been developed from the study of thousands of cases, and they cannot be completely ignored either.

  • james mclafferty

    Tottally agree with you TD.And jar boy your’e an idiot.

  • jarboy

    jimmy jimmy jimmy, if you check copyright law, it doens’t matter if you leave the information about who wrote it in, it is still illegal to copy and paste an entire article. you cna only put a brief quote and a link. why? because the page it comes from has paid advertisers so part of the dealio is that people need to go to the original page to read it. your ad hominum insults don’t make you a copyright expert — which i happen to be. look it up — you can find it all on the web in the digitial millenium copyright act. and btw, don’t be a little bitch, jimmy.

  • td

    jarboys right.

    Except that James is not guilty. the site would be found guilty as being the hoster of the publication.

    Also, the ‘copyright police’ aren’t really police. If someone complaings about copyright infringement who is not the owner of the copyright then all they will do is notify the owner. it is then up to the owner to decide whether or not they want to go through the costly process of litigation against the site that is illegally hosting the material.

    In 99.9% of cases all they will do is politely ask the site to remove the material. If they even bother to do that. Why? Because petty copyright infringement like this is not worth pursuing. It will cost the copyright holder more money than they will ever recuporate, and therefore they don’t bother.

    So you’re threat is kind of an empty one.

  • jarboy

    td wrote:
    Also, the ‘copyright police’ aren’t really police.

    doh! you must really be a smart individual, td. no, i think you are a total idiot! you see, i wrote “copyright cops”, an alliteration, bro, meant as a joke. you know, like when people say they are going to call the fashion police? a joke, dodo. so, stay out of it, and don’t you be a little bitch, either.

  • james mclafferty

    Are you on something jarboy?.whats with the word bitch?,and TD,i bet you wish you hadn’t agreed with him now.

  • jarboy

    ahhhh, shut yer treacle hole, ya lame li’l limey, i don’t wanna have to come over there and give you the bitch-slapping you deserve.

  • james mclafferty

    JARBOY,Put your dummy back in your mouth.

  • james mclafferty

    There’s always one person who lowers the atmosphere,isnt there ERIC.When jarboys finished throwing a hissing fit, normal trial talk will resume:).I’m off to bed it’s 5mins past midnight and iv’e got a busy day tommorow.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  • jarboy

    u r the 1st girl i’ve ever known named james.

  • salmoncatchingbear

    wow!! i went home for the night, and came back to find the beginnings of bitchfest 2005…. everyone calm down! no need to panic!

    Jarboy, understand what you’re on about with copyright, but the internet is kind of built on copyright infringement, and i love it. where else can you find such a wealth of knowledge?

    i enjoy this site so much because it gives the opportunity for debate. problem is we sometimes over-familiarise ourselves with each other and actually start arguing like kids, and maybe we need to take a step back from the keyboard when that happens…. just a suggestion? we are all guilty of it, and we need to chill outfrom time to time.

    TD, i agree with your posting, re signs of paedophilia, one small quibble (not being picky, just trying to expand on your statement), paedophiles can be women too. as i said, not being picky, i agree with you mate!

    Jarboy, what IS the fascination with bitches? there are a lot of reasons that you could be so enamoured with the word, but i wont go into detail, as i wouldnt like to insult or offend you sweetie… maybe just tone it down a bit? you wouldnt want anyone to think you’re a bit slow would you?

    James, you stand your ground and are happy to admit that whilst you think MJ is innocent, there is a chance you are wrong. i’m pleased to converse with someone with an open mind, even if it is configured in direct opposition to mine as far as this trial goes.

    oh, and i’m in the UK, but rarely watch the Sky reconstructions as i earn an english admin person’s wage, and am therefore skint! i have 4 channels, cant even get 5, and they are all really foggy as the arial is knackered!! i tend to read a lot!

  • james mclafferty

    Hi SALMON CATCHER,:-),I wasn’t argueing with him i was just merely testing his composure and he showed himself up.I do try to be open minded and don’t usually lower myself to the comments last night but i certainly won’t be taking anything he says seriously from now on lifes too short and he wants to grow up.I asked ERIC his thoughts on my pasting stories every now and again and he said it would probably be alright because i was only doing it in the form of information.And what the hell is a limey?.It sounds like an outdated 50’s film phrase for us brits.And yes JARBOY i do totally understand what you were saying about copyright but when you go off on one nobody’s inclined to take you seriously, anyway eric would of said something to me.I live in Telford salmon catcher,and we have troublewith channel five in parts of the town where are you?.I did a buisness admin course at college but my hobby is building and repairing pc’s,i can install operating sytems fault find and build them that’s where my heart is.:)

