This from the pits of hell, the CourtTV boards:

CourtTV Transcript -- 09:55AM PST 04/18/05 [UNCHECKED TRANSCRIPT]


Reporter: Welcome back to our special report on the Michael Jackson trial. It got under way with live testimony a little while ago on the witness stand once again today the mother of the accuser in this case. Once again being subjected to some fierce cross-examination by defense attorney tom Mesereau. As we head out to Savannah Guthrie, you talked a few moments ago that everybody seemed to come back in with the same personality they left with on friday. As something of a consequence, you said already judge Melville has directed some comment that is tom Mesereau, tell us more detail about what you are seeing and hearing from the witness on the stand this morning.

Savannah: Sure. And judge Melville is nothing if not fair. He's certainly been trying to reign in this witness all along, it hasn't stopped today, repeatedly telling her listen to the question and answer the question. We don't need all of this extra. She is continually combative, feisty. She is sarcastic. For example, she was asked about a time that she said and had told police previously that she had danced with Michael Jackson at neverland and explained to the jurors it was me and the kids. We were all dancing. And Mesereau was asking her, did you or did not say that you danlsed with Michael Jackson. She said don't take it out of context. Don't make it all dirt y it wasn't just us dancing under the blue sky night. That's the kind of answer she often gives. Another time Mesereau asked her, so when did this dinner occur, she said, dinnertime. You know, things like that. Mesereau just follows up, doesn't miss a beat saying what year, what month, that kind of thing. They were other times when she is continuing the practice of speaking directly to the jurors. I really get the sense that she has such contempt for tom Mesereau. He asks a question, as if she puts her hand up to him, not literally, ignores him and director her attention to the jurors. He sd her in particular -- now this interview you did with bradley miller that was odd crow taped on february 16 nl, was that scripted? She turned directly to the jury and said, I already told him on that one everything I said was from my heart. She is not hiding at all her negative feelings toward tom Mesereau. Remember, on friday, she kind of laughed and said I have a lot of thoughts in my heart about you, straight to the defense attorney. I'm thinking they are not positive thoughts.

Reporter: Savannah, was she, let's use the word difficult, that's a fair word, we are not talking about giving opinions about whether she is telling the truth or not, in terms of her presentation and delivery here, was she fairly difficult when the prosecutor was asking her questions to keep her on track and to keep her responsive?

Savannah: Yes. I mean, in that case, remember, this is when tom Mesereau was not objecting at A. It fell to the prosecutor to try to reign in his own witness. She wasn't as uncooperative, she wasn't necessarily disagreeing with the prosecutor's questions, but she certainly would speak well beyond what was asked of her. There's no such thing as a yes or no response it would seem until the judge forces her to do so. She always wants to give the context, always wants to explain in her defense this is somebody who according to her has been holding all of this in for two years, and now want to tell the truth about what she said she now knows about Michael Jackson, so it is sort of spilling forth from her, but, yes, this is her personality. That's what I mean by saying nobody changed over the weekend. In fact, tom Mesereau asked if she had met with prosecutors over the weekend. A lot of us were speculating as to whether or not they would try to have a conversation with her and tell her to knock it off, answer the questions, you are getting us in trouble. She did talk to ron zonen the prosecutor who is questioning her. She said the meeting only lasted ten minutes. So that tells me that these prosecutors are not trying to turn her into something totally different. They realizes her limitations. She had a ten minute meeting and that was it.

Reporter: Let me go back to the testimony on friday. As you know and we said from the gith, the core of the defense here has always been that none of the criminal actions ever happened and in a sense they are being manufactured and they are pointing to this witness as being the architect of this, if you would, saying she's only doing to get money from Michael Jackson at some point in time. Was she asked specifically that question about coming after him civilly and what was her answer?

Savannah: She was asked whether or not she was aware of the statute of limitations. I don't think we have heard the last of this whole defense theme the civil lawsuit. But it's creeped it's ugly head into the case. I'll read a portion of the transscript I'm thinking about. The question was -- she said at another point during this particular exchange, I just want an poll gichlt she was asked about the jcpenney lawsuit again she said I just wanted an apology. Tom Mesereau shot back -- you wanted $100,000, didn't you, she said no. She also said she got a lot less than $152,000 which was the settlement reached in that particular litigation.

Reporter: Let me jump up to the judge.

...

Reporter: Well, I understand, we don't have a camera out there so we are going to rely again on Savannah Guthrie and her excellent reporting. I understand there's some color that our camera is missing at this moment coming out of that courthouse. What are you hearing?

