Here's the latest from Yahoo: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=762&e=1&u=/ap/20050317/ap_en_mu/michael_jackson Prosecutors showed jurors in the Michael Jackson (news) case a series of sexually explicit magazines, DVDs and videos seized from Neverland Ranch, but witnesses acknowledged there was no evidence the singer had shown them to the boy he is accused of molesting. With his parents seated behind him, Jackson watched Wednesday as prosecutors used a large screen to display movie and magazine covers featuring provocatively posed women in various stages of undress. Jurors were stone-faced as they viewed the items and listened to detectives testify that they were found in Jackson's bedroom suite during a Nov. 18, 2003, search. Prosecutors allege Jackson showed adult magazines to the boy while trying to lure him into molestation. But witnesses acknowledged that one of the magazines and one DVD had dates on their covers indicating they were not available until after March 12, 2003, when Jackson's accuser left Neverland for the last time. Witnesses also said under cross-examination that all the items were legal and sold in stores. Defense attorney Robert Sanger noted that one Penthouse magazine had a cover date of July/August 2003 and asked Lt. Victor Alvarez, who participated in the search of Jackson's home, if the boy or his brother had alleged that Jackson showed them the magazine. "This particular one?" Alvarez said, "I don't know." Asked if he suspected the boys did not see it, Alvarez agreed that such magazines usually come out about a month before the cover date and that subscribers might get them a month or two earlier. The DVD had a printed release date of March 27, 2003 — 15 days after the family left the ranch. Last week, the accuser's brother testified that a copy of Barely Legal magazine shown by the prosecution was the exact one Jackson had shown him. The defense pointed out that it was dated August 2003. In morning testimony, the lead investigator in the case testified that the young accuser slumped down in his seat and became "choked up" when first interviewed about allegedly being molested by the pop star. Sheriff's Sgt. Steve Robel also testified that the boy told him he was molested five to seven times, but could not recall what happened every time. "He was fine with talking to us," Robel said of the teenage boy's initial interview. "When I got into the molestation acts I noticed a change in (his) demeanor. He became very quiet, folded his arms and sank down into his chair. ... He even became choked up." The new questions about the number of alleged molestations followed Robel's testimony Tuesday that the boy twice told investigators he was molested five times. The boy himself testified earlier to only two molestations but said he believed there may have been more. Robel said Wednesday that the boy told him "it happened between five and seven times but he could not articulate exactly" what happened every time. The investigator said that since the first interviews of the boy in July 2003 he has only been able to provide detailed accounts of two alleged molestations. The possibility of the alleged victim not being aware or fully aware at certain times has been raised in testimony by the boy's brother, who said he twice witnessed his brother being molested while asleep.
i read an article about that recently. said that many of his close friends were concerned with that, too.
Nope but maybe eventually. I think he gets acquitted, but that the trial kills his career, and after he realizes nobody wants to buy his CDs anymore, THEN he kills himself.
seriously, who knows??? you can never tell. predicting what a jury will do is ridiculous. we don't know the real individuals on the jury. we don't know what biases they bring in. we don't know how the evidence looks to them. we read second-hand accounts of what went on each day at trial. i've sat through trials studying the jury...had gut feelings they would go a particular direction...even had jurors give hints they were leaning a particular direction...only to have them come back with a decision completely opposite of what it seemed.
My impression from serving on a jury is that much of the decision is made in discussions in the jury room, after everything is done being presented.
THE decision meaning the final group decision??? Or THE decision meaning, each individual's decision? There is usually a moment or two in a trial that nails it down one way or the other for each individual. This is not going to be a document-heavy case, I wouldn't imagine. Not going to be a matter of going back to look over documents and discuss them. That's really typical in the types of cases I'm involved in. But not so with this one, I wouldn't think. Of course, I avoid the criminal justice building, altogether!
I think his high priced lawyers are going to get him aquitted...then he's going to sell his ranch and move to Europe where his fortune is hiding in Swiss Bank accounts.
This is a slam dunk aquittal in my opinion. The only reliable witness is the boys testimoney. And the defense team cracked it wide open with conflicting statments that directly relate to whether the sexual act took place or not. He told a school official it didn't happen. What more will the jury want. No brainer. So I don't see how a jury could convict. I really don't. It's all going to come down to that statement. I guarantee the majority of jurors will hang on it. And because of that the credibility and victim testimoney are gone. I'm not sure how many jurors there are, but I would guess it's already about 9-3 aquittal. The only problem is getting the minority few to dismiss the credibility of the victim. But I think said event will happen.
Regardless of what the verdict is, I think he did it. I think all of the testimony is too elaborate to be some invented hoax. I guess anything is possible. But, I've always thought Jacko was a weirdo the way he gravitates to children and sleeps with them in his bedroom. It's possible their trying to extort money from him but this is a criminal case at this point and they have said it's not about money. Somehow, I think a civil suit will follow regardless and it will be about money. My personal opinion is Mike is such a weird person that he probably wouldn't think there is anything wrong with playing a little "drink the jesus juice and we will jerk the lollie pop" with some kid he latched on to. If it is a hoax, then this kid and his family are just the most sick, twisted, evil people in the world imho for taking it this far. I guess they don't call him Jacko for nothing eh?
I meant the latter. A couple of people had their minds made up going in, but most of my jury didn't make up their minds until we went through some deliberation. But then, maybe it was the nature of the case.
apparently an ex-housekeeper testified today that she saw children at Jackson's home whom she believed to be intoxicated.
Probably true, but I think someone already testified that the kids raided the liquor cabinet many times when Jackson was not present.
