Created: Monday, 11 April 2005
Day 29 brought the mother of a boy who received a settlement from Michael Jackson in 1993 to the stand. After the boy received a reported multimillion-dollar settlement from Mr. Jackson, he did not cooperate in a law enforcement investigation, nor does he intend to now. No charges were ever filed against Mr. Jackson in the matter. She admitted that she never witnessed any molestation or improper acts between Mr. Jackson and her son.
The woman’s now 25-year-old son is not expected to testify at Mr. Jackson’s trial in the California town of Santa Maria. The woman is one of the most important witnesses to be called by prosecutors to testify to previous alleged abuse of five young boys by Mr. Jackson, although she admitted that she had not spoken to her son for 11 years. The mother seemed poised and composed throughout most of her testimony, but seemed to hold back tears when she spoke of her long estrangement from her son.
The question remains whether her son will not speak to her because he is upset over what allegedly happened between himself and Mr. Jackson or perhaps whether he is upset at the allegations that he was possibly forced to bring against Mr. Jackson, thereby forever altering his life, his privacy and his future.
Mr. Mesereau sought to shed light on the original motivation of the witness in 1993 by a line of questioning regarding past conversations that she had had with the authorities.
(Excerpt from Court Transcript)
MR. MESEREAU: Didn’t you tell the Los Angeles District Attorney that your ex-husband Evan, the father of Jordie, told you that the relationship with Michael was a wonderful means of Jordie not having to worry for the rest of his life?
MOTHER OF 1993 ACCUSER: Yes.
MR. MESEREAU: And to you, that meant Michael Jackson supporting you financially for the rest of your life, correct?
MOTHER OF 1993 ACCUSER: No.
MR. MESEREAU: That’s what you thought your ex-husband meant by it, true?
MR. SNEDDON: Calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: Speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.
(Laughter.)
MR. MESEREAU: Just asking you what you thought, not what your ex-husband thought.
MOTHER OF 1993 ACCUSER: Well, I’m speculating also. I would be speculating if I answered.
MR. MESEREAU: Well, if someone says to you, “This is a wonderful way not to have to worry for the rest of our life,” doesn’t that suggest that maybe someone is thinking about Michael Jackson supporting you?
MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to object. We just went through this. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
(End of Excerpt)
The Defense has portrayed parallels between the two cases that demonstrate that both families were determined to elicit money from Mr. Jackson, that they lied to get it, and went to civil attorneys before contacting authorities.
Mr. Jackson, who has pleaded not guilty to all charges of child molestation often shook his head and whispered to his defense lawyers during the testimony.
During cross-examination, lead defense attorney, Thomas Mesereau Jr., asked if the mother recalled asking for a $4 million loan to cover for $5 million worth of debt. “Never” she responded.
“When you filed the lawsuit, your attorney was threatening to ruin Mr. Jackson’s music deals, correct?” Mr. Mesereau asked, to which she answered “I don’t recall”. At that time, Jackson had just negotiated the largest endorsement deal in the history with Pepsi Co.
“Your strategy was to negotiate a settlement before ever contacting authorities, correct?” the defense attorney asserted. “There was no strategy. Sorry” the woman insisted.
On cross examination, the woman said her daughter and herself spent the day shopping with Mr. Jackson’s credit card during the time the alleged molestation happened.
Earlier Monday, another witness surprised the prosecution by saying he did not remember seeing the pop star lick the same boy’s head during a long flight in the early 1990s, but he later reversed himself and said it must have happened after being confronted with an e-mail he wrote.
The extremely consistent pattern of prosecution witnesses having memory lapses continued as former Michael Jackson publicist Bob Jones initially testified that “I don’t recall ever seeing any head licking” by Mr. Jackson on the flight from Paris to Los Angeles.
Prosecutor Gordon Auchincloss then read a proposed passage from a book Jones is writing that stated that Mr. Jackson licked the boy’s head.
Prosecutors claim Mr. Jackson also licked the head of a boy who now accuses Mr. Jackson of molesting him in early 2003.
Bob Jones was fired by Mr. Jackson a year ago. Reportedly, Jones was very angry about the termination.
Under cross-examination by defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr., Jones said that passages he writes are completed by a co-writer, MSNBC correspondent, Stacy Brown, and then reviewed. Jones said he had not reviewed the passage and it was inaccurate.
Jones was only the most recent prosecution witness to surprise prosecutors. For example, former Mr. Jackson former house manager Jesus Salas had told investigators that he brought wine to Mr. Jackson and several boys, but said on the stand that he had just remembered that he brought soda as well as wine.
Recent Comments