APRIL 20 2005 (2:40PM ET) — More bad news for the prosecution today as some of their witnesses face cross-examination. The prosecution called former security guard and police officer in the town of Guadalupe California, to the stand today to talk about what they claimed was a directive to keep the accuser and his siblings at Neverland. Through direct testimony it came out that yes, there was a directive to keep them there. But under cross-examination, the public learned that there are directives like that for all children whose parents are not there with them. The defense pointed out that this security measure is not unusual because children won’t be allowed to leave unless their parent is there to get them. An Associated Press article dated today states:
But the witness, Brian Barron, also said under defense questioning that it would have been appropriate to keep child guests on the estate if their parents weren’t present and that they probably would not let any children leave if they were unsupervised. (see Prosecution Calls Ex-Neverland Guard – AP)
MSNBC’s Jennifer London also reported about this issue.
Also revealed through his testimony is that the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s department was trying to use him as an informant against Jackson. Barron says he left his moonlighting job at Neverland because “his supervisors in Guadalupe suggested he not work there any longer because of the criminal investigation.” This actually plays right into Jackson’s public declarations that people really are/were essentially conspiring against him for whatever reason. More from that AP report:
The witness also said that after the Nov. 18, 2003, raid for which he was not present the Sheriff’s Department asked him to go back to work at Neverland as a law enforcement informant but that he refused.
So now there is evidence that the Santa Barbara sheriff’s department was going to use any method they could to get information about Jackson or set him up by placing people around him who would then feed them information. There was also more testimony about books found at Neverland. The prosecution is claiming they have a sexual nature; something shown to be ridiculous because 1. none of the material discussed today had the accuser or his brother’s fingerprints on them and 2. they are art books and material. What has completely confused a number of observers is the fact that the prosecution label an art book by Ann Geddes as “pictures of naked children” and applying that negative connotation to it. In one case, there was a spoof book with pictures of armpits and other curves of the human body. In another case, the beautiful Anne Geddes artwork of children was introduced as evidence. Of what? We have no idea. But heres a sample of Anne Geddes’s work: