dag said:

No, but you generally don't, so I'm used to it.

And fear of intimacy is often correlated with sexuality. I don't know how anyone can definitively state that it ISN'T with respect to Michael until he's been examined by a professional psychiatrist.
[Edited 3/4/05 10:12am]

Annastesia22 said:

No he can't. There has to be intention to molest. If the DA were smart they would have thrown in minor counts and left out the hard to prove stuff, especially without DNA turning up.
[Edited 3/4/05 10:28am]

well, yeah of course it is correlated with sexuality, but not in a sence if you´re heterosexual or homesexual, right?

The rebuttal video the family was 'forced' to make has been entered into evidence. AP reports:

And of course, the MJ-arriving-at-court picture of the day:

SpcMs said:

I know Red is his fav color but, with his pale complexion he really shouldn't wear it

Lilgish said:

Correct, if they can't prove the moplestation charge, the intoxication charge is null and void. even if he was found guilty on intoxicating a minor. he wouldn't get anymore than a fine up to 2000$ no actual jail time.

I heard on the news he can go to jail 4 giving alcohol to minors ,but you know in the news they are picking up everything against him ,not saying much about the defence

Annastesia22 said:

Thats not true
its a 2000$ fine, when a person can't pay the fine, they can be imprisioned for 2 to 3 monthes
thats about it

The fine might vary depending on state,

His sisters testimony was nullified under cross examination. Why would the prosecution start their case with family first? The press reported their Grand Jury testimony was even weak, the accusers was the worst. It’s like the Prosecution is putting the family on trail, they should have started with the physical evidence/conspiracy and save the family to the end.


Let's hope this gives mike good material for the next album.

lilgish said:

Lets hope its not like invincible...

Why the family first?
Cause the physical evidence is most likely weak, or their is none

If i where prosecuting the trial i'd probably do it a different way...
I'd probably save the Family for last as you said,
because they would most likely be the greatest force against the defense...

Also if i where prosecuting i would never try the case because theirs insuficient evidence for me to try him...

Im totally in the dark on what the prosecution is planning to do...
or what their strageties
so ya got me!

Well...

I am loving it.

THE TIMES

March 05, 2005

Accuser sings the praises of Michael Jackson on video

From Chris Ayres in Los Angeles

THE Michael Jackson child abuse trial was yesterday shown a video of his accuser praising the pop icon — after the jury was told that the boy and his family were given a script of “nice things” to say about their experiences with him.
Mr Jackson openly wept in court as the video was played, the second time so far during the trial that he has broken down in tears.

Gavin Arvizo, who was 13 at the time of the alleged abuse, was shown on video saying: “I don’t like Martin Bashir.” It was Mr Bashir’s controversial documentary about Mr Jackson, broadcast in 2003, that led indirectly to the current charges of child molestation.

The prosecution claims that Mr Jackson and his aides effectively kidnapped the entire Arvizo family after the film was aired, told them death threats had been made against them, and forced them to make a “rebuttal video”.

It was also during this time, the prosecution says, that Mr Jackson was giving alcohol to Gavin and molesting him at the singer’s Neverland ranch in California, about 170 miles north of Los Angeles.

Yesterday, in an unexpected move, Tom “Mad Dog” Sneddon, the Santa Barbara district attorney, showed the rebuttal video — which was never broadcast — to the jury.

It showed Gavin sitting beside his mother, Janet Arvizo (now Janet Jackson, after marrying the US Army reserve Major Jay Jackson), his younger brother Star and his older sister Davellin, who took the witness stand on Thursday. Gavin said that he didn’t like Mr Bashir after being asked by the cameraman what he thought of the British journalist’s Living with Michael Jackson documentary.

The boy’s mother, who had curly dyed brown and red hair and bright lipstick, then laughed and told him: “You can’t say that.” Janet then clutched her son’s hand and denied suggestions that he had been abused.

In a reference to Mr Bashir’s footage of Gavin holding hands with Mr Jackson, Janet Arvizo said: “I am holding Gavin’s hand and it is a normal thing. It disturbed me greatly when I saw the innuendos. He (Bashir) was making out there was something dirty and wrong. They took a beautiful relationship that he has with Gavin and spun it out of control.”

Ms Arvizo also talked about the tumour that was removed from Gavin’s chest in 2000 when he was ten years old, and spoke about Mr Jackson as though he was the real father of her son.