Savannah: I just wanted to share a description of the witness on the stand. I'm told while she started the day sitting up straight in the witness chair, she's just almost physically wilted as the day has worn on, her hair is messed up, she is leaning over on the witness stand, this comes from my colleague diane dimond who is in the courtroom and able to get a message to me. She just described her as really physically showing she's just really withered during this cross-examination.

Reporter: Savannah being our eyes and ears once again.

Hey Dag, do u have that picture of michael getting out the pool. I think the picture is from 1984. That picture is

Here is the bottom line:


I touched on this before, but my thoughts are this----

"Does it matter if Michael Jackson is found guilty or not?"

Everyday it becomes clearer that the prosecution has a weak case. However, the damage has been done. The whispers of child molestation that have plagued MJ since 1993, have now turned into a full blown career wrecking machine.Worse than his career being stalled right now, his entire legacy seems to be threatened.

As I have said before, my fear is that people will, from now on, see Michael Jackson as a freakshow/child molester first, and a musician/entertainer secondly.

The nation polls have changed in the last week

MJ guilty - 63%

MJ victim - 37%

public opinion is changing in light of mothers testimony

...

skywalker said:

The people have associated MJ as a freak/child molester for the last decade or so?
what are you living under a rock?
his relationship withc hildren has surpassed his musical career

it can't get any worse

its not enough to be found not guilty, he needs to demolish these allegations
discredit his accusers thoroughly

it won't heal what's left of his tarnished image

but at lest he and all his fans could say... he went to court...

unlike what happened in 93
[Edited 4/18/05 11:06am]

you mean that "fake one" (or I don´t know if it´s fake, but it looks like it to me.) Well I don´t, I didn´t save it, cause I didn´t like it that much, but I know where to look for it. If I find it, I´l let you know.



Unfortunately, you are right and that PISSES ME OFF!!!!! It´s not fair.




at least one good news.

By TIM MOLLOY Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press

SANTA MARIA, Calif. Apr 18, 2005 — The mother of Michael Jackson's young accuser cited attorney-client privilege Monday in refusing to say whether she was represented by a lawyer at a time she and her children were allegedly held captive by the pop star.

Resuming a tough cross-examination that began last week, Jackson attorney Thomas Mesereau asked the woman if she had been represented by lawyer Michael Manning from 2001 through 2004 on issues involving her divorce.

The woman said Manning had helped her on several issues involving the divorce. She added that Manning worked for her for free and that as a result she was one of his low-priority clients.



Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville ordered the latter comments stricken from the record.

When Mesereau asked the woman if Manning was her attorney at the time of the alleged captivity, the woman asked, "Is that attorney-client privilege?"

Mesereau said he would drop the question if she was citing her privilege, and she said she was doing so.

Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting one of the woman's sons, plying the boy with alcohol, and holding his family captive in February and March 2003 to get them to help rebut the "Living With Michael Jackson" documentary in which Jackson said he allowed children to sleep in his bed, a practice he called innocent.

The woman alleges that Jackson and his associates held her family captive, shuttling them between locations until they made a rebuttal video in which they praised Jackson.

Mesereau also asked the woman about her reasons for mentioning Jackson, Los Angeles Lakers star Kobe Bryant and Los Angeles TV weather forecaster Fritz Coleman in an interview with police involving domestic abuse allegations against her former husband.

She said her former husband falsely accused her of having sex with Jackson, Bryant and Coleman. She said she gave investigators their names so they could contact them and verify that the ex-husband's claims were not true.

Mesereau noted that the police report did not include any mention of alleged false claims by her ex-husband that she was having sex with celebrities.

Hi career really is of little importance at the moment.

I listened to Drudge last night, Roger Friedman was on and i had to agree with his sentiments. His career is pretty much over Stateside even if aquitted, he remains a 'big' artist in other areas of the World though. So maybe all is not lost.

-
[Edited 4/18/05 11:13am]

dag said:

huh? I'm confused doesnt that mean 63% of voters think he's guilty?

Marrk said:

yah listened to it as well,

no doubt in the states
but everywhere else its still going strong

the ick factor is major here

this is possibly what mj tried to avoid in 93

but... that didn't really help either



and light it used to be 72 so it dropped 9 points

LightOfArt said:

It was a lot higher than that last week (high 70's or more?)

Marrk said:

it was in the late 80's at the atart of the trial

so it is doing progress

looking for your picture, i came across this and almost got a heart-attack (Check the full size)

From Cross Ezamination

She wasn't aware that Chris Tucker wired $2000 into the bank account and his fiancee at the time Aja - gave her a $600 check.

