from washingtonpost.com (homepage)
4.22.05

If half of what the prosecution witnesses say about Michael Jackson is true, he deserves to go to jail. But so do some of those witnesses. Once the whole lot is behind bars, the rest of us ought to work on taming the monster of celebrity before it devours us all.

Let's be realistic, people. Even if you're a loyal fan, even if you've memorized every step of the ghoul dance from the "Thriller" video, you've got to wonder whether all these people can be making all this stuff up. Some witnesses may have a credibility problem, and some may have a pecuniary reason to lie; and, yes, some were talking about prior "bad acts," not the current charges against Jackson. The King of Pop may still moonwalk free.

But they're all telling basically the same story, and airtight conspiracies are rare outside spy novels and high school cliques. What they're saying about Jackson is sordid. What they're saying about themselves is depressing.

Ralph Chacon, the supersize former security guard, testified that he watched as Jackson performed a sex act on a young boy. He didn't interrupt this alleged crime, although he's big enough to snap his employer like a toothpick. He didn't report it to police at the time. La-di-da, just another day at Neverland.

Philip LeMarque, Jackson's one-time manservant and cook, testified that he saw Jackson with his hand down Macaulay Culkin's pants. Adrian McManus, a former maid, said she saw Jackson apparently molesting another boy. Kiki Fournier, a former housekeeper, said she saw boys running wild, some of them apparently drunk. Like Chacon, these witnesses did nothing at the time.

Some may have seen dollar signs, the chance to convert secret knowledge into a pile of cash. And, of course, they didn't want to lose their jobs. But I'd like to think that even in today's economy, most people would draw the line at countenancing child molestation.

Lock all of them up, but save the "punishment" cellblock -- dank, windowless chambers and snarling guards who whip out the baton if you don't call them Mister Bubba -- for the parents who gave their children to an exceedingly strange middle-aged man who wanted nothing more than to get young boys into his bed.

There's not a chance, I'll bet, that the parents of the boy who is the subject of the current allegations, or the parents of the boy who accused Jackson of molesting him in 1993 (before Jackson paid the family more than $20 million and the boy clammed up), or any of the other parents would have let their boys romp and cuddle with Jackson if he had been, say, just an obscure bachelor living alone in a suburban split-level on an insurance adjuster's salary.

Money was a part of it, but only a part. Even if it had been an obscure bachelor who owned the insurance company, I doubt the parents would have gone along so readily. The mother of the boy at the heart of the current case was intoxicated with all the attention she received when the boy got cancer and celebrities began paying him the mercy visits they routinely perform as a kind of community service. The woman's "ready for my close-up" histrionics on the witness stand speak for themselves. "Don't judge me," she theatrically implored the jury, as if the poor jurors could do anything but.

This is hardly a new instinct -- as long as there have been kings and queens, there have been courtiers. But kings and queens used to have real power and could bestow things such as titles and estates, while our modern-day celebrities give their supplicants nothing but a practiced, empty smile. Yet magazines such as US Weekly, People and Star fly off the newsstands. Is there a person alive who doesn't know by now that Britney Spears is pregnant?

The people around Michael Jackson -- the members of his paid retinue as well as the families he invited to the ranch -- had in common the overwhelming desire to be a part of his life. But of course they never were, even at Neverland. Celebrities of that magnitude tend to have in common a narcissism and a deep insecurity that exclude everyone except other celebrities.

Elizabeth Taylor is a part of Jackson's life. The salaried enablers who worked for him and the starry-eyed fools who gave him their young sons could never be

namepeace said:

this is a beautiful piece
and true as the air we breathe

Vaseline Nixed at Jackson Trial

Thu Apr 21, 9:13 PM ET Entertainment - E! Online Gossip/Celeb


By Joal Ryan

The Vaseline will stay in the medicine cabinet.


(everyone knows ya dont use vaseline for lube..this is just silly. -sos )


E! Online Photo



The judge in the Michael Jackson child-molestation trial ruled Thursday that an ex-Neverland security guard cannot testify about delivering a jar of petroleum jelly to the bedroom of the "sweaty" and "aroused" pop star.