“As God works with people, so does the devil,” she said on video. “Anyone who is making innuendos: don’t they see this is a kid who has had a very horrible, hard life? Do you not want your father holding your hand, especially when you were given no chance of living? Doctors gave him (Gavin) no chance of living. They said plan for a funeral. He has got no chance to live. We are very thankful and we are united as a family. My children have full access to him 24 hours a day because he thinks nothing other than being a father. He works hard for his family. He is an ideal family man.”

Gavin’s mother came close to tears when she said that Mr Jackson had saved her family from poverty. “Me and my kids know what it is like to be poor,” she said. “We know what it is with Michael and we know no problems.”

Prosecutors are trying to show the extraordinary lengths to which Mr Jackson was prepared to go to save his career and reputation after Mr Bashir’s documentary, in which the singer admitted to sharing his bedroom with young boys, including Gavin.

This week one of Mr Jackson’s aides, Ann Marie Kite, was asked to rank the publicity disaster of the film on a scale of one to ten. “It was a 25,” she said.

Gavin could take the stand as early as next week. Mr Jackson seemed calm at the prospect of the confrontation as he arrived at the court yesterday jacketless and with a white shirt and bright red tie.

The trial continues.

http://www.timesonline.co...73,00.html





AP

Jackson accusers' video: 'God worked through Michael to help us'

By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent

A family now accusing Michael Jackson of child molestation was seen by jurors Friday in a video praising him as a father figure, and the sister of the accuser testified under cross-examination that she had accused her own father of molesting her, imprisoning her and making terrorist threats.

"God worked through Michael to help us," the mother of the accuser said in the video played for the jury. "When we saw no hope Michael said there was hope. ... We were broken and Michael fixed us."

The video was shown to Jackson's jury at the end of the trial's first week of testimony, and as the pop star left court for the weekend he commented to reporters: "It went very good, it went very good."

The video was played during testimony by the accuser's 18-year-old sister, who underwent questioning by District Attorney Tom Sneddon and cross-examination by Jackson attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr.

During cross-examination intended to show the family has a history of making allegations, the witness acknowledged the accusations against her father, who is divorced from her mother.

Mesereau asked the young woman if she had once told police she was being abused by her father five times a week, and she answered, "We were abused every day."

She said she learned that she was sexually abused through something her mother blurted out.

"When you were interviewed by police you never told them your father molested you," she said.

"They weren't asking me about that and I was very young," she said.

But she then said, "It was a horrible experience to find out ... that he had done that to me when I was young. My mother screamed it out to him."

Mesereau asked if the father appeared to agree with the accusation and she said yes.

The sister testified Thursday that Jackson's associates had the family make the tape about two weeks after a Feb. 6, 2003, TV documentary by British journalist Martin Bashir in which her brother appeared with Jackson, who said he allowed the boy to sleep in his bed while he slept on the floor.

Sneddon claims that all of the rebuttal video was staged and scripted.

The sister was seen in the video with tears streaming down her face and saying of Jackson, "He's a very caring, humble man. He took us under his wing when no one else would."

She spoke of her brother's affliction with cancer and that Jackson "helped him so much."

The boy's mother delivered a dramatic and seemingly heartfelt tribute to a man she said "made us his family."

The boy at one point said that he asked Jackson, "Can I call you daddy?" and that Jackson said that was fine.

The mother spoke of a life of deprivation and rejection.

"We weren't the right ZIP code, the right race. All the doors closed on us. Michael said, 'My doors are open.'"

The video, which lasted more than an hour, was played in a hushed courtroom where Jackson's mother, Katherine, sat dabbing at her eyes with a tissue and his sister LaToya and brother Jackie sat beside her.

Jurors watched intently and some of them took notes.

"Michael," the boy was heard saying, "he treats me like he's my father."

The boy's brother spoke up and said, "He makes me feel like his son and he lets me call him father and he calls us sons."

The sister again spoke on the video, saying that one day while crying about her brother, Jackson "hugged me and said it was going to be OK. The fact he stood up and defended us, that's a father."

The mother, her hair carefully coifed and wearing fashionable makeup, repeatedly spoke of the miracle of Jackson coming into their life.

"It's a wish come true to see my children interact with a father role model," she declared.

She spoke of abuse by her ex-husband and said she felt a responsibility to make sure that her children were safe.

"When they are with Michael, he spreads his wings and my children have happiness they never have had in their life. And he hasn't left me out. I appreciate him with all my heart," she said.