She denied having knowledge of these incidents.

- Mez brought up Palanker and Janet shifts all blame to her ex-husband again. (my note: Palanker is journalist who raised funds for the family, not knowing they had full coverage....the mom wanted the fund raising money directly put in her account....plus lots of other scams she worked on this lady.)

- Mez asked " Didn't you contact after reading an article in the paper's about Palanker (or something to that effect lol). Janet says NO and that David has a relative who was good friends with Palanker and HE set up to do the article with Palanker.

- Mez asked " Well didn't you read the paper and felt sorry for Palanker because she was an elderly woman that was trying to start a career is news reporting?" (something to that effect lol). Janet says NO, it wasn't that I felt sorry for her and that David is the one that handled all of that. He took the money etc..etc..

- Mez asked "Didn't Palanker bring you a turkey for Christmas and you said you didn't want a turkey, you wanted money?". And Janet said NO. Mez then said (if I'm not mistaken).. " Didn't you tell Palanker ( I think that's who he said, because I didn't catch the name...sorry), that you needed money because David had a drug problem? Janet sat up and waved her finger at Mez, turned to the jury and said " It was not the way that he is trying to make it sound". Palanker was on her way to Georgia and she dropped by to give her money because Palanker said that she didn't have time to shop for the kids and for Janet to do it.

Janet is saying all the things that David "supposedly" has done to the family.

- David kicked Davelin in the back and broke her tail bone
- David beat Gavin while in was going through kemo (sp?)
- David kicked Star on many of occasions.

- Says that one time at Neverland, she and the kids were dancing with other guests there and when her and david got back to the guest quarters, David beat her for putting herself on display.

Accuser's mother allegedly lied on welfare application
Woman cited no assets on form after receiving settlement check
By Mike Taibbi
NBC News correspondent

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7547449/

Updated: 2:43 p.m. ET April 18, 2005 SANTA MARIA, Calif. - When the mother of Michael Jackson's accuser plead the 5th Amendment rather than testify about her welfare history on Friday, even the prosecutor said she “may have committed perjury in certain of her applications.”

NBC News has learned that those applications for welfare and food stamps show the mother claimed she had virtually no assets after she'd received a six-figure court settlement and tens of thousands in donations for her cancer patient son.

On Nov. 5, 2001, the mother's lawyer distributed than $100,000 from J.C. Penney and Tower Records, whose security guards, she claimed in a lawsuit, had beaten and sexually assaulted her after her older son had been caught with clothes that hadn't been paid for.

At least $32,000 of that settlement money was deposited in one bank account, with separate interest bearing trusts set up for each of her sons.

Yet 10 days after the payout, she said in her welfare applications — under penalty of perjury — that she and her children had no money from any source, including court settlements, bank accounts or interest income. She also said they had no health insurance even though her ex-husband's policy was, and remains, in force.

In monthly eligibility reports and in a re-application in October 2002, the accuser's mother re-affirmed those answers, and collected benefits until March 2003.

A Jackson family lawyer who's not part of the singer's trial defense has formally asked the Los Angeles District Attorney to investigate the accuser's mother.

© 2005 MSNBC Interactive

She said on cross she spent a lot of time trying to deprogram her kids from the brainwashing they got at Neverland.

Bad move.

lilgish said:

- Mez is Focussing on the thousands of dollars raised to help her son's cancer treatment

- She was the only one who could withdraw the money from the bank account

- Said that she took the money out, indeed she did, but it was David (her husband) who got the money

- When celebs had these fundraisers, she didn't know a thing about them







more bad moves

J.C Penny and welfare Fraud

Yet 10 days after the payout, she said in her welfare applications — under penalty of perjury — that she and her children had no money from any source, including court settlements, bank accounts or interest income. She also said they had no health insurance even though her ex-husband's policy was, and remains, in force.
[Edited 4/18/05 12:36pm]

No lurid detail spared
The prosecution has fired most of its guns, and Michael Jackson is still standing. Now money is emerging as the key to his defense.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Paul Harris



April 18, 2005 | Janet Arvizo sat in Santa Maria's modest courtroom facing a barrage of criticism. Defense lawyers for Michael Jackson were testing her claims to have been kidnapped along with her family and held prisoner by the singer. The questions kept coming and coming, probing her story and that of her son, who she says Jackson sexually abused.

