Defense rests its case
The defense rested Wednesday in the Michael Jackson child molestation trial without putting the pop star on the stand, wrapping up after a three-week effort to portray the accuser and his mother as shakedown artists.
Prosecutors immediately began their rebuttal. The jury could get the case as early as the middle of next week and begin deciding whether Jackson molested a 13-year-old cancer patient at his Neverland ranch in 2003.
Defense lawyers portrayed Jackson as the victim of trumped-up charges brought by the boy’s mother when she realized that the family’s days of living lavishly at Jackson’s expense were about to end. A series of witnesses described the mother as a grifter and a welfare cheat who made a career out of hitting up celebrities for money.
Recent Entries
- Michael Jacskon Shuts Down Neverland House
- Neverland Nevermore for Michael Jackson
- Two plead guilty to recording Jackson
- Macauly Culkin - “Michael Jackson’s isolation is Regrettable”
- Michael Jackson Gets 24-Hour Extension From State
- Jermaine Jackson: ‘I fear Michael is guilty’
- Michael Jackson Considers moving to UK
- Michael Jackson to face suit for unpaid cash
- Reality check for Michael Jackson as Neverland shuts
- Michael Jackson Faces Deadline To Pay Workers
May 26th, 2005 at 1:34 pm
Who Care’s about the mother. Did everyone forget, this is about the Child?
May 26th, 2005 at 1:36 pm
Then why is the childs’ life all messed up?
May 26th, 2005 at 2:04 pm
unlike the prosecution, the defense ended with a very strong witness, a blockbuster witness, who testified that the odious mother and her odious family tried to shake him down… and that he warned Michael Jackson about them… that they were out for the money… His testimony is very strong and shows what the whole trial was about. This madacious woman and her son took advantage of a pure, generous heart and tried to crucify him. I hope they get charged with maliciousness and perjury.
May 26th, 2005 at 2:07 pm
This “child” - for gawd’s sake he was 13 - was out to betray his friendship, betray the trust of Michael Jackson. He is sick and needs therapy.
May 26th, 2005 at 5:13 pm
Angelica at 13 years old he is still a child, no matter how much you may dislike the fact.
May 26th, 2005 at 5:49 pm
It’s not just about the child, there are multiple allegations being tried… if the mother & her family lied about even 1 allegation they brought against MJ, who’s to say they aren’t lying about the rest of them…
May 26th, 2005 at 5:51 pm
It would be relief to a lot of us if the mother is locked up or served with papers not just for perjury.. but since we’ll never really know if her son was molested… if he was for her putting him in that situation, and if not, for wasting all our tax money…. LOCK HER UP ASAP.
May 26th, 2005 at 8:32 pm
The whole Arvizo Family are totally freaky. Gavin and Star Arvizo may be “children” as you put it, but do not behave like children - as a lot of 13-year-olds don’t these days. They would be quite capable of lying under oath and trying to pin these charges on MJ. Looking at it from an outsider’s point of view - the Arvizos appear to be the criminals and not MJ.
May 27th, 2005 at 1:15 am
I read a posting last night that was a summary of Chris Rock’s contribution to the defense… now I can’t find the post.
Anyway, of all the witnesses the defense called, rocks seemed to be the only one that resembled having slight content. The previous defense witnesses seemed to be hum-drum. My impression of the defense testimony was leaning more towards hear-say or of character witness of mj, that i didn’t take seriously (the celebrity card was played so wisely). Also, i felt the defense witnesses “danced” around the innuendo the mother wanted money but none really seemed to give any solid facts. Having said that, I go back to my opinion of the chris rock testimony, seemed to have a little more bite to it but I were on the jury i would not find it persuasive enough to sway me to a not-guilty verdict. Even though rock had dates and incidents to reference, I didnt see any of them as powerful enough to put enough doubt in my mind that MJ molested the boy. Rock’s testimony can lead you to believe the parent’s behavior was peculiar at times, but didn’t negate what her son and the other boys testified to about mj’s behavior. sorry “not-guilty”
clique…. I stand to my opinion of guilty.
May 27th, 2005 at 3:07 am
Vivien, your comment 8, I cannot agree with you more, and the Rock testimony made that clear - perfectly believable testimony. This family has made a career out of shaking down celebs and using any means to do that, even the tragic cancer the accuser battled so successfully, thank heaven. When they started to become close to Michael Jackson, I think they began to plot how to take him down, make the big score, never have to worry about money again. The mentality of this family is scary.
May 27th, 2005 at 3:12 am
I would like to say something about the lawyerly skill in this case. Sneddon ended his case with a whimper and Mesereau ends with a blockbuster. It is just good courtroom strategy. I am not talking about guilt or non-guilt, I am talking about presentation and, my opinion, Masereau made Sneddon look like a rube and his case against Michael Jackson, look like a tissue of lies.
May 27th, 2005 at 3:47 am
people, it was CHRIS TUCKER not CHRIS ROCK. LETS GET IT RIGHT, thats how mess gets started
May 27th, 2005 at 3:53 am
tucker… rock - rucker… tock - at least i didnt call him chris Fucker - whats the difference - i got the 1st name right : )
May 27th, 2005 at 6:38 am
There’s a big difference. Tucker is all washed up and Rock just came out with a movie that is potentially going to be a blockbuster. Sorry Roseena, usually I agree right along with you.
May 27th, 2005 at 10:24 am
The accuser my be 13 but he has learned to lie and has been coached by the best. She has taught her children that you can benefit from not telling the truth or even embellishing on the truth. There is too much reasonable doubt. Mj is definately the victim here. If the mother had her choice, there would be several victims. You don’t have to come right out and say you need money to shake someone down. She is a true con-artist. And she is teaching her children to be the same!
May 27th, 2005 at 2:01 pm
I feel that if the mother lied under oath and commited welfare fraud…she is a poor example to her children to say the very least,she can’t be trusted and is a con-artist.Not only is Michael Jackson an apparent victim..so are her children…I really feel badly for them and their bleak chances at a”normal future.I hope C.P.S steps in and finds these kids a love filled home…rather than the carnival situation their mother has put them in
May 27th, 2005 at 2:47 pm
Has it crossed anybodies mind that maybe the mother was out for money and Michael is a child molestor? That’s what I meant when I said Michael may be her perfect victim, because she targeted him and Michael targeted the boy. I believe the mother is a conniving money hungry bitch, but I also believe Michael is a deranged pedophile.
May 28th, 2005 at 12:02 am
Anthony, FYI: Anybody’s…..Molester and Paedophile are the correct spellings!!
Not that it makes much difference, I’m just bored with your opinions, you angry little man
May 28th, 2005 at 1:07 am
anita - you may need to refer to your pocket dictionary - anthony spelled pedophile correctly. gees.