Off camera, an interviewer asked the family questions and suggested that they say things about Jackson.

The boy who is now accusing Jackson gave him credit for helping to cure his cancer.

"We were driving up the hill and he told me, 'You need to get better.' He told me, 'You need to eat up all those cancer cells like Pac-Man.' I never forgot that," the boy said.

At one point, the mother spoke about money and financial problems that have plagued them.

"We know what it is to be poor but in all the time with Michael there are no money problems. He fulfills our needs," she said.

She said of Bashir, "He took a beautiful relationship and spun it out of control. God works through people and so does the devil."

But when Mesereau questioned the sister on the stand, she insisted that no one in her family has ever seen the documentary.

Asked about her mother's statements about how poor they were, the witness said, "She was just trying to make it more dramatic. There was a script."

"So are you saying everything you said on the tape was memorized?" asked Mesereau.

"Not everything," the girl said.

Mesereau also questioned her about her earlier testimony that while at Neverland she saw Jackson pour wine for her brothers and others, including her. He noted that she had told sheriff's investigators she believed it was wine because they were in a wine cellar but did not see Jackson pouring it or drink any herself.

"I was young back then," she said. "I didn't know I had to say every little detail for it to be right."

Mesereau noted that she mentioned being young several times and inquired if someone told her to say that if she was stuck on a defense question. She said no.

"Did you ever use that stock phrase when answering any of the prosecution's questions?" he asked.

"Nobody told me what to say. What I say is for me," she said.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin...219S06.DTL



Michael cried.
But otherwise

AFP

Sister of Jackson's child sex accuser admits to lying

SANTA MARIA, United States (AFP) - The sister of the boy who accused Michael Jackson of child abuse admitted in front of trial jurors that she had selectively lied about details of the case.

In testimony that was frequently contradictory, the 18-year-old who had earlier offered a damaging account of her family's stay at Jackson's home, conceded during cross examination by Jackson's attorney that she did not always tell the truth.

She also told jurors that she had previously made a police report in which she accused her father of molesting, falsely imprisoning and making terrorist threats against her -- similar charges to those made by her brother against Jackson.

Lawyer Thomas Mesereau cornered the woman over why she and members of her family had told social workers Jackson had never acted inappropriately with her 13-year-old brother who later accused the star of molestation.

"So you'd lie about certain things and tell the truth about certain things, depending on what you are asked, right?" Mesereau asked the woman. "Yeah," she softly replied.

The girl, along with her mother and two younger brothers, also made a video for Jackson's personal cameraman in which they described him as a loving father-figure to the family and the alleged sex abuse victim.

The accuser's sister told the court, however, that the video had been scripted by Jackson aides who coerced the family to say "nice things" about the star. Prosecutors claim Jackson aides held the family captive until they agreed to make the film seen by jurors Friday.

When Mesereau asked the woman if her mother had lied on the video when she claimed that only Jackson would help them get cancer treatment for the boy who later accused him, she said the star's aides had asked her to lie.

"She was just trying to make it more dramatic. That's what they wanted. We had been given a script," she said.

The girl said she and her mother, painted by defence layers as a financial predator who coached her children to lie in various legal actions, went to police after the father allegedly admitted abusing her.

She said she learned of the alleged admission of molestation when she overheard an argument between her parents, who have since divorced.

"It was just a horrible experience to find out he did that to me when I was young," she told the jury.

The accuser's sister denied her mother had sought money to pay for the medical care of her cancer-stricken brother, as Jackson's lawyers maintain.

Instead, she said, it was her father who had initially sought money, including fund-raising evenings at a Los Angeles comedy club and a newspaper appeal, against her mother's wishes.

The defence claims that the accuser's mother had used her son's illness to raise money even though the boy's medical treatment was covered by the family's medical insurance.

Jackson's lawyers claim that the alleged child sex victim's mother then allegedly used the cash to pay for such luxuries as breast enhancement operations and a tummy-tuck for herself.

The accuser's sister also denied that the family had engaged a lawyer to launch a civil suit seeking cash from Jackson before they filed criminal charge against him.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/...fdr04.html

Interesting has the family EVER said anything that was not in a "scripts"?

