lilgish said:[quote]

Marrk said:

That's the Motherfuckin' drudge report.....not mjj source....wake up adoreme the prosecution is not doing good.
and to those jurors stop fucking laughing already and ride this shit out.

[quote]




It's all about how you view it, isn't it. In my opinion MJ can't come out of this unscathed. It's incredibly difficult to prove without doubt that any of this happened as with many cases. What is looking likely (to me at least) is that he did and will continue to behave inappropriately with children.

I'm not one of those who takes joy in watching this. MJ was one of my childhood heroes. I think what's happening is tragic on all counts. I do feel that I have a little more perspective than many on this board.

adoreme said:

adoreme said:

yep, that's the only way he can get convicted. This is prosecution's plan, create as many dirty stories as possible and hope jury will think "not that much smole without fire"

Former Protégé Vouches for Jacko
Thursday, April 07, 2005
By Roger Friedman

No matter who testifies next in Michael Jackson's alleged "prior acts" of sexual abuse mini-trial, the prosecution will have to deal with the fact that only one boy is showing up to say he was once molested in the past by the pop star.

Now comes Robert Newt, 30, long a "Holy Grail" for The National Enquirer from their investigation into Jackson circa 1993. Newt and his twin brother Ronald Jr. (now deceased) were aspiring performers and spent two weeks as guests in the Jackson family home in Encino, California around 1985. They were about 11 years old and this all occurred before Neverland was completed. Michael, Janet and LaToya were all there, as well as the Jackson parents.

Fast forward to December, 1993. The National Enquirer, desperate to get a scoop that Jackson has abused children, heard that the Newt kids once spent time with Jackson. The tabloid offered the Newts' father, Ronald Sr., a $200,000 to say anything whatsoever happened between his kids and Jackson.


Newt, a San Francisco "character" and filmmaker whose past includes pimping and jail time, considered the offer. A contract was drawn up, signed by Enquirer editor David Perel. Enquirer reporter Jim Mitteager, who is also now deceased, met with Newt and his son at the downtown Marriott hotel in San Francisco. It seemed that all systems were go. But the Newts declined the offer at the last minute.

Ron Newt, Sr., to whom $200,000 would have seemed like the world on a silver platter, wrote "No good sucker" where his signature was supposed to go. The reason: Nothing ever happened between Michael Jackson and the Newt boys.

Indeed, no kids, no matter how much money was dangled by the tabloids, ever showed up to trade stories of Jackson malfeasance for big lumps of cash since the first scandal broke in 1993. An Enquirer editor concedes now:

"Maybe there aren't any other kids," a current Enquirer editor conceded.

I met Bobby Newt near his job as a mortgage broker in suburban Los Angeles yesterday. Just as his dad promised me a few days earlier, he's a good-looking kid. He's half black and half Chinese. Robert and his twin brother were likely very cute kids. They have the same features as other boys advertised as alleged Neverland "victims." But all Bobby Newt remembers of his encounter with Michael Jackson is good times.

And all he remembers about the man from The National Enquirer is that he wanted Bobby, then 18, to lie.

"He said, 'Say he grabbed you on the butt. Say he grabbed you and touched you in any kind of way,'" Newt said. "He told us he took all these people down. Now he was going to take Michael down. That he would really destroy him. He told us he took all these other famous people down. All the major people that had scandals against them. He said, 'We take these people down. That's what we do.'"

Prior to Bobby's meeting with Mitteager, Bobby's father met with him and brought along an intermediary, San Francisco politician, businessman and fellow jailbird Charlie Walker. Walker is infamous in San Francisco circles for being "hooked up" to anything interesting cooking on the West Coast.

"My dad said these dudes are offering this money to take Michael Jackson down. And the guy [Mitteager] said, 'Say he touched you. All you have to do is say it. But you might have to take the stand. You might have to go on 'Oprah' in front of all these people. You have to be prepared for this thing. Just say it. And we'll give you money,'" Newt said.

Two pieces of evidence confirm the Newts' story. One is the actual contract proffered by the Enquirer and signed by David Perel, who declined to comment for this story. The contract, written as a letter, says it's an agreement between the tabloid and the Newts for their exclusive story regarding "your relationship with and knowledge of Michael Jackson, and his sexuality, your knowledge of Michael Jackson's sexual contact and attempts at sexual contact with Robert Newt and others."

Mitteager expected them to sign even though it was completely untrue and there was, in fact, no story.

He knew you were lying, I reminded Bobby Newt.

"Exactly! And he didn't care! He was like, 'Just say it and we'll give you the money.' And I was like, 'He [Jackson] never touched me!" Newt said. "He [Mitteager] was really fishing and really digging. Think about it, most people you say it to, 'We'll give you this money,' even [if it's not true]. And they'd take it."

Bobby Newt recalled more memories of the 30-minute meeting with The National Enquirer:

"He was trying to coach me. If I decided to take the money, what would happen. He said 'You know, it's going to be a huge scandal. You'll probably have a lot of people not liking you. You're going to be famous!' But to me, you'd be ruined. And the truth is Michael didn't do anything even close to trying to molest us."

Ironically, a second piece of evidence backs up the Newts' story. Unbeknownst to them, they were taped by Mitteager. I told you last week that Mitteager did more surreptitious taping than Richard Nixon. When he died, the tapes were left to Hollywood investigator Paul Barresi. His dozens of hours of tapes include the one of the conversation between Mitteager, Ron Newt Sr. and Charlie Walker.

When I read some of the transcript back to Newt the other day, he was shocked.

"I said all that," he observed, surprised to have his memory prodded some 12 years later.

Back in the mid-80s, Ron Newt Sr. put his three sons together as a singing group much like Joseph Jackson did. He called them The Newtrons. After much pushing, he got the attention of Jackson Sr., who agreed to manage the group. Joe Jackson got the Newtrons a showcase at the Roxy in West Hollywood. Michael showed up and loved them. The result was a two-week stay for the boys at the Encino house called Hayvenhurst where they were supposed to work on their music.

"We would see Michael in passing. We didn't see him maybe because he was working on an album. We saw him downstairs in the kitchen and we talked to him," he said.

The Newtrons eventually got a record contract and recorded the Jackson 5 hit "I Want You Back" at Hayvenhurst. They also spent the night at Tito Jackson's house. But nothing about what Bobby Newt hears now about himself or others makes sense.

"I don't know what to believe. He had prime time with me and my brother in the guest room for two weeks," he said. "And he didn't try anything."

As a footnote to all of this: In the small world of the Los Angeles music business, Bobby Newt recently worked with Wade Robson on tracks for his first album, a potential hit compendium of original R&B ballads. Jackson's former maid Blanca Francia implicated Robson in the case during Monday's testimony. Robson is not testifying for the prosecution.

"Wade is straight as they come. He's getting married. And nothing ever happened to him, either," Newt said.

He shakes his head, thinking about those who have made claims against Jackson.

"You have to look at these people, go back and see when their relationship with Michael fractured. The calls stopped coming," he said.

And Newt should know. After the adventure in 1985, the Newts never saw Jackson again. It didn't bother them, Bobby says, as much as it might have others.

"They probably didn't like it. And this is their way of getting back at him," he said.

I remember Nick and Aaron Carter's names coming up on the potential defense witness list when it was released, Anyone have any idea what the chances of either of them having to testify are? I don't think their names have come up in court yet, have they? I know that they'd both spent a lot of time at the Ranch when they were younger, so I was wondering.