Arvizo's voice became more breathless inside the chamber as she tried to explain how she had never managed to raise the alarm, never managed to call the police or tell a friend. She spoke quickly and was agitated. Eventually she blurted out her explanation: "Who could possibly believe this?"

Quite. Lying was the theme of defense lawyer Thomas Mesereau's attack. He played videos of Arvizo praising Jackson and he forced her to admit she had lied under oath in a previous compensation case. She said she was a "bad actress." Mesereau shot back: "I think you're a good one." Later she got her own back. "Neverland is all about booze, pornography and sex with boys," she said.

But the only real truth to emerge from Santa Maria is that the ongoing train wreck that is the Jackson trial is simply beyond belief. For weeks Jackson has sat in the courtroom watching his carefully guarded life fall apart. If Neverland, his fantasy hideaway in the Southern California hills, was meant to be a private retreat where he could shun a mocking world, it has never been more horribly exposed in all its garish weirdness.

Prosecutor Tom Sneddon has relentlessly pursued his case that Jackson is a serial pedophile. The jury has been spared no lurid detail in the quest to show that Jackson created Neverland as "bait" to procure unsuspecting children. From a former cook to an ex-housekeeper, former Neverland employees have engaged in a brutal parade of testimony about Jackson's alleged abuse at the secluded ranch. Added to that have been the alleged victims themselves and their relatives. The picture they have built up is a consistent one. It shows Jackson targeting boys, often with absent fathers and mothers susceptible to flattery and lavish gifts. He would then pressure them into his Neverland bedroom and sexually molest them. One was even paid cash and told not to tell his mother.

And with row upon row of TV cameras camped outside like an occupying army, it is all taking place in the glare of the world's media. No wonder Jackson's lawyers are feeling the strain. Recently one of his team, Brian Oxman, was recorded by a TV crew's microphone making a furious phone call in the car park of his Santa Maria hotel. Oxman yelled as he furiously debated the possibility of someone being fired from Jackson's team. "This is going to get intolerable!" he barked.

But the picture of a doomed Jackson is far from true. The prosecution has now fired most of its big guns, and Jackson is still standing. The defense phase of the case has yet to begin and will probably last until the end of June at least. Already there are hints that the prosecution's best days could be behind it.

The defense will rely on two main tracks. First, that Jackson's accusers are after his money. Second, that all the witnesses so far are disgruntled former employees who have sold their stories to the tabloids. There is ample evidence for both.

For in the Jackson trial, there are few innocents. The prosecutor is unrelenting. The defense is unbending. Choosing who is the accuser and who is the victim depends on what you believe. Each witness has a horrific story. Yet, rather than calling the police, each appears to have sold that story to a supermarket tabloid, cashing in on the true American currency: 15 minutes of fame.

Arvizo a pink dress for her first day in court last week. She theatrically recalled sitting on a plane and watching Jackson lick her child's forehead like a cat. "Like this, over and over," she told the court as she demonstrated by licking her own arm. That awful animalistic image, of the king of pop licking the head of a young boy, was just one of many direct hits on Jackson in the past two weeks. There had already been two other mothers with devastating testimonies. June Chandler, whose son Jordie was the subject of a $20 million out-of-court settlement in 1993, has also taken the stand. As has an El Salvador-born cleaning woman, who testified that she saw Jackson take a shower with a young boy and added that her own son had also been abused.

All three mothers described a similar pattern. It is, prosecutors argue, classic evidence of a predatory pedophile. They claim that Jackson uses Neverland, with its array of free amusement rides, endless supply of sweets and his own private bedroom as a honeypot into which to lure his victims. They are young boys whose fathers are usually absent. The mothers are then showered with gifts and pressured to allow their children to share Jackson's bedroom. Eventually the boys are abused. "There's a pattern here," said Steve Cron, a legal analyst and California defense attorney.

Chandler gave classic testimony. She was in the middle of divorcing her second husband when Jackson befriended her son Jordie. Gifts were commonplace, and eventually Jackson became angry that she would not let Jordie share his bedroom. In court testimony, she described a trip to Las Vegas in 1993 where things came to a head. Jackson "was sobbing, crying, shaking and trembling," Chandler said, describing how Jackson told her: "We're a family. Why don't you allow Jordie to be with me ... Jordie is having fun. Why can't he sleep in my bed? There's nothing going on. Why don't you trust me?" Astonishingly, she gave in. In return, she was given a gold Cartier bracelet.

