Jury Has Day Off in Michael Jackson Case
‘While jurors in the child molestation case against Michael Jackson have the day off Tuesday, attorneys face a crucial task: Figuring out what instructions panelists should receive before beginning deliberations.
Both sides rested their cases Friday after prosecutors played jurors a tape of the first law enforcement interview with the singer’s accuser. Defense attorneys had said they might call the boy, his mother, and others back to the stand to question them about the tape, but made the surprise decision to rest instead.
Closing arguments in the case could begin as early as Wednesday, and jurors could get the case before the week is out.
The defense has tried since the beginning of the case to portray the boy and his family as dishonest gold-diggers.’
Read more at Jury Has Day Off in Michael Jackson Case
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
June 1st, 2005 at 1:17 pm
Please leave Michael Jackson alone no in fact send him to New Zealand I will sort him out for you. In Palmerston Norths court I will be waiting for him please tell him thankyou for your time Chantel.
June 1st, 2005 at 3:04 pm
he is being abused by people he trusted.its all about his donuts.
June 1st, 2005 at 4:25 pm
I think Michael is a little different from others but I do’nt believe he is guilty of ever having any improper contact with any minor children. I believe Michael is a 45 years old innocent child.
June 1st, 2005 at 8:23 pm
I think Michael Jackson is guilty of child molestation, but will probably get off (no pun intended), because that’s the way the system works. The rich and famous can do pretty much anything they want with their get out of jail free card.
June 1st, 2005 at 9:17 pm
Jackson is simple a serial Child Molester that the money simply cannot buy his way out of this time.
He has prayed on small boys and proubly a few girls as well over the years allthough he seems to prefer young boys -How Sick.
I watched day after day of the Court CNN TV show and if I were a Jurer he would be packing his laundry for San Quintin were there he can find lots and lots of Big Bubba type boys that he can grab there gentiles and have a wack at ,in fact he can squeel that little femine voice and sing Bubba a song every time he getting it up the ass and see how he likes it .
Its sad to say that of a person,but the truth hurts and the Truth is being Rich and Famious has led him down a path in which Money cannot buy him out of finally as it did in the 2 molestions in the early 90’s and also fought offthe other 5 young boys and there parents.
You can tell a Duck by the way it Quacks,a Dog by the way it Barks,and a cow by the way it Moows but in Jacksons case a pedifole by the testimony of just a couple of his Victimes and several witnesses whom saw him fondle and play with younf innocent young boys.
I hope Never land is sold to someone whom actually can show young people a good time if they are severly sick and make the most of there young lives and for Jackson I truley hope he is secensed to life with out parol and grows weary of being cramed in a cell with a Big old fella named Bubba that will make him squeel like the pig he is every night the lights go out and he wakes up with a sore ass forever more.
June 2nd, 2005 at 12:05 pm
Michael is not a child Molester - Is is a little strange - but who says what normal is? I beleive that there is a conspiracy to get him. This poor man has been attacked all of his life. He loves life and children so what!!!! He has the biggest heart. He has spent millions of dollars trying to help children get food, water, clothing and medical attention across the world and then we have these people who make up lies because his authenticity is a little different than the norm. These are lies for greed - this woman coached her children - probably filling their heads full of promises… It bull, but in the end the truth will prevail - I am praying for a not guilty verdict and GOD is on our Michaels side….
I love you Michael stand strong and keep your faith - don’t let this tear you down!
June 2nd, 2005 at 12:59 pm
There was a witness that testified that the mother of the accuser groomed her children by giving them acting lessons so they could effectively say what she wanted them to and be believable. Witnesses in the courtroom viewed the videotaped evidence of the accuser making his allegations with knowlege of this info. They were instructed by the judge not to listen to the testimony for its validity but to study the boy’s demeanor to determine whether or not he was telling the truth. He may well have been acting.
It was also suggested that McCaulay Culkin’s testimony was a performance instead of the truth. If it is possible for McCaulay to act out his testimony, why is not this boy’s testimony also suspect and what did McCaulay have to gain by lying?