LightOfArt said:

Now this is what is truly tragic about this case. I recognise the media's desire to "get the dirt" and I feel horribly sorry for MJ in the sense that he is being attacked on all sides.

But I also feel that underneath all this there is a real reason for concern about his behaviour with children. And that is what I feel many MJ fans are failing to acknowledge.

adoreme, with you on that one.

Even if MJ isn't exactly jerking off these kids, there is concern why he decides to shower with a pre-pubescent Wade Robson, yknow?

Which is just a story someone is telling. No proof there.

Seriously, MJ fans, can you really say that nothing about MJ's behaviour freaks you out? That you are completely at peace with the way he conducts himself around children? If so, you guys must be utterly blinded by devotion.

I understand your concerns adoreme, but I wanna hear it from Robson himself.

Michael Jackson Maid Gets Facts Wrong About Wade
by Paul Cashmere

http://www.undercover.com...ckson.html

7 April 2005

As the Michael Jackson case continued, his former maid Blanca Francia took the stand and attempted to give some damning evidence against the superstar. What a pity she got her facts wrong.

Ms Francia was told the court that Wade Robson, from Brisbane, Australia did not speak English.

She also admitted that she did not actually see anything happen.

Wade Robson, who is now a successful choreographer in the USA and has worked with Britney Spears, will not appear in court but has publicly stated that Michael Jackson did not molest him.

Robson was questioned back in 1993 when a previous allegation was thrown at Jackson. Co-incidentally prosecutor Thomas Sneddon was behind that witch-hunt as well.

Robson has called the allegations against Jackson "a big lie". In a interview with Sydney's Daily Telegraph in 2003 he said "His initial interests in me was because of my dancing. He saw the talent and the spark I had inside me and all he has ever wanted to do is just help my career" he said.

Although he admits he has slept in Jackson's bed, Wade says "Yeah, but nothing strange happened."

"The biggest thing you have to understand is that he has no concept of reality" he said.

After yesterday's court appearance, Wade's mother Joy called Blanca Francia "a liar".

oh well now i'm relieved

adoreme said:

I learnt to live with the fact his behaviour isn't what's deemed 'normal' long ago, doesn't make him an evil child molester though, so no i'm not freaked out.

I just think his love for children and all things childish is genuine and has been all his life. Shit, at nearly 35, i love Star Wars just as much as i did at 7. So Neverland is stuffed with toys and movie memorabilia, there's millions upon millions of spare rooms around the world just like that.



something might happen in the trial to change my mind, actual proof that can't be disputed. I'm open minded, but at the moment i'm saying not guilty. Having read every court transcript possible, I'd be highly surprised if the jury are thinking any differently.

Don't forget, the defence is yet to have it's say.
[Edited 4/7/05 6:31am]

I was just wondrin' at the Michael Jackson trial - the trial of da MILLEN(N)IUM - when are they going to actually call Michael Jackson on the stand? Though I'm sure he manages to mess up his own testimony somehow.

Novabreaker said:

When the Prosecution are done fucking themselves over. He can't do any worse than what the DA's been putting on the stand.

see?



MJEOL BULLET : Spotty Memory of Prosecution Witness Undermines Credibility? – MB #256
Posted by admin on 2005/4/6 22:34:04 (263 reads)
Spotty Memory of Prosecution Witness Undermines Credibility? – MJEOL Bullet #256
Pundit-touted Jason Francia turns from alleged “powerful witness” to the king of forgetfulness under cross-examination


APRIL 6 2005 -- It’s always nice to be able to read the court transcripts instead of only relying on reports from cable news shows about what happens in court. The testimony of Jason Francia is a perfect example of how pundits can create “powerful” testimony and ignore serious problems revealed under cross-examination.

Tuesday (April 5 2005), you could have cast the role of "Chicken Little" with Dan Abrams over at MSNBC. His repeated cries of "powerful testimony" and wide-eyed claims of the witness "holding up under cross examination" was enough to make some observers watching to comment: "He should calm down a little. This is a trial, not a football game".

The ridiculousness going on over at Court TV goes without saying. No surprise there. The heralding of his testimony is made all the more questionable once one actually reads the transcript of what ‘Mr. I Don’t Know’ had to say when being questioned by the defense.

And later, under cross-examination of his mother, the defense brought out that Jackson was on a World tour from 1987-1989 – frequently out of the country -- during the time when J. Francia has claimed some of his alleged “molestation” occurred in Los Angeles. Oops!

But regardless of what one wants to say concerning the testimony of Jason Francia, it was fraught with a number of stunning things that the defense delved into under cross-examination. And what came off as evasiveness didn’t help the prosecution.

Indeed, every witness has two faces. Yesterday (April 5), the media was abuzz with this so-called “credible” testimony from this 24 year old witness, who claimed Jackson fondled him in 1987, 1988 and 1990; with some pundits wondering how Mesereau was going to challenge his story.

One of the first things to be hit upon by Mesereau was the fact that J. Francia denied any molestation occurred. Some observers didn’t realize that until it was brought out in open court.

Also appearing on that Abrams show was MSNBC Analyst Ron Richards to put some of this alleged "powerful testimony" into context.

A point made by Ron Richards was that people, like Abrams -- in his "big trouble for the defense" declarations -- act as if Jackson's attorney was suppose to decimate J. Francia on the stand and force him into a Perry-Mason-moment where he breakings down crying, screaming ‘Jackson didn’t do it! I lied!’ That ain’t going to happen.

Obviously, this ain't a Perry Mason TV show. This is a real trial with people who have been trained to stick to what they've been saying for years.

Abrams tried to deny that, but it was clear--with his zeal in proclaiming "trouble" for the defense--that that's exactly what he seemed to be expecting, and Richards called him on it.

Mesereau did make REAL, substantial ground by getting the accuser to admit that he first repeatedly denied these allegations to police and suggested that it was only after being badgered by them, that he started to make allegations against Jackson.

There have been two things a number of people have been talking about since cross-examination: One was the admission from a previous interview J. Francia gave and the other was the extreme memory lapses he seemed to have when being questioned by Mesereau.

For clarification purposes, there were at least 3 interviews with J. Francia and Blanca Francia recently in 2004: Oct 18 2004, Nov 19 2004, and apparently Dec 6 2004. J. Francia was asked about previous interviews with police that he’d given: one on Nov 3 1993 and two other interviews given in 1994.

There was a fairly conspicuous difference between his clarity when being asked questions by prosecutors, and his total lack of memory when being asked questions by the defense.

For example, he was asked about whether he requested that his 2004 interviews not be taped and he couldn’t remember. He also couldn’t remember who all was present and why some of them were there. But the prosecution asked him about events surrounding a threat to file a civil suit against Jackson in 1995, and he remembered with perfect clarity.

J. Francia’s old police interviews proved to be fertile ground for the defense. These interviews were recorded and transcribed, and Mesereau read aloud a few things the accuser said back then that caused many to question his testimony.

One of the first things that stood out was covered by the Associated Press in an article dated today (April 5 2005) titled "Jackson witness pleads poor memory". From the court transcript:

Q. Do you remember stating in that interview, "They made me come out with a lot more stuff I didn't want to say. They kept pushing. I wanted to get up and hit them in the head"? Do you remember that?

A. No.

Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show you the transcript of that?