It seems almost to have been a conveyor belt of abuse in the faux wonderland of Jackson's home. Certainly that is the picture the prosecution is painting. It has brought forward witnesses to describe abuse against at least three young boys aside from Jackson's actual accuser. The alleged victimes include then child actor Macaulay Culkin, star of the "Home Alone" movies, and another boy, Wade Robson, who now works as a choreographer for Britney Spears. Much of the evidence comes from Jackson's former Neverland staff, including his cook, Phillip Lemarque, and security guard Ralph Chacon.

In surreal testimony Lemarque said he was once summoned to make Jackson some food at 3 a.m. with the order: "The Silver Fox wants some French fries." When he entered Jackson's bedroom he saw him and Culkin playing an arcade game with Jackson's hand down the young boy's underpants. "I was shocked. I almost dropped the French fries," Lemarque told the court. Chacon, meanwhile, said he saw Jackson performing oral sex with another boy. As he described the scene, Jackson stared at him across the courtroom and slowly shook his head.

It is damning stuff. But in this trial, resting on two specific charges of abuse against a 13-year-old cancer sufferer, the accuser's testimony itself has been no less graphic. He described Jackson plying him with wine (which the singer dubbed "Jesus juice"), showing him pornographic magazines, simulating sex with a mannequin and then finally sexually assaulting him. To back it up the jury was shown porn taken from Jackson's bedroom and subjected to protracted technical testimony that revealed both the boy's and Jackson's fingerprints were on the magazines.

But already, holes in the prosecution's case have begun to appear. Jackson's lead attorney, Thomas Mesereau, is a brutal cross-examiner and has not backed off from attacking the accuser.

His cause has been greatly helped by stuttering performances from all the prosecution's key witnesses. The accuser, dubbed John Doe, gave an at times bizarre display. He yawned repeatedly, prompting Sneddon to ask him: "I'm keeping you awake, am I?" To which the boy replied: "All I need is a pillow." John Doe was also questioned about how his initial complaints of five acts of abuse had turned into just two. His brother, known as James Doe, also gave changing testimony, describing events differently at different times.

Yet the worst performance was by the mother. At one stage, she dubbed Jackson and his entourage as "killers." She pointed at Jackson every time she mentioned his name, frequently burst into tears, yet cracked jokes just as often. Mesereau raised few objections to disturb her flow. Even prosecutor Ron Zonen betrayed his exasperation. "Anyway …" was his sarcastic response to a long reply that failed to answer his question.

Mesereau was brutal in attacking her. On April 15 the judge struck so many remarks from the record (both hers and Mesereau's) that he had to suspend court to explain to the jury they should forget any such comments. She was erratic and rambling. At one stage she claimed Jackson's side had faked a receipt that showed she had had a leg, eyebrow and bikini wax at a local salon. "I'm telling you, it was only a leg wax," she said. She then turned to look at Jackson and said accusingly: "He has the ability to choreograph everything." "How about you?" Mesereau shot back. The remark was struck from the record.

But the witnesses who were not there were also crucial. Both Culkin and Robson have previously insisted they were never abused by Jackson. Jordie Chandler has also refused to testify. It is perhaps telling that he has not spoken to his mother, who was so willing to take the stand, in more than 11 years.

Finally there is the issue of money. It is this that is emerging as the dominant thread of the defense. The collision of celebrity and crime and checkbook journalism has undermined swaths of the prosecution's case. "The Achilles' heel is these low-life witnesses who sold their souls to the tabloids," said Laurie Levenson, a former prosecutor and professor at Loyola Law School.

Jackson's cook Lemarque, who says he saw him molest Culkin, had talks with a tabloid about selling his story for $100,000. He admitted to Mesereau that he had been told the story was worth more if Jackson's hands were inside Culkin's underpants, not outside. Another staff member, maid Adrian McManus, confessed that several employees had banded together to hire a "media broker" to peddle Jackson sex stories that they made up.

Chacon, the security guard, was part of a failed lawsuit to sue Jackson by ex-Neverland staff. That suit ended in disaster, and each plaintiff was forced to pay Jackson more than $1 million in legal fees. "This is a good way to get even with him, isn't it?" Mesereau bluntly asked as Chacon squirmed. Chacon has also sold his story to the tabloids to pay the legal bills.

