thread oben

Einklappen

Ankündigung

Einklappen
Keine Ankündigung bisher.

Showdown - Verteidigung fertig

Einklappen
Dieses Thema ist geschlossen.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Zeit
  • Anzeigen
Alles löschen
neue Beiträge

  • Showdown - Verteidigung fertig

    Michael Jackson Defense Rests Its Case

    By TIM MOLLOY, Associated Press Writer 16 minutes ago

    SANTA MARIA, Calif. - The defense rested in the
    Michael Jackson child molestation trial Wednesday without putting the pop star on the stand, wrapping up after a surprisingly short three weeks devoted mostly to portraying the accuser's mother as a shakedown artist.
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Jurors could get the case as early as the middle of next week to decide whether Jackson should be convicted of molesting a teenage cancer patient at his Neverland ranch in 2003.

    Defense lawyers portrayed Jackson as the victim of false charges that surfaced once the boy's mother realized she was being weaned from a lavish lifestyle that the singer had financed. A series of witnesses testified that the mother was a grifter who made a career out of hitting up celebrities for money and defrauding others.

    The defense took only three weeks to attack a case prosecutors spent nearly 10 weeks building. Initially, the defense case was projected to last up to eight weeks.

    Jackson didn't take the stand, as defense lawyers had hinted at the trial's start, and only a few of the celebrities who were on the list of possible witnesses ended up in court. Absent were celebrities including Elizabeth Taylor, Stevie Wonder, and Kobe Bryant, but those who took the stand included
    Macaulay Culkin, Jay Leno and Chris Tucker.

    Tucker, the comedian and star of the "Rush Hour" movies, was the final defense witness. He told jurors Wednesday that he found the accuser to be unusually sophisticated and cunning for a 12-year-old after meeting the boy at a benefit while the child was battling cancer in 2001.

    Tucker said his suspicions about the family set in when they came to the set of a movie he was filming in Las Vegas and refused to leave. He said he paid for their hotel and expenses but after several weeks they were still there.

    "I was getting nervous," he said. "I thought, 'I need to watch myself,' because I'm high-profile and sometimes when people see what you've got they try to take advantage of you. I had to pull back."


    Prosecutors had cast Jackson, 46, as a serial pedophile with a history of fondling boys, including the then-13-year-old cancer survivor in February or March 2003 at Neverland. Jackson also is charged with giving the boy alcohol and conspiring to hold his family captive to get them to rebut a documentary in which the boy appeared with Jackson as the entertainer says he let children into his bed for innocent sleepovers.

    The defense called 50 witness in all, including Culkin and two other young men who testified that Jackson never behaved inappropriately when they stayed at his Neverland ranch home as kids.

    And Leno testified Tuesday that he became suspicious of Jackson's accuser after he received several voice mail messages in which the boy gushingly expressed his admiration for "The Tonight Show" host.

    "I'm not Batman," Leno said, suggesting he found it odd a teenager would be such a fan of a middle-aged comedian. Leno said he told a friend the boy's calls sounded "scripted."

    Without ever taking the stand, Jackson remained the star of the defense case.

    He spoke to jurors through a nearly three-hour videotape that included scenes left out of the controversial documentary "Living With Michael Jackson" in which the singer mentioned sleeping with children.

    In the defense video, Jackson said his feelings for children were innocent and loving.

    "I haven't been betrayed or deceived by children," he said at one point. "Adults have let me down."
    Zuletzt geändert von elli; 25.05.2005, 21:21.

  • #2
    FOX 411: Jackson Accuser's Mom Had $20K Deal for Story


    Created: Wednesday, 25 May 2005

    Wednesday, May 25, 2005

    By Roger Friedman

    A contract for $20,000 between two British tabloid reporters and the mother and stepfather of Michael Jackson's accuser has surfaced.


    The reporters, Alec Byrne and David Gardner, had recently thought they would be called as defense witnesses in the Jackson child molestation case and were all set to bring in this vital document.

    When the accuser's mother, Janet Arvizo, testified for the prosecution, she told the jury she "wasn't the kind of person" to sell her story — but apparently she was indeed.

    In fact, Byrne and Gardner only got photographs of the Arvizo family, which were published abroad, because while looking for Janet Arvizo, they first went to her mother's house in El Monte, Calif., back on Feb. 4, 2003.

    That was the day after the Martin Bashir documentary "Living With Michael Jackson" aired in Britain.