Per reports, the witness, Kassim Abdool, will be allowed to talk about seeing Jackson hug the boy who was at the center of a 1993-94 molestation investigation and finding the pair's bathing trunks near an empty shower stall.


But Abdool's Vaseline story will be a taboo topic, the cable network reported.


According to a prosecution motion, Abdool was prepared to talk about one night back in 1993 when he was ordered by Jackson to retrieve a jar of Vaseline from the singer's SUV.


When Abdool delivered the lubricant to Jackson's bedroom, the motion said, the guard found the singer clad in only pajama bottoms--and not without company.


"[Jackson] appeared sweaty, aroused and Abdool observed Jackson to have an erection under his pajama bottoms," prosecutor Tom Sneddon wrote. "There was a young boy, who he believed was [the 1993-94 accuser], in the bedroom with Mr. Jackson."


The defense had objected to Abdool being allowed to take the stand to talk about anything, much less the alleged late-night Vaseline call. In a motion, attorney Robert M. Sanger argued Abdool's testimony would amount to "salacious innuendo."


Abdool worked at Neverland from 1991 to 1994. He is another of the prosecution's blast-from-the-past witnesses--largely ex-Neverland staffers called to relate misdeeds Jackson allegedly committed with young boys more than a decade ago.


Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting one boy, then 13, at Neverland in 2003. He is also charged with plying the child with alcoholic beverages and conspiring to hold the boy and his family against their will. The singer has pleaded innocent to all charges.


To date, the most graphic testimony in the trial has concerned Jackson's alleged transgressions in the late 1980s and 1990s. Ralph Chacon, another ex-Neverland security guard, told jurors he saw Jackson perform oral sex on the 1993-94 accuser in a shower stall.


Abdool will be used by the prosecution to corroborate Chacon's testimony. Both men worked at Neverland during the same period.


According to the prosecution motion, Abdool will back up Chacon's account of Jackson and the 1993-94 accuser walking into the Neverland showers together. And while Abdool doesn't have an account of what happened in the showers, he does have an account of finding "two wet bathing trunks on the ground" after Jackson and the boy exited the building.


And like Chacon, Abdool will testify that he saw Jackson hug the 1993-94 accuser as the two watched Neverland's Peter Pan light display, the motion said.


Abdool testified to these two alleged incidents but not the Vaseline scenario before the grand jury that convened to investigate the allegations of the 1993-94 accuser. That probe fell apart when the boy stopped cooperating with authorities. No criminal charges were filed against Jackson in that case. The boy and his family netted a reported $23 million civil settlement from Jackson in 1994.


The 1993-94 accuser, now 25, is not expected to testify at Jackson's current trial.


In other matters, Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville ruled that the prosecution can't bring in a domestic-violence expert to try to explain away the rambling testimony of the current accuser's mother.





The prosecution wanted to help jurors see the mother's behavior on the stand as the product of her being abused by her former husband.

In court, Sanger charged that the woman perjured herself on the stand.

"This is not because she's a battered woman," Sanger said, per the Associated Press. "It's because she lies for gain."

In still more rulings, Melville said a travel agent who'd worked for Jackson couldn't testify, but that a former Jackson bodyguard, recently arrested on robbery charges in Las Vegas, could.

Chris Carter, the ex-bodyguard is expected to testify for the prosecution about seeing the current accuser intoxicated at Neverland. Melville said Carter would be able to take the Fifth with regards to his recent robbery arrest, per the AP.

The prosecution won't be able to call the travel agent, however--not that she sounded all that eager to come to the courtroom. The woman planned to plead the Fifth Amendment to avoid questions about Jackson's so-called surrender flight on which the entertainer was secretly videotaped.

With the afternoon devoted to motions, there was time for only one witness to take the stand.

Brian Barron, the ex-Neverland security guard who testified Wednesday about being under order not to let the current accuser off the estate's grounds, returned to the Santa Maria, California, courthouse to go through more security logs from early 2003. Sanger used the logs to show the number of times the accuser, his siblings and mother left and returned to Neverland during the time they allegedly were being tormented by Jackson and his associates.