NEWSWEEK

‘It Was That Scary’

As Jackson’s lawyers attacked her credibility, the sister of the star’s accuser detailed her family’s bizarre odyssey into the celebrity orbit

By Nomi Morris and Andrew Murr
Newsweek
Updated: 7:03 p.m. ET March 4, 2005

March 4 - They sounded at first like witnesses for the defense. Friday, jurors in the Michael Jackson molestation trial watched silently as lawyers played video clips of Jackson's accuser and his family praising the pop star as a savior. The 13-year-old accuser gushed: “When I first met him, all I thought was he was a loving, kind and humble man, and all he wanted was to do good. I took to him really quick.” Jackson seemed to hover in the family’s estimation somewhere between a parent and a saint. “We call him father,” says the accuser’s younger brother. “He calls us son.” Cooed the mother, reverently: “It’s a wish come true to see my children interact with an ideal role model.”

But the video clips weren’t served up by the defense. They were part of the prosecutor’s case. Santa Barbara District Attorney Thomas Sneddon played the interviews to make a point that Jackson’s aides had coached the accuser and his family to praise Jackson on camera, in the wake of the disastrous Martin Bashir documentary “Living with Michael Jackson.” The February, 2003 clips were part of a “rebuttal tape” Jackson aides hoped would be part of a public relations counterattack against the criticism Jackson faced from the Bashir special. Sneddon contends that it was made during the time when Jackson and his aides conspired to hold the family against their will, one of the 10 criminal charges that form the basis of the molestation trial that began this week in Santa Maria, Calif.

The airing of the clips in court came during testimony from the accuser’s 18-year-old sister, whose name is being withheld to protect the family. She testified that Jackson aides instructed the family to “say nice things about Mr. Jackson and to not talk about what goes on in the ranch.” Why had the mother praised Jackson so lavishly, Sneddon asked her on Friday. “She was trying to make it more dramatic because that’s what they wanted,” the daughter replied. “It was not memorized, but we had been given a script.”

The tape interlude came during the testimony of the sister, now a college freshman. Sneddon made the unusual move of making the teen the first family member to take the stand. Ordinarily, the mother, as the adult in the family, would occupy the lead-off spot. Sneddon’s decision showed he was more than conscious of the fact that Jackson’s defense team has portrayed the mother as a conniving woman who coached her children to invent tales in order to extort money from Jackson. Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a former federal prosecutor, says Sneddon was probably right to substitute the younger woman for the mother. "It makes sense. She's a little harder for the defense to attack," says Levenson, "She's not a bad guy in the way the mother will be."

But when cross examination started Friday, Thomas Mesereau questioned the young woman’s account. Jackson’s lead defense lawyer pushed the defense theory that the children had been coached by their mother into making false accusations against Jackson. The daughter said the family never discussed their testimony with one another, either. “We don’t like to talk about anything associated with the case,” the young woman testified. “It upsets us.” Politely but insistently, Mesereau questioned how that could be when, as she testified, the girl spoke to her mother up to 15 times a day. “Did you ever discuss the rebuttal video with family members?” he asked. “Never.” The defense asked the question again and again about each point of the girl’s testimony, hoping the sheer number of denials would throw doubt on the young woman’s account.

The girl’s insistence that no one had coached her did ultimately show some signs of cracking. Mesereau asked about an interview the family had with social services workers during the time when they were allegedly being held against their will. The family told the family-services officials that Jackson was treating them well, and the girl admitted the mother and children hedged their answers to please Jackson staffers, who were present. Mesereau leaped on their willingness to hedge the story. “You would tell the truth about some things and not others, right?” Mesereau asked. “Yeah,” she admitted. “We already knew not to talk about some things at Neverland.” Mesereau: “You would lie about some things and not other things?” The young woman agreed. The defense hopes jurors will believe that if family members were willing to lie to social services workers, they might be lying now.

During her direct testimony the 18-year-old spent hours on the stand detailing a bizarre odyssey in which Jackson drew her Hispanic, working class family into the orbit of Jackson’s Neverland Ranch and his circle of celebrity friends, dazzling them with trips on private jets, giving them a white Bronco, whisking them to a Miami resort and preparing passports and visas for a trip to Brazil that in the end never took place. She also described how Jackson and his entourage befriended her brother, showered him with gifts, gave the children wine and vodka and had sleepovers with the boys, and ultimately confined the boy and his family at three different locations, telling them there were "death threats" against them.

Jackson is charged with a 10-count indictment that alleges he sexually molested the then 13-year old accuser, fed him wine and conspired to hold the family against its will in the weeks after the Feb. 6, 2003, airing of Bashir’s TV special.