The Salvadoran cleaner (whose name cannot be revealed) is not free of tabloid taint either. She was paid $20,000 to appear on a TV show in a deal arranged by another Jackson maid. The accuser's father has talked to British tabloids about selling his story, though no deal was ever struck. Behind it all is the possibility of a civil suit of the kind that won the Chandler family $20 million. Mesereau grilled John Doe on the prospect. "You're aware that if Mr. Jackson is convicted you could automatically win a civil suit, right?" he asked him. "No," the boy said, which prompted Mesereau to repeat: "No one's ever discussed that with you?" Again the boy said no. "We've said things like, 'Oh, we don't want his money' and stuff like that." It remains to be seen if that will convince a jury.

But tellingly, the family's civil lawyer, Will Dickerman, and attorney Larry Feldman, who first brought the boy's charges to light, have entered into a fee-sharing arrangement, so that if any future civil suit is launched they will share the reward. When Feldman was on the stand, Mesereau made sure the jury was made aware of the situation and that the accuser will have until he is 20 years old to decide if he wants to pursue compensation. That produced a testy exchange between Mesereau and Feldman. "If at the end of this trial, they decide they'd like to sue, they'd have plenty of time, wouldn't they?" Mesereau asked icily. "If they'd like to, sure," was Feldman's calm response.

It is hard to escape the notion that money could be key to the trial. At no stage did any witness or victim report Jackson to the police. Or try to stop the alleged abuse. They went to lawyers, tabloid editors and television reporters, but never to social services. "These witnesses are alleging heinous behavior and not a one of them seems to have done a damn thing about it while the acts were being committed. Who are these people?" said show business columnist Richard Roeper. Mesereau was more subtle. "Did you ever take your son and leave?" he asked Chandler. "No," she replied.

Guilty or innocent, Jackson is almost certainly finished as a pop star. "At this point the case is looking like a smear campaign. It's a legal free-for-all," said Levenson. But the trial also seems to be a "high-water" mark for celebrity trials. From Scott Peterson to Robert Blake to Kobe Bryant, America has been awash with high-profile scandals over the past year. Perhaps, at long last, it is tiring of them.

The Jackson trial is rarely front-page news. Even the most salacious testimony is on inside pages. The "reenactments" shown each night on some TV channels have failed to catch the imagination. Mesereau is not a household name. It seems America has, so far, spared itself another O.J. Simpson trial. That is the only good thing to emerge from Santa Maria so far.

Luv4oneanotha said:

No he's not spineless.

I don't think many around here are following the trial as we are. They get snippets. I was one of those who said the same thing as mr despues in the beginning. However, following the trial, I am pretty certian that he is innocent in this case. Or even if he isn't completely innocent, the victim and his family certainly are unscrupulous...certianly NOT the model family...and certainly NOT completely innocent nor honest in his this trial. Really if you are paying attention to whats going on...you realize that this trail is a sham really.

meow85 said:

Exactly. Very few round here will defend him tooth and nail. Most are just waiting to see how this pans and many are realizing that this trial should never have come about...but was inevitable (I saw it the moment Bashirs documentory came out...I was like uh oh MJ what have you done to yourself?)

Sneddon didn't think mike would stick around for the case. That's why him and the judge gave him his passport back at the start.

Sneddon's main objective was to get him out of the sb and the country. I hope people will see this and realize sneddon was doing the same underhanded schemes in 93. Two grand juries decided not to bring that case to trial.

15 years of accusations, with a 10 year gap mind you, and no hard evidence.

And if she saw that and sent her son back, she needs to be sitting in a jail cell. Get the fuck outta here.

dag said:

Hot Damn Sounds like fun!

Sosgemini said:

Exactly. Most aren't paying attn. But will at the end...yet won't know all the details. Unfortuneate that most will think he is guilty. Though they will be surprised when it comes on down as "Not guilty".

dreamfactory313 said:

dead ringer

"The people have associated MJ as a freak/child molester for the last decade or so?
what are you living under a rock?
his relationship withc hildren has surpassed his musical career

it can't get any worse

its not enough to be found not guilty, he needs to demolish these allegations
discredit his accusers thoroughly

it won't heal what's left of his tarnished image

but at lest he and all his fans could say... he went to court...

unlike what happened in 93"

Chris Rock said that people liked MJ so much that "they gave him a free pass on the first (kid/allegations)".

That is true. Think about MJ post 1993:

He was allowed a "comeback". He opened the 1995 MTV music awards. History was a multi platinum #1 album, "Scream" (The single) set sales records, he did the Theme for "free Willy 2", "You are not alone" was a big hit, he had various TV specials (including a ratings bonanza 30th anniversary special), he worked with Steven King, Brando, Chris Tucker, had a cameo in MIB 2, Invincible was a #1 record and went multi platinum,etc.