With the prosecution's case winding down, Friday will be an off day for jurors. Sneddon has predicted he'll be done presenting witnesses and evidence by the end of next week.

Outside the courthouse, a Jackson admirer--and potential defense witness--was facing charges in New Jersey for the alleged sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl. Ahmad Eletab, 18, frequented Neverland in his youth, and was expected to talk about how Jackson's accuser spoke glowingly of the entertainer. According to reports, Eletab allegedly told the girl he wanted to seduce her, just as he had seen Jackson seduce a girl back at Neverland.

Elsewhere, a Jackson family publicist issued a statement denouncing as "false and mean-spirited" reports that the show-biz clan was distancing itself from its most famed--and infamous--member.

Jackson's parents, Joe and Katherine, have been the singer's only constant familial companions in court, the rep said, because that's the way Jackson's parents wanted it. But even Joe Jackson has been a no-show of late. His absences were attributed to the flu.

AP: Culkin to Testify in MJ's Defense


SANTA MARIA, Calif. — Former child star Macaulay Culkin and two other young men who stayed at Michael Jackson's Neverland estate in the early 1990s have agreed to testify in the pop star's defense in his child molestation trial, The Associated Press has learned.

They are expected to say that nothing inappropriate happened between them and the singer.Meanwhile, the jury in the Jackson trial was getting a break on Friday — there's no testimony scheduled until Monday.

Prosecutors lost a key battle Thursday when Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville refused their request to allow testimony from a domestic violence expert to explain why the mother of Jackson's accuser lied under oath.

The Jackson trial is not about domestic violence and "it would be a mistake to allow it," Melville said Thursday.

Melville also refused to allow the prosecution to present a lurid account from a former Jackson employee and excluded testimony from a travel agent about a Jackson plane trip.

Despite the victories, Jackson's defense was unable to block the testimony of a former Jackson security guard who was recently arrested for investigation of robbery in Las Vegas.

Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting a 13-year-old cancer patient in February or March 2003. He also is accused of conspiring to hold the boy's family captive to get them to make a rebuttal video following the airing of the damaging Martin Bashir documentary "Living With Michael Jackson," in which the accuser appeared with Jackson.

In the documentary, the singer said he let children sleep in his bed, but that it was non-sexual.

Though excluding salacious details that were to be offered by former Jackson employee Kassim Abdool (search), the judge did allow other testimony from him in an effort to corroborate former Jackson security guard Ralph Chacon, who claims he saw Jackson commit a sex act on a child in 1992 or 1993.

The judge agreed to allow Abdool to testify about seeing Jackson hug a child and to say that he saw Jackson leaving a shower area on the ranch, carrying a boy piggyback. Prosecutors said Abdool would allege he went to the shower area and saw two pairs of swim trunks.

The testimony ruled out by the judge included Abdool's claim that he saw the star appearing to be in an aroused state.

The boy received a settlement from Jackson in 1994 and subsequently declined to cooperate in a criminal investigation. No charges were filed.

Chacon and Abdool were plaintiffs in a wrongful termination lawsuit against Jackson that they lost and were ordered to pay damages to Jackson.

On another issue, the judge ruled another former Jackson guard, Christopher Carter, can testify — and invoke Fifth Amendment protection if asked about his recent arrest in Las Vegas on charges including robbery and kidnapping.

Prosecutors have said they expect to begin wrapping up their case against the pop star soon.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

message for Bootilicious!!! Sorry to post it over here, but orgnotes don´t work.


Here´s a link to a picture you were looking for. Hope it´s the one.
http://www.mjj2005.com/ko...topic=5648

Editorial: Sneddon's finale a lesson for America
If this isn't Judge Melville's last case, it should be...

by Jennifer Monroe

SANTA MARIA, CA -- (OfficialWire) -- 04/22/05 -- I have intentionally left this story alone because I recognized the sensitive nature of the charges, believing that reporting the story at its conclusion would satisfy any obligation we have toward our readers.

But enough is enough.

