Created: Thursday, 14 April 2005
On Day 32 the mother of Michael Jackson’s accuser told jurors Thursday a bizarre and convoluted story of weeks during which she claims she was held against her will, even though she made no effort at all, to get help or contact authorities. Because of the close scrutiny, the woman said, she never managed to raise the alarm, even though she had unfettered access to a telephone and was taken out in public on shopping trips and on outings to beauty salons.
“All along through this period I’m trying to reach people, trying to get them to help me,” she said.
She claimed she did not call police because she felt that would be too dangerous. In any case, she asked the court, “Who could possibly believe this?”
At one point, she said, she and the children returned to his Neverland ranch, and Mr. Jackson was there. She said her two sons and daughter played with Mr. Jackson while she spent time at a guest house and rarely went outside.
“Did you know where the boys were sleeping?” she was asked.
“No,” she said.
The mother made no mention of her son being molested and mostly talked about how scared she was of Mr. Jackson’s men.
She said she did not learn of any molestation allegations until she was informed by law enforcement authorities, who had been contacted by a psychologist to whom her children had been referred by a lawyer.
During the alleged period of captivity, the woman and her children made a video for Mr. Jackson in which they praised him. The woman said she was given a script to follow and was instructed to say repeatedly, “That he’s a wonderful father. Basically, in summary, that he’s a wonderful father … to my children.”
After recording the so-called rebuttal video near Neverland Ranch, the family was driven to meet with Los Angeles child welfare officials investigating Mr. Jackson’s relationship with the woman’s son following the airing of the TV documentary, she said.
The family told social workers Mr. Jackson had never acted inappropriately with any of the youngsters.
The prosecutor asked if she really believed the things she said on the video.
“I was confused, I was sad, so basically I was acting,” she said.
Later she consulted a lawyer, who in turn referred her to the attorney who brokered a 20-million-dollar settlement deal for another teenager who accused Mr. Jackson of abuse in 1993.
Prosecutor Ron Zonen was left to rein in his own witness, who often responded in a chatty and animated tone. “You’ll drive the court reporter nuts,” Zonen warned her after she continually cut him off before finishing his questions.
He met one particularly long response with a dimly sarcastic “Anyway…” before repeating the question for which he still had not received an answer.
“And get this,” she exclaimed, when asked to recount the time her alleged captors took her to Brentwood to have her legs waxed. “I paid for it myself, that’s right.”
After the salon visit, she said, she was told she could not bring her children home with her. So she retired to her boyfriend’s apartment and her kids were taken back to Neverland.
Shortly afterward, the family was reunited. Allegations of molestation soon followed.
But the woman refuted defense claims that she plans to file a civil lawsuit seeking cash from Mr. Jackson on behalf of her children.
Defense lawyer Thomas Mesereau was quiet most of the day, and appeared to be allowing her rambling narratives and manic mannerisms to speak for themselves.
The mother’s long-awaited testimony hit a legal roadblock Wednesday morning when she exercised her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid being questioned about alleged welfare fraud from 2001 to 2003.
Mr. Jackson’s defense promised jurors in opening statements that they would provide evidence that the mother had been fraudulent on her welfare application. Mr. Jackson claims he has been victimized by a greedy family with a litigious past.
Because the mother escaped questioning on the welfare issue, the defense asked that she be forced to take the plea in front of jurors. The judge compromised by reading instructions to the jury explaining that she had claimed the privilege, and asking the jury not to fault either side for promises made during openings that could not be fulfilled by direct examination of the mother.
The defense’s cross-examination of the mother is expected to begin Friday.
Recent Comments