A. Probably not. But you can show it to me anyway.

MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. ZONEN: What page, Counsel?

MR. MESEREAU: 30.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to look at that page of the transcript?

A. I have.

Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what you've said?

A. No, it does not.

Q. Do you remember anything you said in that interview at the moment?

A. Not really.
(4908-4909 (20-15))


They “made him come out with a lot more stuff” that he didn’t want to say? Huh? They “kept pushing” him so much that he wanted to “hit them in the head”?? These are not the words of someone simply trying to hide a molestation. This appears to be a flat-out admission.

Many observers who chimed in were completely stunned that this witness would make a statement like that. This also fits with the defense’s theory that these adults were leaning heavily on this kid back in 1993 to make an allegation against Jackson.

Fox News's Trace Gallagher reported April 5 2005 that the jury seemed "stoic" -- seemingly indifferent or unaffected by Jason Francia's testimony. It may have something to do with these prior admissions and his previous denial of molestation.

And then comes another incredibly stunning statement, read aloud in court by Mesereau, from J. Francia’s 1994 interview. From the transcript:

Q. In your second interview in 1994, you were asked, "Did you ever have any discussion with Michael Jackson about whether you should tell anybody about the things you described?" Remember that?

A. (Shakes head from side to side.)

Q. You don't? Okay.

A. No, I don't.

Q. Okay. Do you remember telling the interviewers, when you were asked do you remember anything that he said, you said, "No, I'm working on that"?

A. No.
…

Q. In the second interview -- let me rephrase the question. I'll withdraw it. In the second interview in 1994 - okay? --

A. Okay.

Q. -- that was recorded - all right? - when asked if Mr. Jackson said anything to you about whether you should discuss what happened, do you remember telling the interviewers, "No, but I'm working on that"?

A. I do not remember that.

Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show you the transcript?

A. No. But -- you could bring it over.

Q. Well, I can't unless you're willing to see if it refreshes your recollection.

A. Okay. Bring it over. I'll give it a shot. I'll read it just to see if it refreshes my memory.
(4941 (11-23|28), 4942 (1-16))


He’s “working on that”? Working on what?? Getting his story straight? Or coming up with a story that police wanted to hear? This is not a standard response to the question he was asked by police in 1994.

Someone asks a supposed “victim” if he was ever told not to tell anyone about abuse, the last response would be “No, I’m working on that.”

Observers on both sides have really said that it does sound more like he’s trying to tell the police what they expect to hear from him. “Powerful testimony”? Yeah, powerful for the defense, not the prosecution.

It appears to throw into doubt everything he's said on the stand, regardless of how emotional he appeared to be. The questions become, did he make up what he's saying on the stand? And/Or has he been told he was molested for so long -- along with a therapist(s) he’s been seeing after the fact -- that he actually believes it?

J. Francia's spotty memory could also cause a few jurors to think twice about his testimony. At one point, reports the Associate Press, Mesereau asked him about whether or not his allegation against Jackson ever resulted in a criminal case.

J. Francia's response was: "I don't know much. I don't watch the news." Seriously, that's what he reportedly said.

It immediately caused even some pro-prosecution observers to make the point that he wouldn't have to watch the news in order to know if the guy he claims molested him was prosecuted for his allegation. He simply seemed a bit "too forgetful" for some of their tastes.

The questioning also got into what was said by police during the first interview in 1993. Initially, as mentioned already, J. Francia denied Jackson touched his genitalia.

It really was only after police interviewed -- and one in which a sheriff cursed (cussed) Jackson – that J. Francia started to make accusations.

Mesereau had no trouble reading what an officer told an under-aged J. Francia during one of his first interviews. From the transcript:

Q. Okay. All right. Now, you admitted that at the beginning of your first interview with sheriffs in '93, you said that Mr. Jackson had not touched your genital area, right?

A. I said that at the very beginning.

MR. ZONEN: Objection; asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: It was only after you were pushed real hard by the sheriffs that you began to say anything like that, true?

MR. ZONEN: Objection; asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And at one point a sheriff actually used a curse word to get you to say something, correct?

A. I don't remember that, but you could show me the thing.

Q. Okay. But as you sit here today, you don't remember, right?

A. I don't remember the four-letter word. Everybody in junior high cussed.

Q. How about the word "bullshit"?

A. What about it?

Q. Do you remember a sheriff telling you that?

A. I don't, but I think I remember listening to it on the tape.

Q. Do you remember in that interview one sheriff telling you, "Mr. Jackson is a molester," and the other saying, "He makes great music, he's a great guy, bullshit"? Do you remember that?

A. I don't remember that specifically, but I think I remember hearing it on the tape, which was my voice, or his voice.

Q. You do remember a sheriff's voice saying that, right?

A. I don't remember right now of '93, but I remember listening to the tape.

Q. Okay. And a sheriff said that to you, correct?

A. I believe so.
(4927-4928 (2-28 | 1-13))


Apparently, the sheriffs also complained that Jackson has a lot of money and called him a molester in front of J. Francia in 1993. And still, Francia said Jackson never touched him in his genital area. More from the transcript:

Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what the sheriffs said to you about Mr. Jackson in the interview?

A. I don't remember that specifically, but reading it in the transcript, I remember reading that in the transcript when I read it on Sunday, when I reviewed the tape.

Q. And even after sheriffs said to you, "He's a molester, he's a great guy, makes great music, bullshit, he has lots of money," you still said he had never touched your genital area, right?

A. I believe so. Probably towards the beginning again.
(4928-4929 (26-10))


Remember, this is a very specific questioning. There is no room for “misunderstandings” or the old ridiculous pro-prosecution pundit cop-out that ‘maybe Jackson didn’t think what he was doing was wrong”. Now that’s bull$hit.

You have extremely precise questions about whose hand was where….or wasn’t there. And he still said Jackson never touched him there. This isn’t a vague interpretation.

He apparently didn’t remember being interviewed in 1994 by Tom Sneddon (4907 (16-22)) . He didn’t remember Lauren Weis from the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office being present during the interview:

Q. Do you remember someone named Lauren Weis from the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office being there --

A. I don't. I'm really bad at names.

Q. I have to complete the question. Thank you.
Do you remember someone named Lauren Weis from the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office being present at that interview?

A. No.
(4907-4908 (23-3))


The attorney then asked J. Francia a series of questions about who he remembers was present during a 1994 interview:

Q. Do you remember someone named Bill Hodgeman from the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office being at that interview?

A. No.

Q. And you don't remember whether or not Mr. Sneddon was there, right?

A. I -- correct.

Q. Are you saying he wasn't there, or you just don't remember?

A. I don't remember whether he was there or not.

Q. Do you remember Russ Birchim being there?

A. I do not.

Q. Do you remember your own lawyer, Terry Cannon, being there?

A. I do not.
(4908 (4-19))


This wouldn’t be an issue if this was the only thing he didn’t remember. But his memory lapses conveniently kicked in even regarding events that took place Oct, Nov, and Dec 2004.

Mesereau asked him about whether or not someone from the San Diego DA’s office, Terry Cannon, was present and whether he was acting as J. Francia’s attorney. From the transcripts:

Q. Okay. How did you meet Attorney Terry Cannon?

A. I can't -- I think I met them at Mike Craft's office.

Q. Excuse me, at whose office?

A. Mike Craft's, my counselor.

Q. Okay. And does Terry Cannon still represent you?

A. I don't think so, no.

Q. Well, you gave an interview with Mr. Zonen in December of 2004, correct?

A. Yes. That was the first time I think I met them.

Q. And Terry Cannon was present, correct?

A. You're right.

Q. And Terry Cannon at that time was working for the District Attorney's Office in San Diego, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. But he still came up to act like your lawyer, didn't he?