Long story short---people thought he was a freak, but he still had a strong career. This time around the shit has really hit the fan and noit just his current career, but his past seems to be eroding away.

So yeah, I think it's a lot more serious this time and (unlike 1993) people won't forget so willingly.

skywalker said:

The funny thing is, people said exactly the same thing about his career in 1993.

Michael Jackson has a huge fanbase. Much bigger than Prince's or Madonna's. He also has a lot of casual fans (the kind that helped Number Ones sell over one million in the UK alone in 2003 - AFTER the second allegations came out).

If he wants to continue recording, he will always have a large market who will send his records to number one, regardless of whether the industry chooses to support him or not.

Day 33: The Mother of the Accuser Admits Lies… and More Lies


Created: Saturday, 16 April 2005

On Day 33 Michael Jackson's lawyer savaged the credibility of his accuser's mother, making her admit she committed perjury, lying under oath at least twice and suggesting she wanted to cash in on the star's wealth.
In one of the most explosive showdowns of the seven-week-old trial, attorney Thomas Mesereau launched an intense attack on the 37-year-old woman he has branded and showed evidence to support the fact that she is a rapacious money-grubber and "professional plaintiff."

In a grilling so fiery that trial Judge Rodney Melville warned the lawyer and witness to tone down their rhetoric, Mr. Mesereau accused the woman of acting and suggested that her claims against Mr. Jackson were "in her mind."
In his bid to undermine claims that Mr. Jackson and his aides kidnapped her family and implicitly threatened their lives, Mr. Mesereau forced her to concede she lied in a deposition she made when suing a department store in 2000.
"You lied under oath to increase the amount of money you could get ... correct?," Mr. Mesereau asked, referring to her claim she was sexually assaulted when she and her children were detained on suspicion of shoplifting.

Mr. Mesereau also noted that in a sworn statement, the woman said she had never been abused by her husband at the time — an important issue, because her alleged injuries may have been caused by such violence. The woman had claimed she was never abused by her now ex-husband, who she later reported to authorities for beating her and abusing their three children.

"You were not telling the truth under oath when you made those statements," Mr. Mesereau said.

The woman eventually responded, "This is correct."

She also acknowledged being untruthful when she said in the lawsuit that her husband was honest.

"How many lies do you think you told in the JCPenney case?" Mr. Mesereau asked. In evasive responses, she reluctantly conceded she lied about anything to do with her then husband until his subsequent arrest.

Mr. Jackson's team claims the woman is a con artist with a history of coaching her children to lie under oath to win financial settlements, including the 152,000 dollars they won from the JCPenney store.

On the stand, the woman downplayed her role as whistleblower. "I give them [the police] information, and they did whatever they did with it," she testified.

Earlier, jurors heard the woman's teen-age daughter testify that her mother told her that she--the girl--had once been molested by her father. In court, the mother referred to the alleged molestation as an "event...that happened way over 10 years ago."

Mr. Mesereau, meanwhile, used a tape recording of a phone conversation between the mother and Mr. Jackson associate Frank Tyson to raise doubt as to the woman's claims of being held against her will by the singer's camp.

In the tape, the mother tells Tyson, one of Mr. Jackson's unindicted coconspirators, that she loves him and his family, even though she doesn't know his family. On the stand, the woman said she loved them the way she loves "people 50 and over--[I] have a tender spot in my heart."

Overall, the woman didn't think the tapes were honest at all--she claimed the recording had been "manipulated."

Legal analysts said Mr. Mesereau, who listened quietly to the testimony of the crucial prosecution witness for two days, seriously damaged her credibility.

"The more she talks, the worse its gets for the prosecution," said trial watcher Michael Cardoza. "She won't answer the simplest of questions," he said. "If this was a heavyweight fight, it would be stopped right now."

Mr. Mesereau suggested the defiant witness's stories of kidnapping were a tissue of lies and that she was in fact living in the lap of luxury as Mr. Jackson's guest at Neverland.

"How many times, in your mind, did you escape from that dungeon, Neverland?" Mr. Mesereau persisted, getting the woman to admit that she had left and returned three times during her alleged captivity.

"You didn't escape from Neverland at all, did you," he asked provocatively. "Oh yes I did," she retorted.

In a surprise revelation, she also conceded she was once investigated for allegedly abusing her own child -- the alleged victim in the case.

The witness gave as good as she got in her extremely testy sparring match against former boxer Mr. Mesereau, prompting the judge to warn he would cut the hearing short if the pair did not behave.