    Arvizo's mother, Maria Ventura, who speaks only Spanish, put the reporters on the phone with her daughter.

    When Arvizo learned the men wanted to buy her story, she exclaimed, "You are my angels" and instructed her mother to give the men pictures she had of her grandchildren.

    Arvizo then gave the reporters a few quotes, which were used in the story that was published that weekend in the U.K. and in Australia.

    So why has this story not surfaced in the Jackson trial? After all, it would undermine the testimony of both Arvizo and her husband, Jay Jackson.

    That the sale of the story did not take place is a missing link which comedian Chris Tucker may explain today in court.

    Evidently, Arvizo called Tucker when she had the reporters up to $20,000.

    In his testimony, Jay Jackson said the offer was only $15,000, and that he turned it down.

    However, Tucker is likely to say that at that point in the negotiations, Arvizo wanted to find Michael Jackson.

    If her story was worth that much to the Brits, she might have figured her silence would be worth as much, or more, to Michael Jackson.

    The reporters say that when they came to meet Arvizo at the appointed time a couple of days later, she had vanished.

    Tucker should testify to his end of the story. The defense, which has not been strong on outlining the timeline in the case, may or may not be able to put this together for the weary jury.

    Why Byrne and Gardner were not called remains a mystery of this trial. They could have easily impeached the testimony of both Jay Jackson and Arvizo. The article published abroad would have been a damning bit of evidence.

    Important Videotape Missing

    Where is the "secret" videotape that was shot of the packing and moving of the Arvizo family in the Michael Jackson case?

    It was not played by the prosecution when it unveiled surveillance videos of the family made by Mark Geragos' private investigator, Brad Miller, several weeks ago.

    Where is this tape? Why hasn't it been shown? Does the defense even know about it?

    Suddenly this much-talked-about move is about to come back into the Jackson trial as an issue.

    On Thursday, I've learned, District Attorney Tom Sneddon, desperate to rehabilitate the much debased conspiracy charge against Jackson, will bring in the mover who put the Arvizos' things into storage.

    All of Dino's Moving and Storage records have been subpoenaed as well. This could all backfire for the prosecution, because among the papers is said to be a June 2003 letter from Miller to Arvizo attorney William Dickerman releasing the storage vaults back to the Arvizos. Geragos is carbon-copied on it.

    If the letter appears and makes it into evidence, Sneddon may have a lot of explaining to do. He raided Miller's office months later because he said he thought Miller worked for Michael Jackson. The letter, sources say, would prove Sneddon knew otherwise.

    Then there's the family's famous stay at the Country Inn and Suites in Calabasas, Calif. Why haven't the receipts from that little adventure come into play for the defense?

    This column was the first to reveal Janet Arvizo's numerous phone calls to family and friends during her "kidnapping."

    And here's something else we haven't seen presented: Arvizo demanded that Miller buy her a set of red Kipling luggage for the trip to Calabasas. She was very specific about the brand and color.

    "She didn't want people to see her things in plastic bags," a source said.

    The defense has the receipts, I am told.

    Sneddon has asked to analyze more of Geragos' phone records in a last-ditch effort to pump up the conspiracy. But did no one ever ask to see the Neverland phone records between Feb. 20 and March 12, 2003? They would show innumerable calls to numbers well known to the prosecution: Janet Arvizo's friends and family.

    As for Dickerman: If all the issues involving him return during the rebuttal, it would be interesting to see him come back and answer some of the questions I posed in yesterday's column.

    To wit: He testified that his first meeting with Janet Arvizo was on Feb. 25, 2003. But Arvizo herself said she met him in his office on the 21st in his Century City office, and then again on the 25th at the Laugh Factory.

    At neither time did she mention she had been kidnapped or was being held hostage. Dickerman, an officer of the court, never picked up the phone and called the police or the FBI.

    You would think a Hollywood lawyer who has to meet his client in a comedy club on the sly might have asked one or two questions more than Dickerman said he did on the stand. My guess is he did.

    Booking Picture Tells Many Stories

    Yesterday's testimonial double punch of the paralegal and attorney who were hired by Janet Arvizo to represent her in her lawsuit against J.C. Penney, in which she got a settlement of $152,000, was powerful stuff.

    Mary Holzer testified that Arvizo told her that the pictures in which she appeared battered and bruised from head to toe, and which she and her husband submitted as evidence in the J.C Penney case, were faked.

    Arvizo told her she got the bruises not from the J.C. Penney security guards, but from her own husband.

