Posted by MARCH 29 2005 — Contrary to some pro-prosecution pundits and tabloid reporters’ assessment, it was Michael Jackson’s defense team that was on fire in the courtroom March 28 2005 when arguing against allowing a bunch of crackpot ex-employees to testify they miraculously “witnessed” molestation. Thus, not only are we to believe that Jackson’s a child molester, we’re also to believe that he regularly molests kids in front of people! That makes absolutely no sense at all. Mesereau went down the list of who Sneddon wants to claim are “victims”. None of who have ever made an allegation against him. Yeah, you read right. This bull is going to be allowed by way of Melville (who some say has an agenda of his own). And some legal observers say that this could spell trouble for prosecutors because the theory makes no sense. If the prosecution and the judge thought they’d be making their “case” easier against Jackson, they’ve made it infinitely worse on themselves. When Jackson proves what these witnesses-come-lately are all about — and all but 1 allegation doesn’t even have an “accuser” let alone an “alleged victim” — they will be more inclined than before to disbelieve the current allegation. We’re still reading through a blazing transcript where the defense made it as clear as crystal that they intend to fight every last one of these frivolous allegations as if they were each a separate trial. They are not shrinking from the allegations, not being wishy-washy about the weakness of the claims, and seem to be quite prepared already to do so. For now, here are some excerpts from Mesereau’s argument:
3761 15 Now, the fourth alleged victim is Jason 16 Francia. Jason Francia and his mother were 17 interviewed by the sheriffs and a deposition of the 18 mother was taken. Money was paid to settle that 19 case, again because Mr. Jackson didn’t want the 20 press, didn’t want his family going through it, and 21 wanted to pursue his music career. There never was 22 a criminal prosecution, even though the alleged 23 victim was interviewed by the Los Angeles District 24 Attorney and the Santa Barbara District Attorney 25 together. And after their interview with Jason 26 Francia – which was so wishy-washy about what 27 happened, they never decided to pursue a criminal 28 case, because there wasn’t one. We have that taped 3762 1 interview – the mother, in a civil deposition in the 2 Chandler litigation, began by saying she saw 3 something and ended by saying she saw nothing. And 4 indeed, stories were sold to tabloids, and money was 5 paid to settle. He appears to be the only alleged 6 victim they want to bring in. 7 Five, Wade Robeson, who tells us nothing 8 ever happened to him. And they don’t propose to 9 bring him in as an alleged victim. They want to 10 bring in the gang that basically has tried to accuse 11 Mr. Jackson and get money from him for years, 12 generally unsuccessfully, with the exception of 13 Miss — Mr. Francia’s mother, and I’ve just talked 14 about the problems in her sworn statement in 15 discovery. The deposition is clear, she begins by 16 saying, “I think I saw something.” She ends by 17 saying, “I didn’t see anything.” 18 Six, Jimmy Safechuck, who we are informed 19 says nothing happened. They don’t propose to call 20 him as an alleged victim either, but they’ve got the 21 same old gang again coming in to try and capitalize 22 on the case, people who have been adjudged to be 23 liars, and they are. People who asked for money 24 from tabloids, who’ve asked for money from Mr. 25 Jackson, et cetera. 26 Seven, Jonathan Spence, who we are informed 27 says nothing happened and doesn’t intend to come in 28 to support them at all. What do they want to do? 3763 1 Bring in the same crew again. Third-party witnesses 2 with an axe to grind, all of whom have wanted money 3 in the past, none of whom can substantiate that 4 anything happened because the alleged victim says 5 nothing happened. 6 The bulk of their 1108 evidence, Your Honor, 7 are third parties with axes to grind, and who have 8 tried to get money, and gotten money, and had the 9 problems I just identified. Where is the fairness 10 in allowing that kind of testimony, that kind of 11 evidence, when their underlying case looks so weak 12 and so problematic?
And it didn’t stop there. Stay tuned for a comprehensive MJEOL Bullet about what was said in court today about these alleged “accusers”; most of which have never accused Jackson of anything and repeatedly denied being abused. :popcorn