MR. ZONEN: I'll object to the expression, "act like your lawyer"; vague. Or argumentative.

THE COURT: Well, I guess instead of "like," it might be "as."

MR. MESEREAU: I'll rephrase it, Your Honor.

Q. Mr. Cannon was present at your interview with Ron Zonen on December 6th, 2004, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. At that interview, he was serving as your lawyer, correct?

A. I don't know.

Q. Do you know why he was there?

A. I didn't really know. I was asked by -- actually, I didn't even know how I met you guys. I was asked to be there, I think, and he was there.

Q. Okay. Did he give you any legal advice before that meeting?

A. Actually, he said, "You don't have to answer things if you don't want to," but I think that was just a -- man advice.

Q. So he was giving legal advice?

A. I don't know if that's legal advice or not.

Q. Did he discuss with you what you were going to say in that interview?

A. No.
4910-4912 (21-28 | 1-28 | 1-10)


Either Cannon was his lawyer or he wasn’t. There’s no “I don’t know” to that. He claimed not to know what Cannon was doing there. Cannon gave J. Francia legal advice by telling him “you don’t have to answer things if you don’t want to.” But J. Francia didn’t want to admit that this was what Cannon did.

What also came out during cross-examination is J. Francia requesting that his Dec 2004 interview not be taped. Of course, Francia didn’t remember that either. Again, he can remember what color shorts he was wearing in 1987, but he can’t remember what he said in Dec 2004. From the transcript:

Q. Do you remember when that interview began, you requested that your interview not be tape-recorded?

A. I don't remember that.

Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show you a report on that interview?

A. Okay. Sure.

MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to look at that report?

A. I read the first paragraph.

Q. And does it refresh your recollection that you requested that your interview not be tape-recorded?

A. It does not, but I probably said that.

Q. Okay. You don't know for sure, though?

A. No.
(4912-4913 (11-1))


Further during his testimony, Mesereau asks him again about this request that his 2004 interviews not be taped. And, again, he didn’t know why he would have made that request. More from the transcripts:

Q. BY Mr. MESEREAU: Why didn't you want your interview in December of 2004 with the prosecutors tape recorded?

A. I don't know.

Q. You don't have any idea why you made that request?

A. Tape-recording is weird. I don't know. No, I don't.
(4917-4918 (24-3))


Tape recording is “weird?” Weird how? “What does he mean he doesn’t know”, asked one observer; saying what was on my mind and what turned out to be on a number of other observers’ minds as well.

How would he NOT know why he would make a request like that? Did someone tell him to request that? Was he advised by one of the lawyers to request the interview not be recorded? And if so, why would they not want the interview on record? It makes no sense because it’s seemingly evasive.

Some suggested that this is what prosecutor Jim Hammer was getting at when he made a comment about J. Francia’s shoddy memory:

Jim Hammer: He's cross examining [Jason Francia] repeatedly not just about interviews 12 years ago, but about interviews late last year. And about those, the kid continually claims he doesn't remember things. It's gonna be hard for the jury to put much weight into his testimony if they think he's selectively remembering even 5 months ago.
(Studio B: Trace Gallagher report (April 5 2005))


But these memory lapses didn’t end there. Remember, he just claimed that he really didn’t know why Cannon was there? Well Mesereau brought out that he, J. Francia, had requested Cannon be there. From the transcript:

Q. Okay. And you had requested that Mr. Cannon be present at the interview, right?

A. You're going to have to show me the paper probably.

MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

THE WITNESS: (Nods head up and down.)

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to look at the report?

A. I did.

Q. Does it refresh your recollection that you wanted Mr. Cannon present?

A. It does not refresh my recollection.

Q. Let me just try and get this straight. You don't know why Mr. Cannon was there, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You didn't ask him to be there, right?

A. I don't remember whether I asked for him to be there or not. I probably did, only because he was a friend of mine and he knows more legal stuff than I do.

Q. Okay. Did you know he was working for a District Attorney's Office at the time?

A. I believe I did, because we kept in touch --

Q. Okay.

A. -- after I was 18.
(4913 (2-27))


So what’s the story here? Either you asked him to come or you didn’t. Either he’s your attorney, or he isn’t. These aren’t difficult questions to answer.

Spoken about earlier, another thing J. Francia claims he didn’t know about was whether or not Jackson was charged criminally as a result of anything he alleged in ‘93 and ’94. Some observers call it rather incredulous, regardless of how “protected” he claimed to be. From the transcript:

Q. Incidentally, after your second interview, which you don't remember a lot about, to your knowledge, no criminal charges were ever filed against Mr. Jackson involving anything you had told anybody, right?

A. I don't know.

Q. You still don't know?

A. I -- are you talking about '94, the '94 interview?

Q. Yes.

A. Okay. And you're asking if there was criminal charges pressed against Michael?

Q. I'm asking you what you know, okay? You've already indicated that after your '93 interview, no criminal charges were ever filed against Mr. Jackson involving anything you said, right?

A. I don't know much. I don't watch the news.

Q. And -- okay. And after your '94 interview, again, no criminal charges were ever filed against Mr. Jackson involving anything you said, right?

A. I don't know.
(4915 (6-26))


He doesn’t know much. He doesn’t watch the news. He doesn’t know if there were criminal charges. Since when in hell does someone have to watch the news to get this information? 13 (14) year old that he was at the time was certainly old enough to know whether or not his allegation had caused someone to be criminally charged with a crime.

Mesereau’s point appears to be that the story J. Francia told in 1993 and 1994 simply wasn’t either sufficient or believable enough to warrant a criminal case against Jackson.

Remember, before these people started working on him to make allegations against Jackson, he repeatedly denied Jackson had ever touched him inappropriately.

There was also more than one lawyer involved in and around J. Francia since at least 1994. Terry Cannon, who has already been mentioned, is from the San Diego DA’s office. Kris Kallman is another attorney. Kallman apparently represented J. Francia during that lawsuit threat in 1995, which resulted in a settlement.

Interesting research about Kallman. He is one of the attorneys to which the DA’s office refers alleged victims of molestation, according to his website. More on what Kallman had to say in a future MJEOL Bullet.

But the fact remains that this is yet another attorney involved around allegations that were never brought in criminal court for one logical inference that they weren’t credible then.

Mesereau asked whether or not J. Francia’s mother, Blanca Francia, went to an attorney after she found out that Jackson settled with the 1993 accuser’s family. J. Francia claimed not to know. Shocker.

And that good ole’ selective amnesia just kept kicking in, now at an increasingly inane level. He again couldn’t remember the specifics of the allegations he’s made against Jackson.

Mesereau asked Mr. Forgetful about whether or not he told prosecutor Ron Zonen that his alleged “molestation” was preceded by a tickle contest. He couldn’t remember…of course.

Even reading a transcript of his previous statement didn’t refresh his memory of things he allegedly said just months ago. From the court transcripts:

Q. Well, actually, in the December interview, you told Prosecutor Zonen that, in all three instances that you described where you claim you were inappropriately touched, every incident was preceded by a tickling contest between you and Mr. Jackson, right?