  • salmoncatchingbear

    i dont usually lower myself either, was rather shocked by the bitchfest that had started!! quite amused too…

    limey, does sound a little james cagney doesnt it? bless! i wouldnt dare use slang terms to describe a resident of a particular country, else we end up sounding like cringeworthy retards who hate “frogs” “krouts” or “yanks”… i am of the opinion that unless i have met every single person with a particular nationality i shouldnt make sweeping judgements. guess i was just raised better than some.

    i’m in Worcestershire. where the sauce comes from. nice! loking to move out of admin. music is where my heart is, i sing and songwrite, but since leaving my husband have had horrible writers block.

    anyway, WAY off subject!! back to it.

    MJ is not making so many headlines now is he? Kylie has taken his place, which is sinful. i know it is newsworthy, and highlights a problem, but i wish they would just leave her alone with a “good luck, much love and best wishes”, leave her to get better in private (who in their right minds would sit outside her house? she’s ill the poor girl) and concentrate on the other atrocities that are happening around the globe…

    maybe we all should to be honest!

  • james mclafferty

    SALMON CATCHER,:-),never a truer word.I must admit i’m not a fan of kylie persay,but i feel very bad for her she must be scared to pieces.Did you hear about gavin and star being found masturbating to an adult tv program,rio jackson,michaels 12 year old cousin alledgedly found them.And also that the brothers were caught stealing money from mjs chefs personal drawer,is there noting about this case that you think points towards mj being innocent?.

  • salmoncatchingbear

    during the first part of the trial all pro-jackson camp said that the prosectution’s evidence appeared to be fabricated….. could it not be that the defence is fabricating their argument? with respect Jackson’s employees who are saying “no sir, i saw nothing apart from these kids behaving like animals”… could they not be getting a hefty back-hander for fabricating the defence for him?

    it seems that it was easy for people to slag off the prosecution, make the witnesses seem less credible, but more difficult for them to believe that money could also be a motive for perjury on the defence side of things.

    the only thing that will make me believe that jackson is even possibly innocent, is if he can get his ass onto the stand and speak for himself. as i said, kids have done it, so no-one can use the “man-child” argument to justify his silence.

    so, telford…. is there still the “wonderland” thing their with the model gingerbread house and stuff? i had a nasty accident in the park when i was a kid. bloody place!!

  • james mclafferty

    YES i don’t know how long it weas since youv’e been but wonderland is quite alot bigger now,i think the place is a stroke of genius thers a whole snow world there now if my sister was younger i wouldn’t have any problem using her as an excuse to look around it again,we’ve also got a massive beatties store here now,i live in stirchley don’t know if you know of it?,and as you know we have the worlds first ironbridge here as well so there.(smile).Can i ask why you are so against mj?,i mean this in the most friendly way:-).

  • james mclafferty

    Salmon catcher:-)
    just merely for reference but here is a post i made back in march.And i must sday this has all been proved thus far.

    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!,james in telford ,england

  • salmoncatchingbear

    it’s not that i’m against MJ. i know how it looks, but i really dont know if he’s innocent or not. i would rather he was to be honest, as it would mean there had been no pain caused to kids. i’m just against all the people who will only accept that it looks dodgy from the one side, if you know what i mean? i think the whole thing is a sham, guilty or not.. why do they have to try to make it something it’s not(both sides are guilty of that) until it becomes a bloody circus?!

    i hate the whole american trial thing, choosing your jury that kind of thing… not exactly random is it?!

    i dont know stirchley, i know telford quite well though, used to go there at least once a week as a kid. know madley and dawley, the brookside and woodside estates and donnington, wellington, but stirchley eludes me!

    i am aware of the iron bridge, the museums around there are great too. Blists Hill is a very educational experience (and the victorian chemist makes lovely glycerin soap.. the rose is my fave!)

  • james mclafferty

    Salmon catcher.i agree with what you say about the way the americans handle their cases,very pompously(sp?).I know what you mean you want to know the truth as much as i do,and think at points the debate between the lawyers has been petty,i don’t think judge melvilles up to much either.Stirchley is right by brookside theres a recreation centre there and a school,by tennis courts.And i think myself lucky to have the ironbridge gorge as part of telford,but forget it’s there sometimes.Blists hill was cool when i went with school i made candles and things very interesting.

  • salmoncatchingbear

    yeah!! candles, the tallow ones? they come out as two dont they? and you can buy them… did you make the plaster of paris tudor rose things too?

    (as an aside, our friends accross the pond may be baffled by how this thread has turned out!)

  • james mclafferty

    SALMON CATCHER,yes thats right,and the rose things,we seem to have more in common than i thought:-),yes very confused.:)

  • salmoncatchingbear

    i grew up not so far away you see, and school outings were always quite cool, going to places like blists hill, and the black country museum… peg dolls as i recall were the order of the day there!

  • james mclafferty

    You’ll have come to see telford on of the days it’s changed an awful lot you’ll be surprised.where was it you lived?

  • james mclafferty

    SALMON CATCHER ,you’ll have to visit telford one of the days it’s changed an awful lot you’ll be surprised.where was it you lived?

  • salmoncatchingbear

    south staffs.

    last time i came to telford i was amazed by how much it had changed to be honest.

    i trecked over to see my mate about 12 months ago, we were oging to take her son to the cinema. i parked near beatties end, and paid a lot of money for the honour. then we went accross to the UCI and i had to pay even more to park there. and then i had to remortgage my house for my cinema ticket, before selling my left kidney in order to buy some snacks…. oh the joys!

    it’s a nice enough place though. the rind road looks exactly like reddithc ring road though, as both deisgned by same man…… how sad am i?!

  • james mclafferty

    Yes the parking charges are ridicoulus aren’t they?,and 5.50 to get into the cinema is over the top don’t you think?.the town centre is up for a total upgrade over the next 10 years,telford is the fastest growing town in the midlands and is huge!.bigger than wolverhampton(in area,though thankfully not as packed),

  • salmoncatchingbear

    it si really over the top. it was a shame for telford. i remeber getting off the m54 as a kid, driving past all the big glass buildings, and it felt like we were in an episode of dynasty or something, sad really, but i was only about 5! i got my mom to take me ice skating as i was a huge fan of Torville and Dean(as i said, i was REALLY little at the time). i got to telford, and had no idea that it was so difficult!! in the end we sat down and had a star bar(rememebr them? they were ace!)

    wolverhampton is bigger than you’d think. i was born there and lived there again for a while in the late 90’s when i first left home. the city centre (still makes me laugh that it’s a city now!) isnt so big, but it sprawls for miles outside, right the way to bilston and cosely, codsall and perton, willenhall etc. it is a massive place. and scummy as hell!!

  • salmoncatchingbear

    just seen jar boy’s response to limey thing earlier? it appears to be on the wrong blog!!

  • james mclafferty

    I remember the star bars,and torville and dean blimey!,wev’e got quite a good ice rink here one of the biggest in the country,and don’t forget the wrekin and newport is part of telford there’s 180000 people here now,and telford covers 30 square miles.Shrewsbury only covers 10 square miles.

  • salmoncatchingbear

    chill james!! you have too many facts and figures going on and my fragile brain may well explode!!

  • james mclafferty

    SALMON CATCHER,I can even remember when my local recreation centre was having michael jackson dancing lessons.

  • salmoncatchingbear

    nooooooooooooo!!

    i actually remember so many scary things, but none as scary as that! my best mate’s little brother would be most embarassed now, but when he was little he really fancied me, and used to dance to billy jean. he was really quite talented, even worked the hat and everything!! he’s doing a levels now, frightening!!

  • james mclafferty

    Your’e cracking me up salmon catcher,i saw jarboys so called explanation of limey and he seems way off.A post by somebody called bad dude said it was something to do with being a cheapskate?.He had a go at td as well he’s not gonna be very popular if he keeps insulting everybody.It’s unneeded and usually a sign of low intelligence but anyway i’m not given the insults any credence by talking about it.Got to go now SALMON BABE;),us “limeys”,have got to stick to together,(sarcasm of course),i’ll be on after 7pm tonight you up for a chat about the case?

  • salmoncatchingbear

    i’m afraid i am poor and only have net access at work. not in tomorrow, so back monday. catch you then?

  • james mclafferty

    Yes SALMON CATCHER,(what’s your real name by the way?),hope i didn’t do your head in with the telford stuff?,whats your friends name i might know her?,ok see you monday:)

  • jarboy

    james mcl wrote:
    “Salmon catcher.i agree with what you say about the way the americans handle their cases,very pompously(sp?).”

