Jackson judge allows police video
‘The judge in Michael Jackson’s abuse trial has agreed that a video of police interviewing his teenaged accuser can be seen by the jury reports BBC. The day after the defense rested, Judge Rodney S. Melville agreed to prosecutors’ request that during their rebuttal case they be allowed to show the jury a videotape of a July 2003 law enforcement interview of the boy to show that his story has been consistent reports AP. Comedian Chris Tucker, the final witness for the defense said he had found the accuser unusually sophisticated and cunning for a 12-year-old. Mr Jackson’s defence lawyers have warned that they may call the 15-year-old accuser and his mother back to the witness stand. ‘
Read more at Jackson judge allows police video
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 28th, 2005 at 1:17 am
GREAT! I hope the video will reveal truth to the jury. Seems unfair the judge woudln’t allow the pictures of MJ’s penis presented to the jury. The telltail splotch would have been very relevant in the case. I blame the prosectution for not trying to get the pics entered earlierin the trial.
May 28th, 2005 at 2:02 am
With great respect, I think this is another mistake by the prosecution. Sneddon has already had an expert witness say that it would be unusual for a youthful victim to stick to his story (I don’t know how true that is, but it is an expert’s opinion). If he now presents evidence that the victim IS sticking to his story, it undercuts earlier evidence. But all that is secondary. If he once again subjects his star witness to a withering cross by Masereau, he may blow the case even further out of the water than it is.
As for the penis splotch, true or not, it really has nothing to do with this case, does it? It is 10-year-old evidence this is not as damning as it appears. I think the judge quite properly said, “you had your innings with previous accusations, ample time to make your point… move on to THIS case, instead of trying to prove an earlier one, Mr prosecutor.”
May 28th, 2005 at 2:08 am
I always have second thoughts, roseena. But it seems to me that the “rebuttal” is an opportunity for the prosecution to refute evidence brought forward by the defense, not time to introduce new material. On third thought, the police video is new material, and it has been allowed, so I must be wrong.
May 28th, 2005 at 2:21 am
as i have said all along, the prosecution can’t win this case. so they have been giving evidence in a 10 year old case. if the evidence was so powerful why did the prosecutor not use it then. all it would of done now is to futher humiliate jackson. while a lot of people have made up there minds about mj being guilty, they refuse to look at the evidence about the family. it has now come out that they did shop a story to the tabloids, to the tune of 20,000. everyone has tried to make money off of michael. it is no wonder that he has such a distrust of adults. it seems just knowing michael, you can make some money with the tabloids. i bet you that even the prosecutor will write a book to make money off of the trial
May 28th, 2005 at 2:29 am
I don’t understand the fairness in allowing the defense to call the mother and child back to the stand, I assume in reponse to the police video interview being viewed. When the defense showed a selection of video of MJ interviews as part of their case the prosecution did not have the opportunity to call MJ to the stand in response. Does not seem fair.
I think the prosection should have been able to work the pictures of the penis into evidence…. if done earlier and under a different approach.
May 28th, 2005 at 3:32 am
Perhaps, it is very old news though, and not as compelling as some people think. I keep asking myself. WHY didn’t sneddon bring this evidence forward, if it is strong, perhaps as a strong closer to his presentation? He had the opportunity to request it be entered into play but didn’t. It made me think that he did not trust the evidence.
Anway, the judge has made his rulings and we’ll see what the lawyers can do with it.
Well just as a matter of law, I don’t thinkyou can compel a defendant to testify, but a paintiff must stand up in open court and make his accusations.
May 28th, 2005 at 3:36 am
I hope somebody prints, verbatim, the closing arguments. I would like to read them.
May 28th, 2005 at 3:43 am
I read somewhere that the prosecution intended to introduce the penis pics in the rebuttal as a “bombshell” to shock the jury and the judge refused to permit it becuase “bombshell” evidence isn’t permitted in the rebuttal. the prosecution made a mistake - they should have used the edidence from the beginning, and not saved it for a surprise.
May 28th, 2005 at 5:56 am
Probably should have used it to end their case, rather than the two witnesses who did not contribute much. Another miscalculation?
