Will Michael Jackson Moonwalk Free Due to Alleged Victim’s Mother?

(NOTE: This is going to be updated and reposted under Tuesday’s posts)



The testimony is highly dramatic. The quotes from it are riveting. But the underlying question in self-styled King of Pop Michael Jackson’s child molestation case has now become: has the prosecution undermined its case by putting the victim’s quirky mother on the witness stand?

An American cable network is reenacting each day’s testimony, but who needs actors when you can read dramatic reports such as this?

The mother of Michael Jackson’s accuser lashed out at the pop star from the witness stand Monday, declaring that Jackson “really didn’t care about children, he cared about what he was doing with children.”
The woman resisted answering questions by defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. and began her fourth day on the witness stand by making speeches to the jury.

She looked at Jackson across the courtroom and said: “He managed to fool the world. Now, because of this criminal case, people know who he really is.”

At issue: whether Jackson — the self-styled “King of Pop” whose recent CDs have basically tanked in the United States — molested one of the woman’s sons, a teenage cancer patient, in February or March 2003. Jackson is accused of plying the boy with alcohol, then conspiring to hold the boy’s family captive to get them to rebut a damaging TV documentary about the singer that raised questions about his relationships with boys.

The see-saw nature of this case is now becoming clear.

During the first stage, it seemed like Mesereau was taking Jackson’s now-teenaged accuse apart on the stand, raising doubts, although the youth stuck steadfastly by his story. Score that part for the defense.

Then the judge allowed into the case testimony about past patterns of abuse permitted under California law — a law passed partially with past allegations about Jackson in mind. That led to a parade of witnesses giving damning testimony about either alleged molestations or the claims about the context of Jacksons Neverland Ranch — described as a creepy haven for the singer to be alone with young boys rather than a Peter Pan like youth Utopia. Score that for the prosecution.

Then the mother of accuser came on the stand. She has proven to be combative, apparently flaky in the way in which she presents her testimony, highly dramatic and at times a bit surrealistic:

During another combative day on the stand, the woman admitted that she once told sheriff’s deputies she feared Jackson had a plan for her and her family to disappear from his Neverland ranch in a hot air balloon.

However, she accused Mesereau of taking the comment out of context. “I told police that (Jackson associates) had many ways to make us disappear,” she said.

“And someone mentioned to you a hot air balloon?” Mesereau asked.

“That was one of the ways,” she said.

Nor has it helped that there has been a mini-scandal — this one raging about whether she lied on her welfare applications. She pled the fifth in court — the American tradition where she can decline on the ground she’d be giving testimony against herself:

When the mother of Michael Jackson’s accuser invoked the 5th Amendment rather than testify about her welfare history on Friday, even the prosecutor said she “may have committed perjury in certain of her applications.â€?

NBC News has learned that those applications for welfare and food stamps show the mother claimed she had virtually no assets after she’d received a six-figure court settlement and tens of thousands in donations for her cancer patient son.

On Nov. 5, 2001, the mother’s lawyer distributed than $100,000 from J.C. Penney and Tower Records, whose security guards, she claimed in a lawsuit, had beaten and sexually assaulted her after her older son had been caught with clothes that hadn’t been paid for.

At least $32,000 of that settlement money was deposited in one bank account, with separate interest bearing trusts set up for each of her sons.

Yet 10 days after the payout, she said in her welfare applications — under penalty of perjury — that she and her children had no money from any source, including court settlements, bank accounts or interest income. She also said they had no health insurance even though her ex-husband’s policy was, and remains, in force.

In monthly eligibility reports and in a re-application in October 2002, the accuser’s mother re-affirmed those answers, and collected benefits until March 2003.

But does it MATTER whether the mother lied? Some say YES: that showed she could coach her sons to go after Jackson for money. Other say NO: it shouldn’t since she was never involved in the actual molestation accusation and it still could have happened.

In fact, amid daily melodramatic prosecution and defense verbal sparring and witnesses with sensationalistic comments, there are some SERIOUS ISSUES at play in this trial. It is NOT just a side show, as some claim. A few issues:

1. ACCOUNTABILITY: Because of his wealth and power did Jackson manage to set up his own little, insular world, free from the kinds of legal consequences that most mortals on earth who did not have celebrity friends, know powerful lawyers and and millions of dollars to spend would have to face?
2. CELEBRITY VULNERABILITY: Is Jackson being shaken down and are celebrities the target of cases where they must either it or have their image ruined? Were the others who made allegations over the years shaking him down…or telling the truth and willing to drop claims for big bucks?
3. CHILD VULNERABILITY: What kind of parent of any financial status would ever allow their child to sleep with an adult stranger….celebrity or not?
4. VENDETTA VERSUS JUSTICE: Is Jackson being targeted by the D.A. because another case against him years ago rightfully was not brought to trial? Or did Jackson escape justice that would have been meted out to other citizens who could not afford a million dollar settlement in which the victim consequently refused to cooperate with a criminal investigation?
5. HOW YOU JUDGE A CELEBRITY? If Jackson gets off is it because of the case was weak or he had the money to spend to defeat it? (It goes without saying that a)he is innocent until proven guilty and b)if he is found not guilty he is judged just that under the law)
6. WHAT SHOULD YOU THINK IF YOU SEE A PATTERN? Is a jury willing to dismiss the contextual testimony allowed in California — the strong (even if partially rebutted) testimony so far strongly alleging that Jackson repeatedly displayed unusual behavior towards young boys? Do you dismiss testimony that suggests that Jackson’s associates play hardball, even allegedly issued subtle intimidating threats? Is it all made up or exaggerated or is it true?

   Most likely there will be more dramatic days ahead since the defense has not even started presenting its case, which will be aimed at undermining the testimony of the victim and those who supported the testimony. And it’ll come down to THIS question:

   In the end will the jury believe think about victim or will it disbelieve and think about his moonbeam mother — and let Jackson take the ultimate moonwalk?