She pointedly corrected Mr. Mesereau, turning directly to jurors to say: "His statement is inaccurate."

In her testimony, she admitted under questioning that she had recently been in touch with the lawyer that brokered a settlement worth more than 20 million dollars for a boy who accused Mr. Jackson of abuse in 1993.

The war of words came a day after the woman wrapped up a complex and disjointed account of how Mr. Jackson aides allegedly used fear and intimidation to keep her family prisoner for three weeks in February and March 2003.

The woman claimed her family was then coerced into making a "rebuttal video" in which they described Mr. Jackson as a beloved father figure.

She said she did not want to make the video, which was played for jurors Friday, and claimed everything in it -- even the laughter -- was scripted: ""I was acting," the woman said. "I mean you are not going to call Halle Berry and say, 'Are you [really] Catwoman?' I am a poor actress."

But Mr. Mesereau shot back: "You are a good actress."

The judge chastised Mr. Mesereau for the remark and told the woman to refrain from delivering long answers unrelated to attorneys' questions, telling her, "It's as much your fault."

When Mr. Mesereau asked how it took to memorize her lines or how long the script was, she could not answer.

The mother said Mr. Jackson associates gave her a precise script to follow in the rebuttal video but later told her she had strayed too far from it, leading to the comments on her acting skills.

The woman testified that almost everything on the video — even breaks where the boy complains about his seat and the family laughs at jokes — was scripted by Mr. Jackson aides. She said the only departure from the script was when she discussed God, cancer and child welfare workers.

At one point on the tape, the boy speaks at great length about the agonies of undergoing cancer treatment.

"Do you believe what (he) was saying was the truth or not?" Mr. Mesereau asked the boy's mother.

"I believe what he was saying was according to a script," she said.

The woman suggested that she met with one of Mr. Jackson's associates 10 times at Neverland to discuss what she would say on the video. Mr. Mesereau noted that she had never said this before in interviews with police or prosecutors, and suggested she was trying to enhance her story.

Analyst Cardoza said the entire case, including the molestation charges, could hinge on whether the jury believes the woman and her son.

"If they believe the mother put the son up to it, then this case is over," he said.

Mr. Jackson's lawyers have suggested and displayed evidence to corroborate the fact that the child-molestation charges were concocted by the boy's mother in an attempt to shake down Mr. Jackson for money.

The showdown commenced with wrangling over a beauty treatment the woman underwent while she allegedly was being held captive two years ago. She insisted spitefully that she paid for the ‘leg wax’ until Mr. Mesereau produced the receipt, pointing out another lie in her stream of contradictory tesimony.

It devolved into defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. derisively quipping that the prosecution's key adult witness was a fine actress.

Mr. Mesereau got the woman's hackles up with a question about whether it was Mr. Jackson bodyguard Chris Carter who once drove her from Neverland to a nearby salon for a body wax.

"Incorrect," the mother replied.

"Who took you for a body wax?" Mr. Mesereau asked.

"No one ever," she said.

"Well, you went for a body wax when you were at Neverland, did you not?" Mr. Mesereau asked.

"Inaccurate," the woman insisted.

And so the two went on, like Abbott and Costello, without the laughs, until it was established that the mother was not going to agree to Mr. Mesereau's statement until he used the correct terminology.

"I had a leg wax done... He keeps saying 'body wax,' " the woman said, in an apparent appeal to the jury. "There is no body wax."

The mother frequently referred to Mr. Mesereau as "he," declining to address the counsel directly.

Mr. Mesereau, meanwhile, went directly after the woman--the linchpin in the prosecution's conspiracy case against Mr. Jackson.

The hits kept coming. At one point, the woman very inappropriately even imitated Mr. Jackson's high-pitched voice.

Amid the tumult, Mr. Jackson was the model defendant.

Cross-examination of the witness is expected to continue when court resumes Monday.

In other developments, Celebrity Justice reported that CNN host Larry King was subpoenaed Friday to appear as a defense witness.

King's name surfaced at the trial earlier this month when Mr. Mesereau asked Larry Feldman, an attorney who represented the accuser's family, if he ever told King that the mother was "making up these allegations." Feldman denied making such a remark.



Source: MJJsource / AP / AFP

superspaceboy said:

I remember watching the Bashir documentary and feeling very...icky. I just knew that it wouldn't pass quietly as a blip in TV history somehow.

Jay Leno, George Lopez, Chris Tucker and now Larry King...


who next? Joan Rivers and Nipsy Russell....


man this thing is fascinating to follow...