|
JUNE
4, 2005
Day 66: If you have any reasonable doubt about the lies, it's over.
You must acquit Michael Jackson
Created: Saturday, 04 June 2005
JURY DELIBERATIONS BEGIN TODAY
Friday, June 3, 2005
On Day 66 the attorney for Mr. Michael Jackson, Mr. Thomas Mesereau,
Jr., told jurors, "Ladies and gentleman, this has been a nightmare for
Michael Jackson, under the law and the facts, you must return a verdict
of not guilty on all counts — it's the only right verdict."
The case against Michael Jackson went to the jury Friday after the defense
asked the panel to acquit Mr. Jackson, after providing testimony after
testimony showing continual acts of perjury by the only two witnesses
to the alleged crime, the accuser and his brother proving that Mr. Jackson
is a victim of grifters trying to pull "the biggest con of their careers."
A little before 12:30 p.m. Friday, the panel of eight women and four
men filed into the deliberation room, where they will sift through nearly
700 pieces of evidence, and rely on their recollections and notes from
the testimony of 140 witnesses as they determine whether Mr. Jackson
is guilty.
Jurors spent about two hours deliberating before going home for the
weekend. They are not sequestered and will resume deliberations Monday.
Mr. Mesereau, using the testimony of renowned child molestation expert,
Dr. Eslin, explained to jurors that most false claims of child molestation
come from children who are 10 years old and up and where the main attraction
is money. Under oath, Dr. Eslin explained that these false accusations
are particularly common in children that have parents with a history
of deceptive behavior.
When asked by investigators how he learned ‘right from wrong', the accuser
stated, “I just kind of figured it out for myself.”
Using court transcripts, Mr. Mesereau showed the jury the overwhelming
history of deception by both of the accuser's parents, citing many incidents
including their admitted lying under oath in their JC Penney case (for
which they received $152,000) and the mother's many incidents of welfare
fraud (including fiiling for emergency welfare just days after receiving
the settlement from JC Penney) as well as the continual acts of perjury
of the accuser and his brother. On one occasion, Mr. Mesereau pointed
out, when the accuser's brother testified to one of many things that
was in direct conflict with his grand jury testimony, he accused the
court reporter of getting it wrong in the transcript.
Prosecutors painted a vastly different picture during their closing
argument while using photos from adult magazines and art books (that
the very sweet and innocent inscriptions prove were gifts to him from
fans and from him to others), to ‘dirty' up Mr. Jackson in the jurors
minds, even though they are not, in any way, illegal, as well as trying
to paint Brett Barnes as a victim from the early 90's when he has emphatically
testified, under oath, that he was not.
In nearly four hours over two days, the defense attorney blasted away
at the prosecution's timeline, pointed out small inconsistencies in
page after page of transcribed statements from the accuser and his family,
showed evidence of the family's compulsive addiction to celebrities
and revisited a history of legal actions and fraudulent welfare claims
made by the accuser's mother — all in the hopes of convincing jurors
that the case against Mr. Jackson was built on greed and fraud.
"It only takes one lie under oath to throw this case out of
court — you can't count all the lies in court told by this family,"
Mr. Mesereau said. "How many does it take to show you this case is a
fraud?"
Mr. Mesereau stated to jurors that the main piece of evidence lacking
in this case is something called a ‘pre-text phone call.' He went on
to explain that this is a call that is almost always made when police
are alerted to such an alleged crime. Interpreting this commonly
used tactic to jurors, he said that this is a call made from the alleged
victim to the accused where the victim asks certain questions specifically
designed to illicit incriminating statements from the accused. This
call is recorded and then becomes the main piece of evidence in the
case. Mr. Mesereau stated that, when asked by police, this accuser
refused to make such a call to Mr. Jackson. Consequently, there
are no incriminating statements made by Mr. Jackson in this entire case.
Mr. Mesereau also noted to the jury that the accuser, at the age of
8, had accused his own mother of abusing him. Shortly thereafter, he
retracted his accusation.
The biggest red flag, Mr. Mesereau said, was that the family went to
see two lawyers and a psychiatrist before ever going to police with
allegations of abuse.
One of those lawyers, civil attorney Larry Feldman, who won more than
$20 million from Mr. Jackson in a 1993 settlement for another 13-year-old
boy, Jordie Chandler, who also accused Mr. Jackson of molesting him.