The sister described how Jackson's staff commandeered her family into making a rebuttal video and sequestered them at a spa resort in Miami, at a hotel in Calabasas, Calif., and at Jackson's Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara County. Finally, her mother asked a Neverland staffer to take them home in the middle of the night. "She seemed kind of worried and didn't really understand the whole situation... My mom wanted to get us out of there," the young woman testified. "The whole situation, the whole secrecy. It was very aggressive. I didn't understand why it was like this. I was just scared."

The older sister's testimony provided the first detailed look at the accuser's family, which she portrayed as troubled, yet caring. "When we meet someone for the first time we hug 'em," she said, adding that her mother had taught the kids to do that. The witness described a family that was financially needy and easily awed by the celebrities they met. Before they met Jackson, the five had lived in a small, “bachelor” apartment in East Los Angeles. She established that the mother was a battered wife. She testified that her father had physically abused her mother "too many times to count", and that he had hit her and her brothers "lots." Her mother, on the other hand, "never" hit her or her brothers, she said. The witness testified that her parents argued during the family's first visit to Jackson's ranch, in late 2000. "My dad threw a soda can at my mother and stormed out of the room. She started crying." The parents divorced in 2001. (The mother has since met and married an army major, whom the sister described as "very nice and very, very loving." The couple has a seven-month-old baby.)

During her testimony, the daughter barely looked at Jackson. The trial’s first week ended with Mesereau still hammering at the young woman’s credibility. If the family were being held against their will, he asked late on Friday, what happened when Jackson’s aides drove them to the federal building in Los Angeles to secure passports for the getaway trip to Brazil. “Did you ever hear anyone scream ‘Help! We’re being held against their will?” Mesereau asked. No, the daughter replied. The family was so frightened, she said, they were afraid to cry out. “It was that scary,” she told the court. The sparring will resume on Monday morning.

© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7.../newsweek/

That´s called conscience.

dag, do you think Michael is gonna win this case?

Checkmate: The Case Against Tom Sneddon - By John Karrys


Created: Friday, 04 March 2005

Could this be that pivotal turning point in American history where a District Attorney’s practices are proven to manufacture victims or criminals? Will justice be delivered or manufactured? Since Tom Sneddon serves as vice-president for the National District Attorney’s Association, one would logically assume that he has a thorough database and network with all the key prosecutors, judges and future judges. Who would dare to challenge this Hoover protégé? It is not shocking now to see why pundits and lawyers for the media will argue for the “public’s right to know” regarding information about the details of the trial and yet are interestingly silent in their analysis of Tom Sneddon.

It certainly seems that Tom Sneddon went into this case with a manic momentum based on power and prosecutorial immunity, rather than on methodically scrutinized evidence and sound reasoning. The basic premises surrounding the kidnapping charges clearly demonstrate how a brilliant legal mind with police power can loosely sculpt the term ‘kidnapping’ in any manner possible and package it into a charge; and sell it to a judge.


Although Tom Sneddon has thrown a pile of charges on Michael Jackson, the main counts of child molestation are the ones that strike a hysterical chord in all of our imaginations. The citizens for Dade County, Florida will never forget when state attorney Janet Reno made a name for herself by falsely accusing day care operators of being child molesters, and, as Judge Napolitano says, “created a national paranoia and frenzy so that the public would rally to her side.” This kind of fame put her into the position to serve as attorney general of the United States. Her atrocious record of maliciously fabricating allegations of child molestation and prosecuting innocent people was her rite of passage to glory. It didn’t matter that these charges were later proven false. Don’t think Tom Sneddon doesn’t sample this playbook in his addiction to power.

One can logically deduce that Tom Sneddon has, both within and outside of the county of Santa Barbara, allies who have a lot to profit from a conviction. Prime vineyard property and lucrative publishing assets will lure any legion of parasitic sociopaths to participate. For Sneddon to receive such favourable mainstream press, like the seasoned politician who makes deals to secure votes with special interest groups, it is likely that he has made promises to more than the accuser’s mother. If it is common practice for certain analysts and/or pundits to be paid by the federal government to promote this new economic stimulus package or that new initiative, then why could it not be the case that certain media outlets have been directed not to scrutinize Tom Sneddon and his suspicious case history to the same degree that they dissect Michael Jackson? He’s in the same fish bowl, is he not?

In this land of purposeful delusion where realities are created, it is blatantly obvious that behind the façade of a tabloid child molestation case lies a quintessential shakedown where the District Attorney acts under the illusion that he has grand immunity from illegal conduct. Who would dare prosecute a fellow prosecutor of his standing, influence and economic utility?