For far too many years, California District Attorney Tom Sneddon (shown here) has sought to capitalize on both the popularity of some and eccentricities of others, including pop legend Michael Jackson, in the furtherance of his own career. In the case of Jackson, Sneedon is clearly motivated by personal animosity toward the singer.

Enough is enough.

It's time for Judge Rodney Melville to call an end to this exercise in libel masquerading as a trial, while there is still a chance for him to reclaim some of his integrity.

When this most recent Sneddon-debacle began in December 2003, Hattie Kauffman, national correspondent for The Early Show speaking about the District Attorney, said: "I think people do feel that he is a man on a mission. You know, this is going to be the signature case of his career."

Sneddon has said the Jackson case will be his last, before he retires to perform pro-bono work with children.

The problem is that Sneddon has a history for pursuing cases that should never have been brought to trial. One such case was against defense attorney Gary Dunlap.

Dunlap said: "...I was wrongfully prosecuted for a number of crimes, crimes I did not commit."

Sneedon had charged Dunlap, a frequent critic of the DA's department, with perjury and witness intimidation.

"We went to a jury trial and I was acquitted on all counts," Dunlap said.

Dunlap continued, "He said he had a very strong case against me. The problem was that his whole strong case was manufactured."

On January 30, 2005 Jackson made a court-approved video statement, saying: "Please keep an open mind and let me have my day in court. I deserve a fair trial like every other American citizen. I will be acquitted and vindicated when the truth is told."

With no credible evidence, a case supported by no end of lies advanced by a woman who is so obviously mentally ill, no other American would have to suffer such an injustice.

Source: http://news.baou.com/main...&rid=20190

thank you! man that picture is really nice. oooo baby!

Do you think it´s real? It looks fake to me. His face is a different colour than the rest of his body.

MICHAEL CONFESSED TO BEING MOLESTED IN 1969


http://www.nypost.com/new.../45177.htm


HARLEM WOMAN: JACKSON CONFESSED TO ME

A Harlem woman who says she was the first president of the Jackson Five fan club — and helped baby-sit the group during their rise to fame — is claiming Michael Jackson confessed to her in 1969 he was being molested by an adult.

Antoinette Holmes, 51, said the then-10-year-old singer bragged he was having sexual relations with an adult "girlfriend."

Holmes's attorney, Dario Navarro, said the celebrity was "world-renowned," and others knew about the molestation.

"It has bothered me for 35 years," said Holmes, who said the confession came at the Essex Hotel, where the Jacksons were staying while performing at the Apollo Theater.

One news station confirmed Holmes passed two lie-detector tests when telling the explosive story, but said they still had not decided whether to air it.

"I think the public needs to get another side of Michael and understand his childhood."


Bridget Harrison

Well, you can only put so much trust into the NY post (and by "so much" I mean "very little.")I'm not buying this story. I will say this, though...And let me make it clear that I do NOT believe that MJ is either a child molester OR a mentally crippled adult...But it would not surprise me if he did have sexual experiences at a young age. For the sake of everyone involved, I hope that:
a. This woman is lying
b. The Post is twisting her words
c. Little MJ was stretching the truth about the extent of his relationship with his "girlfriend." (which isn't uncommon for kids his age)

Oh, and I bet I know who this woman is referring to.
[Edited 4/24/05 14:42pm]

For those who like to use the arguement, "If he was inocent in 93, why did he settle?," take a look at this:
http://www.sbscpublicacce...prtobj.pdf

SefraNSue said:

I KNEW IT!!!

i've always pondered that MJ's insurance company would of handled the settlement. Depending on his policy

so their was no initial payout!
it didn't even come from his own pocket...

SefraNSue said:

Me too. Didn't he live with this 'world renowned' woman for over a year around that time? How truly sad if that's true.

still, they remained good friends right into his adult years. I honestly don't know what to think.

OMG, I really don´t know what to think of that story. It is definately much more believable than the child molestation allegations. I don´t know. But let´s not forget that Mj was HUGE star at a very early age who girls have always dreamt of even sexually from the very beginning. I remember a qouote from Katherine where she expressed her concern about those "BIG" girls who were there to get him and he was "so small" I mean it could have happened. I hope it didn´t though. Poor Mike!!!