    Americans? pompous in court? what about powdered wigs and gowns?

    btw, 50’s films? what about the 1999 film with terrance stamp called the limey?
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0165854/

  • james mclafferty

    Valid point JARBOY,but you must learn to be more restrained mate,okay let’s leave the subject and continue with chat about the case,i’m sure your not as bad as you make yourself look.If you want a constructive chat about the case i’ll be on later.;-).

  • jarboy

    ahh, don’t try to sweettalk me jimmy — or don’t try to jimmy me, sweetie. i think you and salmon should meat up and see what happens. you like fish, dontcha?

  • nicolas

    unnecessary jarboy. tut tut

  • james mclafferty

    JARBOY,I don’t know why i even bothered with you,you moron,and i most DEFINATELY ain’t your sweetie!,i don’t know what chip youv’e got on your shoulder but this aint the place to try and put it onto everybody else’s.I will definately not be paying any attention to your post’s and you owe eric olsen an apology for lowering the tone of his site,were you bullied at school or something?.

  • jarboy

    jimmy, you’re not going to talk to me any more cuz i called you sweetie? but you were ok with little bitch? i’ve heard brit girls (limettes?) were exceptionally unpredictable.
    the headline for blogcritics reads: A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, technology, and politics. and you expect me to be serious? i’m just hear to have fun, baby. and when yanking your chain gets you riled, i’m having fun. kisses, jarboy

  • Kwame Mfere

    What a bunch of bloody wankers squabbling about whether Michael Jackson diddled the lad or not. regardless of the verdict, you’ll never really know, will you? it is not unusual for the American Justice system to get it wrong, is it? The innocent sometimes hang; the guilty, walk free. All you are doing here is revealing your personal biases, and a risable need to express your opinion. What bloody difference does your opinion make, in the short or long run? What kind of gratification does it give you to argue with complete strangers about the half facts and pure speculation you have available to you? Keep in mind what they say about opinions: they are like arse holes; we all have one, and they are really only good for one (or perhaps in your case, James McL, two) thing(s).

  • Eric Olsen

    how dare anyone express an opinion on anything! The hubris! And it’s a been a while since we hae hanged anyone, by the way

  • jarboy

    I blabber on about my opinions, therefore I am. In a case like this, it just seems pointless, neurotic, and narcissistic — just like Michael Jackson himself! You are sll really just masturbating, but if you need that to feel good about, wank on.

  • james mclaffery

    JARBOY,hi for the sake of sanity lets let sleeping dogs lie it’s childish for the sake of argueing agreed?,KVAME,oh my god who ever heard of opinions on a blog site?,errm,the clues in the name mate,so as far as talking out of my anus your statement shows you doing exactly that,believe me iv’e put some “very” constructive posts on other blogs of this site.

  • james mclaffery

    This is a Message to Michael Jackson from the author D. Braxton:

    ” MESSAGE FROM A WISE MAN ”

    If I look in your eyes, I could read almost every thought…… said the wise man.

    If I could look in your heart, I could see if it showed alot.

    And if i could look in you mind, it would tell me all the trues and falsest.

    “oh” and then I could and would realize, if you are a true friend or not.

    Now you may guide me throught life, with blinders on. For what is real I shall not see, until the blind fold is lifted from my eyes,

    and when it drops down on the ground, I will tilt my head up and then my eyes will see the true vision of thee.

    For in my mind it showed a leader of truth. But now I see.. you for you, who is a conning soul.

    Oh, its just a lesson learned…..and learned very well….”Michael”, to not let no one guide you streight to hell.

    or to steel your soul, or even your mind…for your future will waste far behind.

    For a conning one will wine and dine your soul and in it all… you are lost…..”your mind, your body, and soul”.

    So rise above the “CONNING ONE’S” and live your life and let the truth be known, that you are no slave to anyone.

  • Jim Jackson

    If you’re still undecided about whether Michael Jackson is guilty or innocent, just go to about.com, look up “profile of a pedophile” and clarity will prevail. :( I think poor Makauley Culkin’s in denial. I hope he seek’s help for the memories he’s repressed and I pray the jury will convict Mr. Jackson! I’m curious as to whether other pedophile’s think MJ’s guilty?

  • salmoncatchingbear

    another round of bitching! mature!

    I’m with you Jim, i really think he may be guilty. feel very sorry for every child involved in this case, and indeed other children who are not so high profile…. funny how you only find out about stuff if someone actually dies isnt it?!

