MAY 31 2005 — The judge and the prosecution in the Michael Jackson trial continue to try to stack the deck against Jackson. Late word today, according to the Santa Maria Times, is that the judge HIMSELF “plans to” add a “misdemeanor charge of furnishing alcohol to a minor” which would split an alcohol charge from the molestation allegation. Regardless of what’s “required” or not, for the record, according to the indictment, they can’t convict Jackson of an alcohol charge because it has to be given in conjunction with a molestation allegation. Now the judge seems to want to tailor additional charges against Jackson regardless of the facts that have come out at trial. IF IF IF the Santa Maria Times article is correct, where the hell is this coming from? That’s a question a number of people would like the answer to. Every independent witness in this trial has set the accuser and his brother as being the ones who took it upon themselves to seek out alcohol. Every witness has also said that Jackson was no where around them when this happened. Shane Meridith says he walked upon the accuser and his brother in the wine cellar with an open bottle of whine when making his nightly checks of the property. He testified that he yelled at them to get out of there. No Jackson anywhere around. He may not have even been at Neverland at the time. Former chef Angel Vivanco says he was the one who spiked the accuser’s milkshake with alcohol after being threatened that he, Gavin Arvizo, would get him fired. Vivanco was seeing the accuser’s under-aged sister at the time. Again, no Jackson. But the facts of this “case” don’t seem to matter all that much. Possibly seeing a full investigation into why this “case” was brought in the first place after a full acquittal, both the prosecution and this judge will give the jury every opportunity to convict him on something .anything .it really doesn’t matter just as long as he’s found guilty of something. It’s that kind of ridiculous nonsense which causes people to get up in arms about the entire system. The prosecution would have had a stronger case against Vivanco if they prosecuted him for his admission on the stand. However, even with this charge, it’s not a certainly the jury will find him guilty of it either. Also, the under aged kid could be charged with a misdemeanor as well. Is Sneddon going to charge Gavin, Star and Davellin (and her fake ID) Arvizo with a crime too? Not likely. More information about this as we get it.
May 31 2005 Trial