    Holzer said also Arvizo mentioned that her brother-in-law was in the Mexican mafia and could have Holzer and her kids killed if she spilled the beans.

    The lawyer who worked on the case testified that he was shocked when the case finally got to court and Arvizo said she had been sexually molested by the J.C. Penney guards.

    In 25 conversations about the incident, Arvizo had never mentioned it to him. He also concluded that he had been fooled by her.

    Holzer's story made the most sense. You may recall that when the prosecution showed the pictures of a battered Arvizo a few weeks ago, we wrote that they were not from the J.C. Penney incident. Knowledgeable sources told us about that right away.

    Luckily, the Drudge Report published Janet Arvizo's mug shot from the Penney's arrest, which showed no signs of bruises. That's because the bruises came later.

    Kommentar


    • #3
      Zitat von elli

      Holzer's story made the most sense. You may recall that when the prosecution showed the pictures of a battered Arvizo a few weeks ago, we wrote that they were not from the J.C. Penney incident. Knowledgeable sources told us about that right away.

      Luckily, the Drudge Report published Janet Arvizo's mug shot from the Penney's arrest, which showed no signs of bruises. That's because the bruises came later.

      Glaube, dieses Foto ist der Mug Shot, um den es oben geht.


      Janet Jackson, also known as Janet Arvizo

      von: http://site2.mjeol.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1611

      CTE

      Kommentar


      • #4
        Die Frau sieht echt psychisch krank aus...Ich würd der kein einziges Wort glauben, schon ihr Aussehen ist zum kotzen.

        Kommentar


        • #5
          Das Bild ist echt der Hammer. Die scheint ja echte Probleme zu haben...

          Kommentar


          • #6
            Judge Bars Photos of ***** Genitalia
            Thursday, May 26, 2005


            SANTA MARIA, Calif. — The judge in the Michael Jackson (search) molestation trial Thursday spared jurors from seeing a graphic piece of evidence when he barred prosecutors from showing photographs of the pop star's genitalia.

            In another ruling, the judge said prosecutors can play a videotape of the accuser's original police interview in 2003 in a bid to show that the boy's story has been consistent. Defense lawyers said that if the prosecution shows the tape, the defense would want to call the boy back for questioning. They also may call the boy's mother.

            The attempt to admit the genitalia photographs stems from a 1993 molestation investigation of Jackson. When prosecutors were trying to gather evidence against the singer back then, they served a subpoena at his home that allowed them to photograph his genitalia.

            They then had the accuser draw a picture of what he thought the genitalia looked like. Prosecutors claimed the picture contained a blemish that was unique to Jackson's anatomy.

            Arguing for use of the pictures, Senior Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen (search) said the prosecution wanted to show jurors a child's description "of a unique feature of his (Jackson's) anatomy." He said it would show that Jackson's relationships with boys were "not casual."


            __________________________________________________ _____

            Keine Genitalbilder im Jackson-Verfahren

            (Andrea) Per Zwangsmaßnahme erreichte die Staatsanwaltschaft es 1993, als Michael Jackson schon einmal wegen Kindesmissbrauchs vor Gericht stand, Jacksons Penis fotografieren zu dürfen. Diese Bilder sollten ursprünglich auch in diesem Prozess verwendet werden. Aber es sieht so aus, als könne die Jury jetzt doch aufatmen.


            Richter Rodney Melville hat sich nun dagegen ausgesprochen, die Fotos von Jacksons Penis im derzeitigen Prozess zu verwenden. Nachdem die Geschworenen wirklich genügend Einblick in das Privatleben des Popstars erhalten haben, bleibt ihnen zumindest dieser Anblick erspart.

            Im damaligen Prozess hatte das angebliche Opfer ein Bild von Jacksons Penis gemalt, welches typische Merkmale des Originals aufwies. Trotz dieser schockierenden Tatsache kam es bei dem Prozess zu keinem Gerichtsverfahren: Jackson zahlte dem Jungen eine Entschädigung in Millionenhöhe und die Sache war gegessen.

            Was haltet Ihr davon? War es überhaupt richtig, Jacksons Genital für den damaligen Prozess zu fotografieren oder geht das doch ein wenig zu weit? Postet Eure Meinung in die COMMENTS.


            BESCHWERDEN ÜBER DIESE "BERICHTERSTATTUNG" AN GIGA.DE!

            Kommentar

            thread unten

            Einklappen
            Lädt...
            X