Chandler did not testify during the current trial.
"What they're trying to do to Michael Jackson is so harmful, so brutal,
so potentially devastating to him," Mr. Mesereau said, referring not
only to Mr. Jackson's current accusers and their attorneys, but also
to the Santa Barbara County prosecutors who the defense believes still
holds a vendetta against Mr. Jackson. The same prosecutors had to abandon
their 1993 investigation when Chandler took the millions in exchange
for silence.
The jury got the case on a day marked by an impassioned plea by defense
attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. for Mr. Jackson's acquittal. He said Mr.
Jackson is not the "monster" that prosecutors have portrayed, and he
said the accuser and his family fabricated the molestation allegations
to take advantage of Mr. Jackson.
"They are trying to profit from Michael Jackson. They think they have
pulled it off. They are just waiting for one thing — your verdict."
He added: "If you look in your hearts do you believe Michael Jackson
is evil in that way? Is it even possible? It really is not."
With regards to the alcohol charges, Mr. Mesereau stated passionately
to the jury, “Michael Jackson could not even conceive of giving alcohol
to a child or to this young cancer victim, he just could not even conceive
of it.”
During his rebuttal, Senior Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen sought
to answer the defense lawyer's question.
"Why would Mr. Jackson do it? Because he could," Zonen offered the unsubstantiated
argument. "This child was in love with him. This child would do anything
he said."
Soon after, as the jury went to work, Mr. Jackson left the courthouse
and walked slowly to his entourage's waiting vehicles in front of the
courthouse. He drove off without comment.
Mr. Jackson felt nervous in court but was physically fine and was relieved
the trial is nearly over, said his spokeswoman, Raymone K. Bain.
"He's very strong and he has a strong faith in God and the justice system.
He is not falling apart. He has been a true soldier in all of this,"
Bain said.
Mr. Jackson, 46, has appeared gaunt in recent days, and officials at
Santa Ynez Valley Cottage Hospital disclosed Friday that he had visited
the emergency room overnight to receive some electrolytes to treat dehydration.
He arrived at court on time with his parents, sisters Rebbie, Janet
and LaToya, and brothers Jermaine, Tito and Randy. He clutched his mother's
arm as he walked in.
"Michael's innocent!" “Fight, Michael, fight!” came shouts from some
in a crowd of about 75 people outside.
Judge Rodney S. Melville ordered jurors to begin their deliberations
and gave them 98 pages of instructions. He told Mr. Jackson he could
stay at Neverland during deliberations but attorneys would have to stay
within 10 minutes of the courthouse in case the jury had questions that
needed to be addressed.
At day's end the court announced that a live audio feed will be provided
to news media on verdict day. No TV or radio coverage was allowed in
the courtroom during the trial. Photography was also barred.
The deliberations are the final step in an ordeal that began 14 weeks
ago. The panel of eight women and four men has since heard from more
than 130 witnesses.
Mr. Mesereau earlier mounted a fierce attack on the accuser
and his mother, brother and sister. He said that "what they are trying
to do to Michael Jackson is so harmful, so brutal, so devastating ...
if you have any reasonable doubt about the double-talk, the lies, it's
over. You must acquit Michael Jackson."
Mr. Mesereau spoke about the American system of justice and said, "We
have the best system in the world and ladies and gentlemen I'm begging
you to honor the system. ... You must acquit him."
He accused prosecutors of trying to "dirty up Michael" because they
lack the evidence to prove their case.
"The witnesses are preposterous, the perjury is everywhere,"
Mr. Mesereau declared. "None of it works. The only thing they've had
is to throw dirt all over the place and hope it sticks."
"If you convict him of anything, they are going to make millions," Mr.
Mesereau said of the family who accuses Mr. Jackson of molesting the
teenage cancer survivor.
"They're just waiting," Mr. Mesereau continued. "Waiting for the biggest
con of their careers — right here — they just need you to help them,
that's all."
Mr. Mesereau played excerpts from a video in which Mr. Jackson denied
sexual impropriety and said he had never "been betrayed or deceived
by children." The attorney closed by telling jurors that Mr. Jackson
had been lax with his money and had let the wrong people into his circle
but was not the "monster" prosecutors had portrayed.
Zonen also showed the jury a video, the accuser's first interview with
sheriff's investigators in which he alleges he was molested by Mr. Jackson.