A. I don't know.

Q. Would it refresh your recollection just to show you the report?

A. You can show it to me, but I don't know whether it was the first or the second.
(4918 (12-22))


He didn’t remember and reading the transcripts didn’t help him remember either. It was enough to make you tune out. Check out this further exchange between J. Francia and Mesereau:

Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what you told Prosecutor Zonen in that December 6th, 2004, interview?

A. It doesn't -- I don't -- it doesn't help remembering, but --

Q. Well, you told him that all three events that you described were preceded by a tickling contest, correct?

A. I don't remember.

Q. You and Mr. Jackson were in a contest as to who could tickle the most, correct?

A. I just said I don't remember that. I don't mean to sound like I'm wasting your time, but this is kind of hard being up here, and --

Q. No, please don't. Just respond to my questions, if you would, please.

A. Okay. Sorry.
(4919 (2-18))


He also didn’t remember whether his mother was interviewed by Ron Zonen and Gordon Auchincloss either on Nov 19 2004. And he pulled an ‘Arvizo’ – current slang – by claiming he doesn’t talk about this “stuff” with his mother.

If you remember, the Arvizo gang all claimed they didn’t talk about this “case” with each other either. Yeah, sure.

Mesereau caught him possibly trying to mislead the jury. At first, Francia claimed he didn’t know whether his mother was interviewed on Nov 19 2004.

That is, until Mesereau refreshed his memory by revealing that not only should he have known, but that he was actually present at the damn meeting he claimed he didn’t know anything about. From the transcript:

Q. Now, on November 19th, 2004, Prosecutor Zonen and Auchincloss interviewed your mother at the District Attorney's Office, right?

A. I don't know. Me and my mother don't talk about that stuff much.

Q. Well, you were present, weren't you?

A. Now I remember, yes.

Q. Now you remember?

A. Yeah. I was present there.

Q. You not only were present, but you also requested that that not be tape-recorded, correct?

A. Probably.

Q. You don't know?

A. I don't know.

Q. Would it refresh your recollection to look at that report?

A. No. But bring it on up.

MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: No, he said it wouldn't.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You're not willing to look at it?

A. It's not about me willing. I'm willing to look at it, but it's not going to help.

Q. Well, that was last November you had that interview with your mom and these prosecutors, correct?

A. Again, this is all difficult.

Q. I know it's difficult, but you're saying you don't remember that interview?

A. You just said I met with my mom and I was there, and I didn't remember until you said that, and then I remembered.
(4919-4920 (19-28 | 1-22))


This is what the media is proclaiming to be a “credible” witness? This was the “devastating” and “powerful” testimony touted by some in the mainstream media? Huh? A number of people in print journalism picked up on Francia’s spotty memory like the AP, though.

Those who wanted to believe his story, of course, proclaimed him the strongest prosecution witness so far. Others are still scratching their heads because, as one observer wrote “if this is the strongest witness they have, then that’s shameful”.

At this interview, too, on Nov 19 2004, both Francia and his mother requested that it not be tape recorded. As mentioned before, J. Francia also requested another interview not be tape-recorded. What is it with these people and their fear of being caught on tape?

Of course, Mesereau brought this up, and of course, J. Francia didn’t remember that. From the transcript:

Q. Do you remember you and your mom both requested that the interview not be tape-recorded?

A. I do not.

Q. Would it refresh your recollection to see what it says in the report about that?

A. Bring it over. It -- yeah. Bring it over.

MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to look at the page of that report?

A. Yeah, I read the first paragraph.

Q. Does it refresh your recollection about you and your mother both requesting no tape-recording?

A. No, it does not.

Q. Okay. You don't remember one way or the other about that?

A. Right.
(4920-4921 (23-11))


We already found out that he was present at the meeting after first claiming he didn’t remember. Now we find out that he was actually interviewed as well. He asserted he didn’t remember that he was interviewed too, and initially tried to claim he was just there for moral support for his mother. From the transcript:

Q. Okay. Okay. Now, on that particular day, and I'm referring to November 19th, 2004, you were interviewed as well, correct?

A. Was this when my mother was present?

Q. Yes.

A. Okay.

Q. Do you remember you were interviewed on that day?

A. I think I was just there for my mom.

Q. Well, actually, they interviewed your mom first and then they interviewed you second, correct?

A. I don't remember that.

Q. Okay. They interviewed you for about an hour, didn't they?

A. They may have.

Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show you the report about that?

A. No.

Q. You're not willing to look at it?

A. I'll look at it. I'll look at it, but no, it probably won't.

Q. You don't remember an hour interview on November 19th, 2004?

A. Again, the issue is it's all kind of blending in together.
(4921-4922 (12-8))


“Bleeding in together”, my ass. How do you first forget being there, then claim you were there for moral support, then forget being interviewed yourself for an hour? In 2004?? Or a better question is how do you forget you were interviewed for an hour in connection with who you claim to be your “molester” as recently as late 2004? I’m getting exasperated just going through his testimony. Jeez.

Now, remember this is someone whose memory is vastly improved when the prosecution is questioning him.

J. Francia also says he never slept in the same bed with Jackson. From the transcript:

Q. Okay. You did tell the sheriffs in your first interview you had never spent the night with Mr. Jackson, right?

A. I never slept in his bed with him.
(4930 (18-21))


Ok, so where is this prosecution-alleged “grooming” of having people sleep in his bed with THIS accuser? This is the problem with what will prove to be a ridiculous 1108 law. I don’t think opponents of this 1108 law will have a better example of why this law should be repealed/modified than with this Jackson “case”.

After the admission he never slept in Jackson’s bed, that ole’ memory kicked in again. In his March 24 1994 interview with police, he didn’t remember what cartoons he was allegedly watching when he was allegedly being tickle-molested.

On the stand he didn’t remember telling police he said he was tickled in his stomach instead of his genital area. But he claims to remember “usually” crying when talking about alleged molestation. And Mesereau asked him about that. From the transcript:

Q. Okay. You were asked to describe what Mr. Jackson did with his hands, and your response was, "He tickled me," true?

A. I don't know. I was probably crying then.
…

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: By the way, if you don't remember the interview, how do you know you were crying?

A. Because I usually cry when we're talking about the molestation.
(4932-4933 (26-1) | (8-12))


He doesn’t remember the interview, doesn’t remember what he said, but he remembers he was crying? Did he throw that in for good measure?

J. Francia was then asked if there was talk about whether or not he spoke to anyone in the media about his allegation. He says he talked to some media “guy” once who had a British accent.

When asked when this happened, J. Francia said “probably ’92 or ‘93” (4941, line 5). 1992?! Huh? How did 1992 come up? This was before a settlement agreements, before the threat of a lawsuit from the mother, before his mother sold her story to tabloid show Hard Copy, and after the mother was fired in 1991.

Under cross-examination, Mesereau also revealed that in 1994, J. Francia indicated he knew another kid sued Jackson for money. And of course J. Francia claimed he didn’t remember saying that either. From the transcript:

Q. Now, in that interview you indicated that you were aware that another boy had sued Mr. Jackson seeking money, right?
…

4943
Q. In the second interview that you gave in 1994 - okay? --

A. Okay.

Q. -- you indicated that you were aware that someone else had sued Mr. Jackson for money, correct?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Would it refresh your recollection to look at the transcript?