  • james mclaffery

    I give up with this website,Thanks a lot jarboy youv’e made me look a right prat.I can’t believe i allowed myself to argue with you.Oh and thanks for the vote of confidence salmon catcher your all sad if you ask me.(oh and he will be found innocent)

  • james mclaffery

    JIM JACKSON,SALMON CATCHER,AND JARBOY.A book will not tell you the facts, this case will, so your books are for the moment irrelevent,it’s like a hypochondriac reading a medical book and assuming he/she has all the illnesses written in that book.

  • salmoncatchingbear

    cheer up james, none of us know what will happen, i have based my opinion on instinct and my own evaluation of the trial, not a book.

    thanks for saying i’m sad. no idea what i have done to deserve that.

    Jarboy didnt make you look like a complete idiot, he did what he always does and made himself look a bit slow, that’s all.

    you have now managed to make yourself look a little bit paranoid/sensitive. as i said, cheer up! it’s a lovely day outside…well apart from the rain and stuff!

  • jarboy

    cheer up jimmy, jarboy loves you, you cute little wanker you!

  • jarboy

    oh no, salmon’s found me out — i’m a bit slow. that rillly hurts, girlfriend. you limettes stick together, huh?

  • james mclafferty

    Sorry SALMON CATCHER the sad remark was not directed at you:-).Am i forgiven?.I just thought the immature statement was directed at me?.I’ve just been having a lot of personal problems and got in a rut.From now on i’ll be resume normal service if you still want to chat?.:-)I hear the defence may be finishing their side of the arguement this week maybe they must have something up their sleeve we don’t know?.We all have off times.

  • salmoncatchingbear

    we do all have off days.

    sorry that i “rilly hurt” you jarboy… at least you have a good grasp of our limey insults. “cock jockey” is a personal favourite, along with “fuck stick”

    hope you’re feeling a bit better james!

  • sydney

    jar boy must be kiwi or british.. with those crazy insults. They loose there impact when you use them on an audience who hasn’t heard them before. HAve to reread it a few times to gatehr what it means.

  • salmoncatchingbear

    mine are clearer i think!

    and i would just like to point out, so as no-one gets insulted, that “cock jockey” and “fuck stick” were not aimed at anyone in particular, and that i will not resort to using such foul language again…

  • james mclafferty

    SALMONCATCHER,HI i’m fine iv’e just started a new course at college so things are looking up:-),i’ll be my normal self from now on.i look forward to discussing the case further in the coming days.And when the cas eis over other blogs on this site:-),have a good evening,and you jarboy you mischevious bugger(wink).

  • salmoncatchingbear

    you have a great night too james!

  • jarboy

    i’m gobsmacked, salmon. had no idea you could be so filthy-filthy. will you marry me?

  • salmoncatchingbear

    good morning jar boy! well, afternoon for me!

    what part of my filth shocked you?!

  • jarboy

    shocked in a good way;-)
    i’ll be your f**k stick if you’ll be my c**k jockey.

  • salmoncatchingbear

    wahaay!

  • jarboy

    is that a yes? ;-)

  • salmoncatchingbear

    my dear jarboy, i’m sorry but i already have one! plus, you know, geographically, i am a limey (!) and it would be very hard to maintain any kind of stick/jockey activity!!

  • jarboy

    ms sal, :-(, but he’s a lucky man.

    how ’bout u, jimmy? me da stick, u da jockey?

  • james mclafferty

    I like women JARBOY sorry.

  • jarboy

    thats’ what my married-wth-kids, macho, latino fuck-buddy keeps telling me, as he sits on it and rides.

  • james mclafferty

    Far too much info Jarboy.

  • jarboy

    is that a yes?

  • salmoncatchingbear

    jar, you never fail to crack me up, except when you do!

  • jarboy

    thanks, sal. you too me. we get each others sense of humor. i think james is starting to catch on to mine, finally.

  • salmoncatchingbear

    it is possible!! i’m not into blue eyed guys either! my stick has lovely green ones. kinda looks like seb bach… grr!

  • james mclafferty

    Jackson Jury To See Accuser Again
    (Page 1 of 2)

    SANTA MARIA, Calif., May 27, 2005

    (CBS/AP) Michael Jackson’s prosecutors will be allowed to end their case where it began — with a tape of Jackson’s accuser talking to police for the first time about his claims that the singer molested him.

    The prosecution, as part of its rebuttal case, will play a one-hour taped interview with the teenage boy conducted by the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department in 2003, reports CBS News Correspondent Steve Futterman.

    Judge Rodney S. Melville decided Thursday to permit jurors to see the July 2003 videotape.

    In response, the defense threatened to shove aside the last 60 days of testimony and bring back the people at the heart of this case: the accuser, his mother, his lawyer and his therapist, reports CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales.