This is an old news and it seems unbelievable that public was not made more aware of that.

Anyways, I got angry today at school, cause two girl made a stupid comment at MJ relationship with kids during English lesson and it hurts to see that EVERYONE thinks he´s guilty and the worst thing is that I hardly ever have strength to tell something when it´s in the public, which pisses me off even more.

But I blame and hate media for that. Cause with the coverage - no wonder that ppl who don´t follow the trial think he´s innocent, while all the "educated" ppl over here ( ) have already stopped saying he was guilty.

dag said:

After a bit of thought, sadly i'm thinking from a tabloids mindset, isn't this just a way that they're going to try to explain away Macauley Culkins testimony when he no doubt comes in to defend MJ? I can see it going "look at MJ, he remained faithful to his abuser into adulthood, Culkin is just doing the same"

This from the Political Palace: The World from the Hip Hop Perspective. This article was on their message board:


John Karrys: America’s Eyes - Not Wide Shut Anymore
-----
Created: Wednesday, 20 April 2005

“At this point, the case is looking like a smear campaign. It’s a legal free-for-all.”

Former Prosecutor, Laurie Levenson, Loyola Law School Professor.

The anointed media “experts could not have imagined, even in the worst of possible scenarios, that District Attorney Tom Sneddon’s case would sink into this quagmire of libellous quicksand. If this isn’t a smear campaign, then where are the legions of outraged, child-abuse moral advocates crying out for a public hanging? Were this a legitimate and plausible, circumstantial case, wouldn’t one think that the media would have at least that to advertise? Something doesn’t seem right with this disturbing snapshot. History has showcased to us, on too many occasions, the consequences where the partnership between state and media is blatantly obvious. It’s time for all of us to step out of our fantasy bubbles and acknowledge, at this moment in history, our civic institutions are at a dangerous precipice. The graveyards are rumbling with warning sirens from our ancestors who suffered mercilessly under such partnerships.

The ad homonym attacks against Michael Jackson and anyone who dares to support him have intensified as establishment media shifts its tactics to save face and restore its crumbling credibility. Let us not forget that America is a nation born out of its distrust of the absolute power of the State, as well as the interference of the State in the lives of private citizens. If we are living in a society where cases such as this are being tried, with these poorly coached witnesses, then let us confess that we do not have any real educational standards. We have neither the moral base to assert legal standards, nor do we have the common, decent values to dialogue about morality.

Are we to believe that this kind of conduct is acceptable in our courts? Is this something to take pride in? Is this what we salute to? What Grand Jury testimony or evidence rationally convinced Judge Melville that this was adequate enough to warrant a trial? Where is the accountability?

It is a façade, and no law professor can dare to rationalize otherwise. Yet, the media have rationalized, haven’t they? Witness after witness, the media bronzes into headlines carefully coached slogans or statements, yet, leaves out the context and trivializes the impact of the contradictions. Anyone who studies some history be it political, economic or legal, would not be surprised to find out that this selective historiography is a common occurrence.

Does anyone think that journalists report exactly what they see without bias, concision, or exclusion? Most Americans don’t, and most scholars have confirmed that. The rampant censorship disguised as political correctness across University campuses was bound to filter into institutional mass media. Is it because Michael Jackson asserted his right not to be a typical icon that enrages so many? Chose not to be that stereotypical idol that has been marketed to us as cool and has branded our psyche. Michael Jackson has chosen to be self-made rather than be manufactured. He certainly doesn’t solicit public opinion to define who he is. Does he?