Any law-abiding American that has been a legitimate victim of a person’s reckless abuse of legal power might eventually ask these questions: since 1982, were any interest groups, within or around Santa Barbara, granted privileges and/or guaranteed prosecutorial immunity from Tom Sneddon in order for him to remain District Attorney?

History has repeatedly taught us that there is an ominous danger when an individual or a group of individuals are allowed unchecked power, and where the members of the community fear to say anything due to the possibility of intimidation. The abundance of legal weapons a DA has over a community is consistent with the military weapons a Commander-in Chief has over the world.


What will it take to reverse the tragic consequences of a government that is growing in size, power and prosecutorial immunity? The premises, evidence and case against Tom Sneddon will be weighed and measured with the same degree as the case against Michael Jackson. The rest will follow.

By John Karrys


http://mjjsource.com/main...iew&id=441

I do - PLEASE GOD!!! He´s innocent. I am really amazed to read so many articles now questioning not MJ but the other side. That´s not what I am used to from journalist, so I assume that it must be going very well for him.
So far I just have a good feeling from what´s going on in court.

apparantly MJ wore a black suit,white shirt and a red tie yesterday. AND black sandals with purple socks

Going to find a picture now

There http://us.news2.yimg.com/...dxp102.jpg

I just hope the mass media would pick up any of this. But apparentally they don't give a flying poo. It's all "It's gonna be tough for Jackson..." and such.

I've been following the trial and I will say that I'm finding out more about the family and it's clear that they were really fucked up. Having said that, I really think it's too early to sit here and talk about who's winning the case so far. The case is a week old so we still have more evidence to hear. I will reserve my judgment till then.

Woa... i haven't been following the case today,

Just found out about the sister admitted she lied,

Now i remember when i was in criminology class, That the worst thing a wittness can do,
for the defence or prosecution, is to Admit to lying.
Cause afterwards the jury has a set mind on what your case is really about,
you all of a sudden have "Falty Evidence"
Now they have to scrutized whether your other witnesses are lying as well.

So its just gotten a little bit tougher for the prosecution!

Roger Friedman from Foxnews.com has a few more revelations. Not only did the mother give an interview to an English tabloid where she praised MJ days before she was 'forced' to make the rebuttal video. Also it's hard to believe there was any script for the rebuttal video written by Jackson associate Weisner since he speaks very little English (he's German). The 'script' apparently was a list of questions for the familiy to read over before the interview. And the interview MJ associates obtained with death threats and abduction was so important that they didn't even bother to include it in the final video that aired on Fox. Finally, the mother's boyfriend got so bored during the shooting of the video he left halfway true. Guess death threats and abduction wasn't exciting enough for this army major.

LightOfArt said:

He just doesn't give a fuck.

Cloudbuster said:

Black people!
I swear!, My mother dressed my lttle brother in some dress shoes,sweat socks and he was wearing sweat pants....

And it was the middle of summer...

I died laughing!

Also during cross-examination, the young woman backtracked on her earlier allegations that Jackson poured wine for children at his Neverland ranch.

She acknowledged that she told sheriff's investigators she assumed the liquid was wine because they were in a wine cellar.

"I was young back then," she said. "I didn't know I had to say every little detail for it to be right."

RockAbilly said:

It seems to me Prosecution is really trying to push the intoxation charge
i wonder why...

One of the more shocking things to me about this trial, so far, is the lack of interest. The media has been hyping this thing to death, and the circus like atmosphere that was expected hasn't materialized. Small crowds outside the court house to greet MJ on his daily perp walks, and daily updates about what happened in court and that's about it.
It's true that the accuser's family seems to be extremely f*cked up, but then again, so is MJ. If the adult material found in Michael's house includes kiddie porn, the jury might be more inclined to believe the kid. The 1993 case, the payments MJ now admits making to other families, along with child porn could point to a pattern of behavior suggesting pedophilia. And if the jury watched the same Bashir documentary that the rest of the world saw, they know Michael can spin a few lies himself.
Basically, I feel sorry for this kid. I believe Michael did molest him (and will probably walk), he's gone through the grueling ordeal of cancer, and his family life has been the pits. This kid got dealt a bad hand all the way around.

shygirl said:

It didn't? We would have known that by now and he would have been charged with kid porn? Where have you been?