home

Michael Jackson: Status of the Prosecution's Case

Trial Update
April 17, 2005

The best article I've read so far about the Michael Jackson trial is this one in the Sunday Observer. It lays out the damaging testimony from the prosecution's witnesses, and reports:

But the picture of a doomed Jackson is far from true. The prosecution has now fired most of its big guns and Jackson is still standing. The defence phase of the case has yet to begin and will probably last until the end of June at least. Already there are hints that the prosecution's best days could be behind it. The defence will rely on two main tracks. Firstly, that Jackson's accusers are after his money. Secondly, that all the witnesses so far are disgruntled former employees who have sold their stories to the tabloids. There is ample evidence for both.

Here's the problem in a nutshell:

For in the Jackson trial, there are few innocents. The prosecutor is unrelenting. The defence is unbending. Who is the accuser and who is the victim depends on what you choose to believe. Each witness has a horrific story. Yet, rather than calling the police, each appears to have sold that story to a supermarket tabloid cashing in on the true American currency: 15 minutes of fame.

The article details the graphic testimony against Jackson by the various accusers, mothers, housekeeper and guards. As to the current accuser,

His cause has been greatly helped by stuttering performances from all the prosecution's key witnesses. The accuser, dubbed John Doe, gave an at times bizarre display. He yawned repeatedly, prompting even Sneddon to ask him: 'I'm keeping you awake, am I?' To which the boy replied: 'All I need is a pillow.' John Doe was also questioned about how his initial complaints of five acts of abuse had turned into just two. His brother, known as James Doe, also gave changing testimony, describing events differently at different times.

Yet the worst performance was by the mother. At one stage, she dubbed Jackson and his entourage as 'killers'. She pointed at Jackson every time she mentioned his name, frequently burst into tears yet cracked jokes just as often. Mesereau raised few objections to disturb her flow. Even prosecutor Ron Zonen betrayed his exasperation. 'Anyway...' was his sarcastic response to a long reply that failed to answer his question.

And what will the jury make of the absent participants....notably, McCauley Culkin and the 1993 accuser, Jordie Chandler?

But the witnesses that were not there were also crucial. Both Culkin and Robson have previously insisted they were never abused by Jackson. Jordie Chandler has also refused to testify. It is perhaps telling that he has not spoken to his mother, who was so willing to take the stand, in more than 11 years.

Or the money sought by the witnesses in years past,

The collision of celebrity and crime and chequebook journalism has undermined swathes of the prosecution's case....Jackson's cook Lemarque, who says he saw him molest Culkin, had talks with a tabloid about selling his story for $100,000. He admitted to Mesereau that he had been told the story was worth more if Jackson's hands were inside Culkin's underpants, not outside. Another staff member, maid Adrian McManus, confessed that several employees had banded together to hire a 'media broker' to peddle Jackson sex stories that they made up.

Chacon, the security guard, was part of a failed lawsuit to sue Jackson by ex-Neverland staff. That suit ended in disaster and each plaintiff was forced to pay Jackson more than $1m in legal fees. 'This is a good way to get even with him, isn't it?' Mesereau bluntly asked as Chacon squirmed. Chacon has also sold his story to the tabloids to pay the legal bills.

The jury will have to do some heavy lifting to overcome the baggage the proseuction's witnesses bring to the case:

It is hard to escape the notion that money could be key to the trial. At no stage did any witness or victim report Jackson to the police. Or try to stop the alleged abuse. They went to lawyers, tabloid editors and television reporters, but never to social services. 'These witnesses are alleging heinous behaviour and not a one of them seems to have done a damn thing about it while the acts were being committed. Who are these people?' said show business columnist Richard Roeper. Mesereau was more subtle. 'Did you ever take your son and leave?' he asked [the 1993 accuser's mother] 'No,' she replied.

Roger Friedman of Fox News says it's time to declare a mistrial and end the fiasco this trial has become.

The Santa Barbara District Attorney's office is now potentially guilty of exploiting a disturbed woman's condition to get a conviction. It's wrong, and it's not going to achieve anything but tarnishing the reputations of their well-intentioned staff.

The testimony on Friday of Janet Arvizo, mother of Michael Jackson's teenage accuser, was alternately maddening and heart breaking. She came across on the stand during her cross-examination by Thomas Mesereau as a compulsive and pathological liar, a shrewd manipulator and a real operator.

Mr. Friedman has many more details of Friday's grotesque and pathetic courtroom display. It's worth reading the whole thing.

Update: Wade Robson's mother calls Jackson's housekeeper--who testified that she saw Wade and Jackson in the shower-- a liar.

< Senator Releases Document Showing Lack of Iraq - al- Qaida Link | Gonzales Speaks to Plame Investigation >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Better idea, if you don't want to read about the Michael Jackson trial, scroll on by or visit another weblog. And read our about page.

    When even Fox News's correspondant says your case is in trouble, your case is probably really in trouble. But I'm still in two minds about the case. I believe that the case against Jackson is probably unsafe. Nonetheless, there's enough hard and circumstantial evidence against Jackson (cavorting naked with kids, kids fingerpints on porn mags, and the like) to suggest that he is a sleazebag, and very possibly a paedophile. It's one thing to believe it, and another thing to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, but the picture of Jackson that's emerged is a far cry from the "giant kid in arrested development" picture I used to have on him. I wouldn't be surprised if it emerged that Jackson was an abuser, just not these particular children.

    Jason, how do you reconcile "hard evidence" and "very possibly" again?