Reading the headlines alone would make one think that Tom Sneddon has a strong case, along with credible witnesses and damaging testimony. The reality is that there is no timetable for these alleged molestations and we have a bunch of key witnesses who are strapped for cash and have every reason to be lured into suddenly remembering new testimony. How I wish there were an agency, not unlike the Consumer Protection Agency, for journalists and pundits. There, a viewer or a reader could check a credibility rating and compare the lying averages. Now would be a good time to set that up.
Let’s make one thing clear: the free-marketplace of ideas is a battleground for control over the spheres of influence of the mind. Just like we expect a juror to deliberate through a logical process when rendering a verdict, everyone needs to learn how to manage information and take into account a narrator’s biases, agendas and vendettas. It is a war and the consequences are as fatal. You think Michael Jackson is guilty? Examine the nature of that claim. Are the sources credible? Is their even quasi-circumstantial evidence to convict him in a court of law? Think of how easily a jealous or vindictive person could implicate you using the same standard you think is “fair game” by which judge to Michael. Is this a standard you can live with?
The grave consequences being showcased to the world are much bigger than Michael Jackson. Whether one likes him or not, at this point in the trial, is irrelevant. To look the other way at this Jacobin version of justice clearly highlights that institutional journalists are successfully doing their job in nurturing ignorance and managing opinions.

In America, are the real prosecutors, law professors and journalists ready to step forward and bring to justice those who have maliciously molested the constitution and have perverted their duties as officers of the law? This is the new frontier.


John Karrys.

Did anyone see the cartoon they did on Saturday Night Live about the trial. They wanted MJ to start dating women. He started to throw up...a lot. After that they brought in a scientist that had some glasses that MJ could wear while dating women. It made everyone look like Emanuel Lewis. It was soooo wrong that it was hilarious.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin...305D75.DTL

Judge allows testimony by Michael Jackson's ex-wife Debbie Rowe
By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent

Monday, April 25, 2005
Overruling defense objections, the judge in Michael Jackson's child molestation trial said Monday he will allow Jackson's ex-wife Debbie Rowe to testify as a prosecution witness.

Prosecutors want Rowe, the mother of two of his three children, to tell jurors that she was compelled to appear on a videotape praising Jackson as a good father and a humanitarian.

Prosecutors say Rowe did the interview under duress, having been told by Jackson associates that if she did not do it she would risk losing her visitation rights with her children, Paris and Prince Michael.

The defense objected on grounds that the testimony was part of a prosecution "desperation" tactic at the end of its case and had no relevance to the charges against Jackson.

In addition, the defense said that if Rowe testified they would seek to present the entire three hours of her video interview with Jackson associates as well as a tape recording she made secretly.

"She didn't say anything bad about Michael Jackson," said defense attorney Robert Sanger.

Sanger denied there were any threats to her during what he called "a tremendous amount of taped material."

"I just plain don't see the relevance to these proceedings," he said, noting that she had quarrels with Jackson aide Marc Schaffel, not with Jackson, and that her testimony would be a way to push her own agenda regarding Schaffel.

Prosecutor Ron Zonen said Rowe would tell jurors that she engaged in a "highly scripted interview and that the incentive was to suggest she would have visitation with her children if she did this."

Zonen said this would corroborate the testimony of the mother of the Jackson's young accuser who testified she also was pressured to appear in a video and speak from a script.

Sanger said there was no script, just questions that were written out.

Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville said, "I will admit the testimony and will look to ways to restrict that testimony."

The defense noted that Rowe had given up her parental rights to the children. Zonen said those rights had been recently restored and that she has a case under way in family court regarding visitation.

Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting a 13-year-old boy in February or March 2003, giving the boy alcohol and conspiring to hold the boy's family captive to get them to rebut a TV documentary in which Jackson appeared with the boy and said he allowed children to sleep in his bed. Jackson called the sleeping arrangement non-sexual.

In other developments, District Attorney Tom Sneddon unexpectedly announced without explanation that planned witness Christopher Carter, a former Jackson security guard, will not be testifying.

Carter was recently arrested in Las Vegas and is facing bank robbery, kidnapping and other charges and had indicated he would invoke the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination if asked about his criminal case.

He was the only witness that had been expected to corroborate claims by the accuser and his family that Jackson gave alcohol to children and specifically to the accuser. Carter had been expected to say he saw Jackson share a Coke can fill with wine with the boy and that at another time the boy told him that Jackson said it was OK to drink.