A. Probably not.

Q. Okay.

A. Both of them are really blurry. It was just hard for me at the time.
(4943 (3-5 | 10-22))


So, he knew in 1994 that another kid sued Jackson for money because apparently it’s on tape, a transcript of which was referenced by Mesereau in court.

He was then asked when he remembers knowing about the 1993 civil suit. He claims he was 16, which would have been in 1996. 1996 is reportedly when his mother, Blanca Francia, received a settlement after threatening to – apparently from Jackson’s standpoint – derail his career again with a lawsuit. From the transcript:

Q. Looking back, when is the first time you recall you knew someone else had sued Mr. Jackson looking for money?

A. Probably 16.

Q. Excuse me?

A. I was probably 16. Because that's when money started being an issue for me.
(4943-4944 (25-3))


Yeah, I’m sure money started being an issue for him, probably at the behest of his mother.

J. Francia was asked again about a Nov 19 2004 interview. During that interview, Terry Cannon, again from the San Diego DA’s office, didn’t want a defense investigator present. From the transcript:

Q. Okay. Now, in your last interview with Prosecutor Zonen - and I'm talking about an interview on November 19th, 2004, okay? - Mr. Cannon was present, right?

A. I don't know.

Q. Do you recall Mr. Cannon not wanting a defense investigator present?

A. No, I don't recall.

Q. Did you know anything about that?

A. No.
(4944 (4-13))


Why would Cannon, who apparently doesn’t represent J. Francia (…that he can remember….), not want a defense investigator present? What was there to hide?

Uh! I can’t take anymore of this ‘I don’t remember’ mess. He knows what to say and how to say it – even to get ‘choked up when being questioned by prosecutors.

But as damn near every prosecution witness making an allegation, he transforms into something completely different under cross-examination.

Stay tuned.

-MJEOL
[Edited 4/7/05 8:29am]

thanks for that Marrk!!!

God, I can´t believe it! How could this thing have gone so far?? Damn it!!! After year and a half from arresting Michael they still have NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING!!!! This is more than ridiculous. What type of "justice" is that? Imagine if MJ didn´t have the money to pay te bail. He would be in jail all this time and FOR WHAT, for god´s sake?

MJ might be weird that doesn´t make him criminal!

Jackson Trial: Thursday Update



The Associated Press

April 7, 2005

SANTA MARIA -- A former Neverland ranch security guard testified Thursday that in the early 1990s he saw Michael Jackson perform oral sex on a boy, but the witness' credibility came under a scathing attack as the defense showed he had lost a lawsuit against the pop star and faced costly judgments.

Ralph Chacon was called by prosecutors in Jackson's child molestation trial in a continuing effort to show the singer has a pattern of molesting or inappropriately touching boys, which would support the current accuser's claims.

Chacon said he was making his rounds at Jackson's estate on an overnight shift in late 1992 or early 1993 when he saw Jackson and the boy in a whirlpool bath. He said he later saw them take a shower together, then leave the shower and stand naked across from each other.

Chacon said Jackson caressed the boy's hair, kissed him on the mouth and elsewhere and engaged in oral sex.

The former guard testified that at that point he left.

Chacon said that several weeks or a month later he saw Jackson kiss the boy. He said the kiss was "passionate" but did not last long, and that Jackson then put his hands near the boy's crotch area.

On cross-examination, Jackson defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. attacked the witness' credibility.

"Let me ask you a few questions about that lawsuit you lost," Mesereau said as he began.

Mesereau quickly established that Chacon had sued Jackson on a claim of being improperly fired and that Jackson had countersued, accusing Chacon of stealing from him.

Chacon acknowledged he was ordered to pay $25,000 for allegedly stealing Jackson's property, which Chacon said was only a candy bar.

He also acknowledged that he and others were ordered to pay more than $1 million in legal expenses to Jackson but had not paid anything because he had filed for bankruptcy.

The boy Chacon referred to received a multimillion-dollar civil settlement from Jackson in 1994 and subsequently refused to cooperate in a police investigation. No charges were filed against Jackson in that case.

Jackson, 46, is on trial on charges of molesting a 13-year-old boy in 2003, giving him alcohol and conspiring to hold the boy's family captive to get them to make a video rebutting a TV documentary in which Jackson said he allowed children to sleep in his bed but that it was innocent and non-sexual.

The judge ruled earlier that prosecutors may present evidence of alleged past improprieties involving five boys.

The guard testified after a one-day break in the trial that allowed Jackson to attend the Los Angeles funeral of famed criminal defense attorney Johnnie Cochran Jr., who represented the singer in the 1994 settlement.

On Wednesday it was learned that Jackson's judge was notified that jurors were overheard laughing at a remark that might have been mocking a witness, but no court action was planned.

"It is an unsubstantiated rumor and there is no investigation," court administrator Darrel Parker said Wednesday.

Jurors are strictly barred from talking about cases before they begin deliberating.

On Monday, a 24-year-old man tearfully testified that Jackson touched his groin area over his clothes on two occasions in the late 1980s and under his clothes in 1990, each time while tickling him.

Robert Cole, a foreign editor for the British news station Sky News, said that as he walked past an area where jurors were taking a break behind a covered fence, he heard one juror mimicking someone crying, and others laughing.

"All I heard was, 'He was like uh-huh-huh (imitating a crying sound)' and then I heard laughter. It sounded like they had just heard this kid crying and they were kind of laughing at what had happened, mimicking him. I didn't hear any names or anything. ... I don't know if they were talking about him or not."

As Cole's account circulated through the media, it turned into a story where reporters supposedly overheard a juror say, "Oh boohoo, Michael Jackson tickled me." But Cole told The Associated Press he did not hear jurors use Jackson's name and was not sure they were talking about the case.

Cole said another reporter also heard the conversation. That reporter declined to comment Wednesday.

Cole said he discussed the jurors' comments with former Santa Barbara Sheriff Jim Thomas, who is an analyst for NBC News and a close friend of District Attorney Tom Sneddon, the prosecutor in the case. Thomas said he reported it to media pool coordinator Peter Shaplen so that Shaplen could notify Parker, the court administrator.

Prosecutors did not return phone calls Wednesday. Jackson defense attorney Brian Oxman declined to comment, citing a gag order in the case.

a cute picture I found

It´s great to see Mike with his father. You can tell that they must have a very good relationship nowadays.

dag said:

Despite everything going on, he's bearing up pretty well. I heard he just sits there in court eyes forward chewing gum.

I don't think I'll ever forget the day when all of this is over.

I can imagine that.


true, he´s very strong. I´ve always admired that about him. If I were in his shoes, I´d be on drugs, in a lunatic asylum or something like that.

adoreme said:

Your pushing on "Intent"

MJ was always surrounded with children, this hasn't changed since like the 80's
Nobody says anything,
because it hasn't been put in their heads like that,
People where Shocked at 1993, i including and im sure you where as well
so now we have Intent to abuse of child,
that intent has only been made worst,
Now call me a liberal,
But i really don't give a damn what he does with children as long as its not any sexually activity.
Hell people have accused James M. Barrie of doing something sinister with children, just because he was privy to them

My common sense overides the intent to molest, cause what you know about the case and how molestation cases work.
you can ask any lawyer in the world this case is STRAAAAANGE

I personally know that the allegations are B.S.
hell if you have common sense you can see that
NO ACUSER EVER SAID MJ HAD SEX WITH THEM
notice that? its always fondling of some kind?
one has to say that MJ is a child fondler primarily and is technically still a virgin cause
sorry if im being graphic
their was no penetration,

Sexual penetration, can be proven through forensic evidence these days
thats what blew KOBE's case off the hinges
multiple semen samples inside the women

now many people want to believe that Jackson is the abuser
But it can't be proven by any form its all speculation,
so one would have to say?
whats really going on?