"You've just witnessed the seven worst minutes of this young man's life,"
Zonen said.
Afterward, prosecutor Zonen, who had given his closing Thursday, offered
a brief rebuttal. As he prepared to speak, Rebbie, Janet and LaToya
Jackson left their front-row seats and walked out of the courtroom.
Zonen, desperate for something to bolster the accuser's case that is
actually on trial here, reminded jurors of past allegations from other
boys (who profited financially) against Mr. Jackson and said such testimony
was necessary "to see the total picture." Incidentally, neither of the
two prior accusers or their mothers ever cared about pursuing a case
against Mr. Jackson after they had received money.
But the timeline of the alleged sexual abuse has been problematic for
the prosecution, as the defense pointed out during closings.
To convict Mr. Jackson, jurors must believe that, while a firestorm
was brewing about whether Mr. Jackson molested the boy — and while Mr.
Jackson was being investigated by social workers and the press — only
then did he begin to molest the child.
Mr. Jackson's admission in the documentary that he shares his bed with
boys, Mr. Mesereau contended, is nothing more than what the "childlike"
entertainer calls it: an innocent, loving and nonsexual act.
"Allowing children into your bed and room is not a crime," Mr. Mesereau
told jurors.
Mr. Mesereau, who called the charge "absurd," implored jurors to acquit
Mr. Jackson, because there were no independent witnesses, no forensic
evidence, and the accusers themselves could not be believed.
In a case that hinges on believing one side's version of events, Mr.
Mesereau had plenty of opportunities to point out the seemingly inconsistent
statements made by the accuser, his siblings and especially their mother.
The loquacious and emotionally erratic woman gave testimony that was
at times so bizarre that even Mr. Jackson smiled. She claimed she was
forced to go shopping and to beauty salons as part of a positive PR
video for Mr. Jackson. At one point she said she feared Mr. Jackson
was going to make her family disappear by launching them from Neverland
in a hot air balloon.
Mr. Mesereau revisited testimony from a welfare worker about the mother's
emergency welfare applications about a week after depositing a check
for $32,000 from a civil suit.
The family received $152,000 from JCPenney in 2001 after claiming they
were beat up by security guards. Mr. Mesereau again showed the woman's
booking photo, depicting her unblemished face, to remind jurors that
the photos of black-and-blue body bruises she later used to help secure
the money did not appear to corroborate her appearance immediately after
the alleged beating.
Mr. Mesereau told jurors that the mother had a knack for conniving celebrities
out of cash, using her son's illness to sway favor. He pointed to the
$20,000 given to the family by comedian Louise Palanker, a $2,000 check
Mr. Jackson's videographer gave her after she told him "tales of woe"
and the $1,500 actor Chris Tucker gave the family for the boy's medical
bills, although the treatment was covered by insurance.
He asked jurors to doubt the words of the accuser when he told investigators
for the first time in a July 2003 taped police interview that Mr. Jackson
molested him about five times at Neverland and gave him wine and liquor
almost every night.
Study the child's demeanor, Mr. Mesereau said, as he "lies about wanting
to leave Neverland because he was scared." The boy testified in court
that he did not want to leave because he was enjoying himself.
Scoffing at claims that his soft-spoken client was the kind of man who
could plot conspiracies of abduction and false imprisonment, Mr. Mesereau
said, "His generosity knows no bounds because the man has a wonderful,
kind heart,"
Mr. Meserau reminded the jury that ‘beyond a reasonable doubt', did
not mean ‘probably guilty or highly likely guilty', but that they must
be absolutely sure, BEYOND any reasonable doubt.
Prosecutors asked jurors not to have any sympathy for Mr. Jackson or
to think about any of the consequences that could befall him if convicted.
Mr. Mesereau informed jurors again that the accuser and his younger
brother, who was not molested but says he witnessed two acts against
his brother, have until the age of 18 "before the clock starts ticking
on a civil suit." The mother may still sue Mr. Jackson as well.
Mr. Mesereau beseeched the jurors;
"You have the power in your hands to make them rich and
they'll never have to work a day in their lives. You have that power."
“They cannot prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt and the
prosecutors never should have brought the case once they learned who
(this accuser's family) was.”
“You must, under this legal system, throw this case where it
belongs… out the door!”
Source:
/ AP
/ AFP
.
|