There are no facts in this trial. The evidence is all circumstantial. What it will come down to is which set of witnesses are more believable. How do the witnesses stand to benefit from their involvement in this trial? It’s my belief that the defense witnesses were more believable but that’s neither here nor there. The verdict rests in the hands of the jury who have been in the courtroom hearing witnesses and not watching some opinionated broadcaster’s version of events. We may all be shocked by the outcome.
June 2nd, 2005 at 3:27 pm
l m praying for u michael
June 3rd, 2005 at 1:11 am
Responding to Cheetah: yes, after all the testimony (no evidence) much comes down to this business of “acting.”
For the “he was acting” case, you have to believe that the accuser, his brother and sister, and the mother, got together at one point and plotted how to they could shake down the mighty Michael Jackson. Is this plausible? Surprisingly it is because something similar must have taken place in the JC Penny case. I say surprisingly because the scenario is improbable on the face of it - improbable if this was any normal family. I mean, it is difficult to believe a normal mother would deliberately put her son in harm’s way by counselling him to perjure himself. But this is not a normal family and not a normal mother.
In fact, they seem to have made a career out of befriending and weedling money from celebrities, even to the point of using the boy’s serious illness to inveigle. Even to the point of the boy calling up Jay Leno and begging for money. It is hard to believe he called Leno on his own initiative. And when she got money - which she did from several celebrities - it was not spent on the boy’s medical care at all.
So, surprisingly, it is more than possible that the mother did concoct this grift. If she did, she must have hoped that Michael, true to form, would come up with an offer - which he could easily have done as he did before, but in this case he did not.
There is another wrinkle. The person who blew the whistle was not the boy durnig his interview with detectives. It was a psychologist who interviewed the boy and carried the story to Sneddon. Was the boy, 15 years old at the time, able to fool a trained psychologist about abuse that had happened two years previously? Was he that good an actor? My own opinion? I cannot make up my mind about it. Sometimes I think yes (because I know how good child actors can be) and sometimes I think no (because it is, after all, a bit far fetched).
June 3rd, 2005 at 4:24 am
Rafe - Did they ever revel how this mother was able to obtian phone numbers of the “stars”? I just can’t see an industry, especially one as egotistical as entertainment, allowing this mother to solicit money in an inappropriate or unprofessional manner. I just can’t see the entertainers/industry allowing her into their circle, if in fact she was so horrible. Believe me, i am not defending the mother, Ii am not saying she made correct decisions (especially when it comes to the company her son keeps), I am just suggesting she must have had some credibility to contact these celebs in search of money - regardless how she spent it. When I think of MJ and this case, I just keep coming back to the conclusion of guilty - I believe the mother is questionable, I believe the accuser is a troubled child, but to me, those facts just do not cancel out the fact that the accuser was molested. And no matter how wrong the mother was for treating her son as a meal-ticket, that does not make it ok for mj to molest him and also take advantage of him. I would like to see MJ be found guilty, and serve some time behind bars, and I would like to see the mother be charged with neglect.
June 3rd, 2005 at 5:46 am
The mother got the phone numbers from the guy at the comedy club. He has a comedy class for young kids. The accuser’s mother using her kid as a “meal ticket” is no different from what all child actor’s parents do. The accuser wanted to be a comedian. He wanted to be in show biz and his mother was doing what all stage mothers do - selling her kid. I dont blame the accuser’s mother any more than I blame any parent who supports the notion that kids should work for a living.
Yesterday on TV I heard someone predict that the jury would say “We find the defendent, the parents, the witnesses, the lawyers and the judge Guilty!”
That cracked me up….maybe it was their delivery…
June 3rd, 2005 at 6:20 am
To Rafe - Great comments! It was the psychologist who contacted Sneddon after the allegations were made but it would be unconscionable for a psychologist not to contact authorities when those kinds of allegations are made by a child even if the psychologist personally believed the allegations to be suspect.
Roseena- I admire your resolve. I’m sure it is derived from a deep love for children. I just wish I could be as sure as you are. To be fair Michael is an alleged child molester. The allegations still have to be proven.
Debi- That comment was halarious!