1 child was discredited within the first 2 days of his testimony
his only corroborator was so laughable that it made the jury giggle...

c'mon?

WTF IS SNEDDON DOING!

All his wittnesses are turning against him?wtf?
everyone who does say they saw something has an Axe to grind themselves

As for the shower claim?
she sold this story to hardcopy years ago!
saying that she saw mj showering with a kid naked (wade)
but As soon as mj sent out his lawyers she retracted the statement and said they had swimming trunks on?
so i assume, they went swimming!
and if you ever gone swimming you do have to take showers afterwards
unless your going to be ludicrous enough he shouldn't take showers with children, or even swim with them?
C'mon...
thats just looking for something!
your praying he's doing something wrong when its not even considered a crime

]i repeat its all smoke and mirrors
theirs no fire...
cause even a fire, has traces of its own proof
unless jackson is some master pedophile
and believe me from the stupid things i've seen him do
he's not... lol

dag said:

good grief thats reaching..



oh yeas, you can tell that they have a very good relationship...you can feel the love from their smiles...

Stupid-Syndrome Syndrome
Yet more junk science to confound the legal system.
By David Feige
Posted Wednesday, April 6, 2005, at 12:32 PM PT

It all seemed to be going pretty well for Michael Jackson: His accuser's testimony was all over the map; the boy's siblings were telling inconsistent stories; there was even a late-breaking recantation to a high-school teacher. And then, just yesterday, one of the men allegedly abused by Jackson over a decade ago admitted under cross-examination that he'd initially denied to investigators that the singer ever touched him.

Sounds like a job for Dr. Anthony Urquiza.

Urquiza, called earlier in the trial as an expert witness for the prosecution, testified about something called "child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome," or CSAAS.

He had never examined Mr. Jackson's accuser. He didn't need to.

As it turns out, CSAAS … explains everything.

CSAAS is part of an ever widening matrix of criminal-justice-related mental-health syndromes whose main goal seems to be to explain away otherwise damaging evidence. Rape trauma syndrome (or RTS), battered-woman's syndrome (or BWS), and CSAAS are all examples of this burgeoning field. Etiologically, all three syndromes are the stepchildren of post-traumatic stress disorder (first diagnostically validated by inclusion in the 1980 version of the psychologist's bible—the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition). And, much like their parent, they all share flexible criteria easily applied to … well, pretty much everything.

And that's the whole problem.

Unlike diseases or disorders in which signs (physical phenomena like bruises) or symptoms (subjective complaints like "my elbow hurts") imply a specific cause (you injured your elbow), syndromes (which are also groups of signs and symptoms) may—but don't necessarily—imply a specific cause. As a consequence, although syndromes may sound scientific, their diagnostic value varies wildly.

CSAAS is, simply put, not diagnostic. First named and described in 1983 in an article by Dr. Roland Summit that described five general attributes of child sexual victims (secrecy, helplessness, denial, delayed disclosure, and retraction), Summit himself has conceded the lack of compelling empirical research support for the syndrome. And when lawyers start importing these scientific curiosities into the courtroom, we all have a serious problem.

Make no mistake about it: Playing the victim-syndrome card isn't limited to rape cases, child-sex cases, or even to prosecutors. Defense lawyers regularly use battered-woman's syndrome to explain why Glenda was still in imminent fear for her life, even though she had time to go to the shed, load the shotgun, and blow her abusive husband away while he was quietly sipping a beer. But while battered-woman's syndrome solves an evidentiary problem in the law of self-defense (by bolstering an argument about the nature and mechanics of fear in abusive relationships), CSAAS and RTS solve a different and far more insidious prosecutorial problem: the problem of witness credibility.

No one wants to believe that kids fabricate allegations of child sex abuse. And yet the behavior of some young complainants and their descriptions of abusive acts may sometimes seem too strange to be credible. (Remember the McMartin preschool case?) In order to successfully resolve such a situation, prosecutors and their experts have to figure out what to do with the supposed victims who fail to report for years on end, present outlandish scenarios, change their stories, or even recant the entire allegation. One way is to question the veracity of their stories—something that may have helped in some earlier child-sex cases that resulted in terrible miscarriages of justice. Unfortunately, this rarely happens. More often, prosecutors and crusading CSAAS psychologists rely on syndrome testimony to explain that being incredible is actually the ultimate in credibility.

According to CSAAS experts, not reporting abuse is thus consistent with suffering from child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. So is bad behavior, trouble in school, the failure to tell an accurate story, and even the recantation of the entire allegation of abuse. In other words, every criterion usually used by the defense to discredit a witness is actually transubstantiated into evidence that is perfectly consistent with abuse.

And here's the genius: Not exhibiting these signs of CSAAS doesn't mean a child wasn't abused—just that he or she didn't get the syndrome. In other words, a noncredible witness is suffering from the syndrome, but a credible one is merely a credible witness who was legitimately abused.

CSAAS is a prosecutorial silver bullet and a fabricator's best friend. Every mistake you make is consistent with it; every mistake you don't make further confirms your credibility. No wonder prosecutors rely on it to bolster disintegrating cases. By making credibility tautological, CSAAS makes it nearly impossible to present a defense or attack an incredible witness. To make matters worse, CSAAS testimony is deeply appealing to jurors because of its soothing reassurance that otherwise inexplicable or incredible behavior is merely a manifestation of the actual trauma they all expect to see in a victim.

The problem is, of course, that some complainants aren't actually victims at all. And because CSAAS assumes abuse but can't actually diagnose who is and who isn't a victim, it is the perfect exemplar of the problem of bringing nondiagnostic syndrome testimony into court.

Alive to this problem, courts in several states have wisely ruled CSAAS evidence to be inadmissible. In a long line of cases, the Supreme Court of Kentucky, for example, has refused to allow syndrome testimony (including CSAAS), citing the "lack of diagnostic reliability, the lack of general acceptance within the discipline from which such testimony emanates, and the overwhelmingly persuasive nature of such testimony effectively dominating the decision-making process, uniquely the function of the jury."

Unfortunately for Michael Jackson, he is being tried in California, and Judge Rodney Melville doesn't seem to find Kentucky's reasoning very persuasive. And that, combined with his unconscionable ruling allowing prosecutors to admit prior bad acts to show a pattern of behavior, is likely to sink the king of pop.
Ultimately, though, damage from this pseudoscientific syndrome testimony undermines far more than the fairness of Michael Jackson's trial. By creating the ability to explain away any behavior, syndrome testimony threatens to erode our ability to hold both the alleged victims and the alleged perpetrators to account for their actions. With syndrome testimony we find ourselves in a frictionless world where up is down, falsehood is truth, and there is an excuse for everything.

Ultimately, the problem with the Orwellian world of syndrome testimony is that anything goes, and everyone goes to jail. Don't like my tone? Blame angry author syndrome. Fail to follow my argument? Maybe you have an abstract reasoning deficit disorder. Getting angry? Want to stab me? Fear not, I'm sure a doctor (maybe even Urquiza himself) will be willing to testify that you are simply suffering from overreactive reader's syndrome.