May 28th, 2005 at 5:57 am
Probably should have used it to end their case, rather than the two witnesses who did not contribute much. Another miscalculation? One wonders how this case would have played out if the two lawyers were switched, Masereau prosecuting and Sneddon defending. Would it have made a difference?
May 28th, 2005 at 6:26 am
I was at the gym today, running on the treadmill, watching an e-entertainment special on Michael and was hit with a realization. Michael is not sane. The segment I watched was showing him swoosh and dangle blanket, his baby, over the 4 story balcony. It has been a while since i saw that image, the scared baby, limbs flailing, and michael seemingly unaware of the danger. I know I would never do that to mine or anyone’s child. And he defended his action by saying “the crowd was shouting to see my baby, so i let them”. However the baby’s head was covered with a blanket - so no one was actually seeing the boy. Was that not neglectful or abuse? I know this has nothing to do with this trial, but watching that video clip now, during the trial, made me think MJ is mentally ill or totally incapable of knowing what is good or healthy for any child. If mj was able to defend that act, what we all viewed with our eyes, as acceptable play, why then would we trust his interpretation of acceptable play with another persons child. Just my thought.
May 28th, 2005 at 9:30 am
Regarding the prosecution’s pictures: I read that the pictures had a missing link which means, since the Chandler kid did not actually testify that Michael Jackson did moleste him, there is no definitive proof. Therefore, if the jury was allowed to see the pictures, that asking them to “speculate”.
May 28th, 2005 at 9:32 am
Jackson judge allows police video
Tell me more about that:…
May 28th, 2005 at 9:43 am
The police video has been played! The police was making small talk with the boy and asking him how his grades were in school. Gavin replied,” I get c’s and D’s. Sounds to me that much of what the prosecution had hoped to play from the police video’s was cut.
May 28th, 2005 at 10:30 am
The Associated Press states:
Defense Suddenly Rests in Jackson Case By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent
30 minutes ago
SANTA MARIA, Calif. - Michael Jackson’s accuser returned to the courtroom on videotape Friday as the prosecution showed a 2003 interview in which the boy — downcast and speaking quietly — told investigators for the first time that the pop star molested him.
ADVERTISEMENT
In a surprising move after the video, defense lawyers decided not to call the boy back to the stand, as they had planned to do. The defense did not put on a rebuttal case, meaning closing arguments could begin as early as Wednesday.
In the tape, the boy haltingly described the alleged molestation in much of the same language he used in his testimony during the trial. The tape showed the boy, in denim shorts and a blue shirt, slumped in a chair. He occasionally smiled, scratched his arm and fumbled with a button on his shirt.
“He put his hands in my pants. He started masturbating me,” the boy told detectives who urged him to tell his story. “I told him I didn’t want to do that and he kept on doing it. I told him no.”
The interview was conducted with sheriff’s investigators in Santa Barbara on July 6, 2003. Investigators made small-talk as they tried to build rapport before pressing him to be forthcoming.
With his head down and frequently pausing, the boy described the alleged molestation in a low voice.
On the tape he said Jackson masturbated him “five or so” times and later clarified under questioning by Sgt. Steve Robel that it was five times or less.
In his witness stand testimony the boy said he could remember Jackson masturbating him twice but there may have been more times. His brother testified to twice seeing Jackson molesting the boy.
In the taped interview he described things that Jackson allegedly said to him, including that boys need to masturbate or they would go crazy.
After that, Robel told the boy, “I guarantee you will feel much better after you get it … off your chest.”
The boy then took a deep breath and after a long pause went on.
“He said that he wanted to show me how to masturbate,” the boy said. “I said no. Then he said he could do it for me.”
The boy looked down, then resumed haltingly.
“He grabbed me,” he said.
Robel asked him where he was grabbed.
“My private area,” the boy said, going on to describe the masturbation and saying that Jackson touched him for “a long time.”
Asked what Jackson said in response to being told to stop, the boy told Robel, “He said that’s OK. It’s natural.”
The boy said the first molestation occurred after he and Jackson had been drinking at the singer’s Neverland ranch.
“Toward the last days at Neverland … he would always have me drink,” the boy said.
