Trial Review: Brett Barnes Angry at Pros. Allegations – MB#298

Trial Review: Brett Barnes Angry at Prosecution Allegations – MB#298

JANUARY 15 2006 – This MJEOL Trial Review focuses on the testimony of Brett Barnes and how his disdain for prosecutors was another blow to their credibility in the Michael Jackson trial.

Brett Barnes, a witness for the defense, testified in court to directly refute allegations and implications of molestation. Like prosecutors did with Wade Robson and Mac Culkin, they alleged Barnes was a “victim”.

Outraged over the allegation, Barnes came to court to set the record straight. Barnes specifically told prosecutors– as far back as 1993 when he was still a kid–that Jackson had done nothing improper or inappropriate to him, nor had he seen Jackson do anything inappropriate with any child.

Barnes’s testimony is highly interesting because he has spent time around Jackson both as a child and as an adult. Both his mother and sister would later testify as well for the defense.

Continue Reading

Trial Review: Robson Testimony Begins to Crush 1108 Accusations– MB#295

Trial Review: Robson Testimony Begins to Crush 1108 Accusations– MB#295

JANUARY 4 2006 — MJEOL’s Trial Reviews now brings us to the testimony of Wade Robson and the issue of what’s called “1108 evidence” or alleged “prior bad acts”.

In Jackson’s “case”, calling what Judge Rodney Melville allowed into this trial “prior bad acts” didn’t fit. What this “1108 evidence” amounted to was a bunch of unfounded accusations with zero evidence to back them up, leveled by a gang of people who were literally sued into bankruptcy by Jackson.

The way this played out in the Jackson trial, which is very dangerous to an innocent and famous person, is that prosecutors were allowed to call witnesses to the stand to make accusations concerning Jackson’s behavior with children in the past.

Three prosecution witnesses, Ralph Chacon, Adrian McManus and Kassim Abdool came in under a desperate attempt by prosecutors to get a conviction against Jackson.

The prosecution’s shortsighted, vindictive nature wouldn’t prepare them for what the defense revealed in court about these witnesses’ backgrounds.

Continue Reading