David Feige, a public defender in the Bronx and a Soros Media Justice Fellow, is the author of the book Indefensible, to be published in 2005.



http://www.slate.com/id/2...4/nav/ais/

Marrk said:

He's right.
CSAASS, Is quite the problem, and i've noticed it taking its affect in the case
If an accuser is clear, he's up one notch for credibility
if he is not clear, he has CSAASS, and he's still up one notch for credibility
In Court T.V. they throw this around ALLLLL the time
which is why i hate watching Court T.V.
they're just slanderous

But, Hey
thats the justice system for you hehe...
I swear i hate Psychiatrist

This made me smile

http://story.news.yahoo.c...1112823850

Jackson Trial Hits the Showers

Wed Apr 6, 4:28 PM ET
By Joal Ryan

Macaulay Culkin shared a bedroom with Michael Jackson. (As did Bubbles the chimp.) Britney Spears' future choreographer shared a shower with the singer. (Unless he didn't.)

So went the back-and-forth testimony of Jackson's former maid Tuesday at the singer's molestation trial.

"The little kid from the movies," the ex-housekeeper's take on Culkin, was a frequent Neverland Ranch visitor during the star's Home Alone heyday in the early 1990s, the woman testified.

Sometimes the eight- or nine-year-old Culkin arrived at Jackson's playground estate with his family, sometimes he arrived alone, she said. And sometimes, she said, Culkin would spend the night in Jackson's bedroom, a suite outfit with two beds. The next morning, the woman said, only one bed would be undone.

Jackson hasn't denied sharing his bed with children, but he has denied doing anything improper toward the children with whom he snuggles.

For his part, Culkin has long denied being taken advantage of by the pop star. Now 24, Culkin is the godfather of Jackson's eldest son.

On the stand, the ex-maid, now a caregiver for elderly and disabled patients, acknowledged children weren't the only ones to whom Jackson opened up his boudoir.

"Bubbles would sometimes stay in Mr. Jackson's room, right?" defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. asked.

"Yes," the woman said.

But it was Jackson's young male human guests the prosecution kept coming back to.

In her testimony, the former Neverland employee, who worked for Jackson from 1986-1991, said she once saw the shirtless pop star sitting in bed watching TV with a shirtless boy of 7 or 8.

The boy, Wade Robson, would grow up to choreograph moves for Britney Spears and 'N Sync. Back in the late 1980s, Robson was a frequent Neverland visitor, the woman said.

One day, during one of Robson's stays, she testified, she entered Jackson's bedroom suite and heard voices--and laughter.

"First I thought that they [Robson and Jackson] were playing in the bathtub [or] Jacuzzi...Then I thought they were playing outside the house...[Then] I walked in, and they were in the shower," the ex-maid said.

On the floor, next to the shower, she said, were two pairs of underwear. "Mr. Jackson's--I knew they were white, and the little boy's--they were [neon green]," she testified.

But by the time Mesereau was done with his cross-examination, the woman's story was about as clear as the fogged-up shower door she said she'd seen Jackson and Robson through.

"You could only see one [figure] through the glass, right?" Mesereau asked.

"Mostly, yeah," the woman said. "Mostly."

"You saw one person--Mr. Jackson--right?" Meseraeu continued.

Said the woman: "Yes."

Prosecutor Ronald Zonen tried to get the ex-housekeeper back on track, but to little avail.

"At the time that you looked through the glass into the shower, were you able to see a second person in there?" Zonen asked.

"I want to say, 'yeah,' but I don't..." the woman said.

Like Culkin, Robson, now 22, has insisted "nothing strange happened" during his childhood friendship with Jackson.

"He saw the talent and the spark I had inside me and all he has ever wanted to do is just help my career," Robson once told Australia's Daily Telegraph.

Robson is not expected to take the stand at Jackson's trial. Neither is Culkin, although the actor has been included on the singer's list of potential defense witnesses

Muddled though her testimony was, the ex-housekeeper served as a twofer for the prosecution: She wasn't just a reputed eyewitness to alleged improper bathing activities at Neverland; she's the mother of one of Jackson's alleged victims.

On Monday, her 24-year-old son told jurors that Jackson tickled his testicles when he was a boy, and stuffed $100 bills into his shorts after two similar tickle-turned-grope sessions in the late 1980s.

As his cross-examination continued in the Santa Maria, California, courthouse Tuesday, the man repeatedly said he had little recollection of past interviews given to investigators, or of the mechanics of the reputed $2 million settlement his family received in the mid-1990s as a result of his allegations.

Through his questions, Mesereau continued to argue that the man's accounts of the reputed molestation grew in detail the more he was questioned, and bullied, by police.

"Do you remember in that interview one sheriff telling you, 'Mr. Jackson is a molester,' and the other saying, 'He makes great music, he's a great guy--bulls--t!' Do you remember that?" Mesereau asked the man.

The man said he did not recall that exchange.

His mother--"a kickin' " housekeeper, in her son's words--told jurors that she grew wary of her own child's relationship with Jackson when she saw her son sitting in the singer's lap, and again when she found them lying together in a sleeping bag. Earlier, the son testified one of the offending tickle contests took place in a sleeping bag, and another started while he was perched on Jackson's lap.

The mother said Jackson called her son "Rubba," a nickname she said he shared with Robson and Culkin.

Mesereau suggested there was nothing odd about the moniker--short for "rubberhead," he said--noting that Jackson invariably called his own cousins either "Rubba," "Apple Head" or "Doo-Doo Head."

It was not known what nickname, if any, Jackson had for Bubbles, the primate frequently seen with the singer during his Thriller reign. It was also not clear exactly why Bubbles' name came up so much during Tuesday's testimony.

While Mesereau seemed to be invoking Bubbles to prove Jackson is an eccentric, Zonen seemed to be invoking Bubbles to prove the chimp was, well, a jerk.

"Did Bubbles get a little too big?" Zonen asked the ex-maid.

"Yeah," the woman said.

"Did Bubbles get rambunctious, wild?" Zonen continued.

"Wild," the woman agreed.

"Did Bubbles ever bite you?" Zonen asked.

"Twice," the woman responded.

Bubbles, now in his 20s, lives with a famed animal trainer in California, the New York Daily News recently reported. He has been charged with no wrongdoing.

Despite the now-mounting allegations of abuse and questionable conduct against Bubbles' famous friend, Jackson is officially accused of molesting only one boy, then 13, in 2003. He's also accused of breaking down the child's defenses with wine and booze, and holding him and his family captive at Neverland. Jackson has pleaded innocent to all charges.

The stories from the ex-maid and her son are being used by prosecutors to establish a pattern of misconduct by Jackson. In all, the state is set to present evidence and witnesses saying that Jackson crossed the line with five boys more than a decade ago.

The Jackson trial goes dark Wednesday as Superior Judge Rodney S. Melville tends to some previously scheduled business.

sosgemini said:

I've had my say, I'll just add i don't think it's a fair reflection on what we've been discussing lately. Not at all.

relaxed
[Edited 4/7/05 18:07pm]

If these "maids" were in his room to see these things. Wouldnt Michael be sane enough to lock the door/ put a sign out SOMETHING a KEY? If this was true actually. This is the biggest star of all time here we talkin...LOCKS and shit to his room. To say that the maids just walked in his place and just saw these things is like ...and then didnt say nothing about it until the shit got bad