    The case had been expected to go to the jury next week, but that became uncertain with the possibility of extensive new testimony.

    “This certainly would extend the case if they do call who they say they will,” said former prosecutor Susan Filan. “However, this may be defense bluff and posture.”

    Melville, however, turned down a prosecution request to show pictures of Jackson’s genitals that were taken during a previous molestation investigation.

    Jackson, 46, is charged with molesting a 13-year-old boy in February or March 2003, giving him wine and conspiring to hold his family captive to get them to rebut a documentary in which Jackson said he let children into his bed but nothing sexual happened.

    On the 2003 tape the boy for the first time tells law enforcement officials that he was molested by Jackson.

    The tape could hurt the defense.

    “You don’t want that to be the most recent memory in the minds of the jurors before they enter the deliberation room,” former Santa Barbara prosecutor Craig Smith.

    “Right now, the jurors are sitting on the edge of reasonable doubt. If he looks credible, this puts the case back on track for a conviction,” said courtroom observer Filan.

    Prosecutors contend a videotape of the boy’s first police interview will show that his story has been consistent.

    Defense attorney Robert Sanger argued the tape contains “prejudicial material” such as officers telling the boy: “You’re really brave, we want you to do this.”

    Sanger also argued against the prosecution’s request to show photos of Jackson’s genitals, saying it would be “very shocking” and prejudicial to the jury.

    (CBS/AP) The photographs were taken in 1993 when prosecutors were trying to gather evidence against Jackson in another molestation case.

    “I actually talked to Michael after that photo session. He told me it was the most humiliating experience of his life,” said Jackson biographer and CBS News Consultant J. Randy Taraborrelli.

    After taking the photos, authorities had the boy involved in the case draw a picture of what he thought the genitalia looked like. Prosecutors claimed the picture showed a unique blemish.

    The boy in the investigation and his family eventually received a multimillion-dollar settlement from Jackson and no criminal charges were filed.

    “Michael always feared these photos would come back one day to haunt him, and they almost did,” said Taraborrelli.

    Arguing for use of the graphic pictures, Senior Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen said the prosecution wanted to show jurors a child’s description “of a unique feature of (Jackson’s) anatomy.”

    Zonen said it would show that Jackson’s relationships with boys were “not casual.”

    The judge refused to allow the pictures, saying the prejudicial effect of the photos would far outweigh any value.

  • http://http.www.myspace.com stephanie lopez

    michael jackson i love you so much because i love you and your music.From your biggest fan by stephanie lopez who lives in new jersey 310 marshall drive in hoboken.

  • http://http.www.myspace.com stephanie lopez

    ilove you michael jackson so much because i love you and your music.From your biggest fan so if you want to visit me come at 310 marshall drive hoboken NEW JERSEY BY STEPHANIE LOPEZ.

  • STEPHANIE LOPEZ

    I LOVE YOU MICHAEL JACKSON SO MUCH BECAUSE I LOVE YOU YOUR MUSIC AND YOUR HAIR FROM YOUR BIGGEST FAN EVER BY STEPHANIE LOPEZ [Personal contact info deleted]

  • MARKS 18 YEARS OLD

    HIS FACE LOOKED GOOD BEFORE HE FUCKED IT UP!

    HIS MUSIC ROCKS, THAT’S FOR SURE!

  • PLEASE READ!!!!!!!!!!!

    I JUST WISH HE DIDN’T CHANGE HIS FACE, BECAUSE IT ONCE LOOKED SO COOL.

    IT IS SOOOOOOOO SAD

    His lyrics goes, “What have done, what have we done”, in the Earth song.

    You fucked up your face, that’s what you’ve DONE!

  • Elayne

    I think that michael should have never have abused Jordan Chandler in 1993 or molested a boy in 2005 i dont know wat got in his head 4 doin those nasty crap but that how he wanted to end up 1st he always wanted to sing with his brothers and he did a solo career and was the king of pop and he turned white for no reason and he never bleached his skin its just a rumor and he met jordan c. in 1992 and abused him in 1993 and made new albums and molested a boy in 2005 thats so stuck up and i wish he never changed his face why michael u think that people will like or love you for doing this.

  • Zena Grey

    THAT SICK BASTARD! Burn in hell!

  • person

    Zena Grey [personal attack deleted] He died! Well you posted that before he did… still he never meant to dangle him and he even said it was an accident.

  • headmad

    at least hes dead now and thats prince micheal jackson whos now alive