In another key ruling, the judge decided to grant "use immunity" to a travel agent who also is invoking Fifth Amendment protection and is under investigation by federal authorities looking into the alleged secret videotaping of private conversations between Jackson and his attorney on a charter jet flight.

The form of immunity granted to Cynthia Montgomery means her testimony in the Jackson case cannot be used against her in any other proceeding. She had told the court last week she would refuse to testify about anything involving the charter jet flight.

Montgomery is expected to testify about a plan by Jackson associates to send the accuser's family to Brazil.

Melville also ruled that prosecutors may not call a man who was to testify that his young son once disappeared at Neverland for 90 minutes until he was found in Jackson's bedroom.

The jury, which was out of the courtroom most of the morning, returned to hear testimony by former Jackson employee Kassim Abdool, who was called to corroborate part of an account by Ralph Chacon, another ex-employee who says he saw Jackson commit a sex act on a child in 1992 or 1993.

Abdool said he saw Jackson and the boy, who later received a multimillion-dollar settlement from the singer, leaving a Jacuzzi area where their swim suits were lying next to each other on the floor.

He said that Jackson, wearing a towel, gave a piggyback ride to the boy, who wore a bathrobe.

Abdool also claimed to have been subjected to threats, saying a Jackson employee once told him he knew a hit man.

Abdool and Chacon were among former employees who lost a wrongful termination suit against Jackson in 1997 and were ordered to pay damages to the entertainer.

Under defense questioning, Abdool said he participated in an interview for a tabloid for which they received $15,000 and that he spent the money to fund the lawsuit.

I thought the Karrys piece was heavy on rant and low on substance, but he is on to (half of) something here. As far as I can tell, the state hasn't put forth a clear timeline of alleged molestation, and the testimony from the witnesses is sometimes hazy. The fact that many witnesses were parties to civil actions seeking damages against Jackson also affects their credibility.

That doesn't mean the witnesses to Jackson's prior alleged bad acts aren't telling the truth. It just means that everything introduced against him is still kind of amorphous.

namepeace said:

I think Karry was trying illustrate that this case needs a new type of way to go about it...
Something that is beyond the normal writ of Habeas Corpus (trial by jury)
You can ask every legal skeptic on the planet
they all say the same things from the begginning
this trial is funny...

It's too funny...
perhaps so funny the judgement shouldn't be made by a jury...
its something to think about...

Damn....the trial isn't over yet!



j/k

And what do you guys make of that Debbie thing? If she really is going to testify against him, than NOONE has EVER dissapointed me more. DAMN IT!!! First she does all those whiny interviews abotu how great MJ is an now this? This isn´t just about the Take Two thing. She gave interviews also while being married to MJ. I mean if she turns against him, it´s a proof that she´s another anything-for-money witness.

Some pictures for ya´ll!

dag said:

Why don't you wait to see what she says before you condemn her.

thedoorkeeper said:

yeah, i agree...the mj fams sure dont want people judging mj...but they sure do love to jump on anyone who might be critical of him.....


tisk tisk...

thedoorkeeper said:

I think it's common knowledge that Debbie Rowe was really not much more than a paid incubator for Michael Jackson's children. Yes, I'd call that money-hungriness at least to a certain degree. However, I doubt she will testify in court that Jackson would be a child molester. Otherwise, they would have called her in ages ago.

As far as I'm aware she's never said anything negative about him.

Debbie is only their to corroborate the Conspiracy charge...
Debbie says that when she did those interviews she was just following a script...
to corroborate the family

that's about it...

Novabreaker said:

Thats right - thats how MJ treated her - like a paid incubator.
He didn't treat her like a woman.
He didn't treat her like a human.
He didn't treat her like the mother of his children.
What does that tell you about the warm loving MJ?
MJ treated her like machine & thats fine with MJ fans.
MJ writes great songs so its alright for him to walk all over people.
They don't deserve any respect because they haven't written any #1 singles.
Thats the measure of a good person - how many hit singles they produce.
What else they do with their life is immaterial as long as they write hit songs.