The accuser, now 15, testified at the start of the trial. The prosecution asked to introduce the tape during its rebuttal case, which began after the defense rested earlier this week.
After lengthy arguments, the judge admitted the tape for limited purposes — to “examine his demeanor and the manner in which he made the disclosures.”
Jackson, 46, is charged with molesting the then-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 the boy appeared with Jackson as the entertainer said he let children into his bed but it was non-sexual.
___
Associated Press Writer Tim Molloy contributed to this report.
May 28th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
The prosecution’s case is a mile wide and an inch deep. As the case has unfloded the prosecution increasingly has appealed to the emotional impact of the allegations themselves, while on the bais of the evidence the case presented is increasingly unanchored,, as unanbchored as a story in a tabloid newspaper which is the level of objective credibility of the case.
In our legal history not since the NMCMartin prosecution has a prosecution so cen tered around the testimony of a woman-here the mother- who is so obviously emotionally and morally challenged.
Historians writing baout the case will no doubt contextuialize this case in terms of what Stuart Hall calls a moral panic about child molestation, in which background fears drove a prosecution grounded less in the facts than in pure emotion.
But emotion often wrests the scepter from reason. I’m afraid for Michael, very afraid.
Donald Jones
Professor of Law
May 28th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
Personally I am of the firm belief that Michael is a Heabophiliac who needs some form of Medical treatment with coupled with Incarceration!
May 29th, 2005 at 5:59 am
The police video sounds like a heavy blow to the defense, as the boy’s account of molestation was not consistent - unless he is one hell of an actor - with the claim that the boy lied, or had been coached to lie. The jurors had their eyes down after the video. It was a stunning development in the case, a bomb at the very end of the trial.
May 29th, 2005 at 8:15 am
I think the video touched the jury. I would suspect the jury realized even if the prosecution witnesses have lied in the past (on unrelated issues), and even if the mother was neglectful and maybe has dollar signs in her eyes, and even if the accuser was street smart, and even if MJ had a deprived childhood, even with all this, the boy WAS molested.
I think the video got a reaction no one expected and i think the defense was stunned and that is why they did not call the mother or child back to the stand.
May 30th, 2005 at 1:52 am
I think they recognized there was nothing to be gained from bringing the boy and his mum back. It might be counterproductive to put them back on the stand. I think a lot of supporters of michael jackson changed their view of him after that video. But it isn’t over because Mr. Masereau still has his summation and the final word (I think, after the prosecution finishes).
May 31st, 2005 at 3:47 am
The police video was important, undoubtedly the strongest bit of evidence yet, and just at the right time. Sneddon was very lucky though, that the judge permitted it to be shown. As for me, I am glad it was. My gut feeling that Jackson was totally innocent has changed. Whether or not the video is enough to push all jury members past the “reasonable doubt” bar, I don’t know. But the two sides go into their summations, in my view, with the prosecution ahead by a hair.
Even if it is a hung jury, it is my opinion that the Aviso family will go quickly to a civil suit, asking for big damages, possibly for everything Jackson has got left. And with the lower requirement for the “level of certainty” in a civil trial, they will be on easy street for the rest of their lives.
June 1st, 2005 at 4:36 am
a child molester is just a rapist that prey’s on children, and since all of Jackson’s accuser’s and victom’s are boy’s I guess that makes him a QUEER TO so a place like Britian would suite him just fine ( he is even to imoral for California ) that should say something
June 1st, 2005 at 5:17 am
I cannot see the jury aquiting michael, not after the perfect timing and content of the video. Unless the defense has a sneaky/genius comeback in the closing statement to combat the video and undo the damage, i see mj being punished for the crime.
June 1st, 2005 at 9:10 am
We agree! It looks very dark for MJ at this time. Sneddon was lucky the judge allowed the video and it might even be grounds for an appeal (Explosive evidence is not supposed to be withheld to the rebuttal stage of the trial) - but that’s a longshot.
Masereau has an almost impossible job: to convince the jury that the boy was acting when he described the molestation to detectives. I don’t think he can. The prosecution’s stock rose very strongly on the last day of the trial.