Defense suddenly rests in Michael Jackson case

[irishgrl]

By TIM MOLLOY, Associated Press Writer Sat May 28, 5:34 AM ET

SANTA MARIA, Calif. - The final witness in the
Michael Jackson trial was the accuser himself, shown on a videotape telling detectives for the first time of his allegations that the pop star molested him. When the lights came up afterward, the prosecution rested its rebuttal case and the defense attorney surprisingly did the same, marking a dramatic close of testimony. Closing arguments could begin as early as Wednesday.

Prosecutors played the tape for jurors Friday in a bid to show that the boy's story has been consistent ever since he went to authorities with the allegations nearly two years ago. Slumped in his chair and dressed in denim shorts and a blue shirt, the cancer survivor haltingly and quietly spoke to investigators.

"He put his hands in my pants. He started masturbating me," the boy said, occassionally fumbling with a button on his shirt. "I told him I didn't want to do that and he kept on doing it. I told him no."

The tape offered little that the boy hadn't already testified to on the stand, but there was a clear impact. The courtroom was hushed and at the end jurors were solemn, looking downward.

Jackson had no comment as he left.

The decision to not present a defense rebuttal means closing arguments could begin as early as Wednesday. Judge Rodney S. Melville told jurors they could take the day off Tuesday when attorneys discuss jury instructions.

Jackson, 46, is charged with molesting the then-13-year-old boy in February or March 2003, giving him wine and conspiring to hold his family captive to get them to rebut a documentary in which Jackson said he let children into his bed but it was non-sexual.

The defense sought to portray the young accuser and his mother as gold-digging schemers who made up the allegations.

Prosecutors played the taped interview with the accuser after Melville instructed jurors "only to observe the demeanor, manner and attitude of the witness" and said that the boy's "statements are not to be considered for the truth of the matter stated."

The interview was conducted in the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department's Sexual Abuse Assault Response Team cottage in Santa Barbara on July 6, 2003.

Investigators made small-talk as they tried to build rapport before pressing him to be forthcoming.

"You are not in danger by being here with us," Sgt. Steve Robel told him. "... We are going to try our best to make a case, a criminal case, but we need your cooperation."

The detectives questioned him about his ideas of right and wrong, and the boy said things that were wrong included staying up too late, fighting, breaking things and killing someone.

With his head down and frequently pausing, the boy described the alleged molestation in a low voice. The account was similar to the one he gave on the witness stand.

Robel said at one point, "I don't care who Michael Jackson is. Michael Jackson has done wrong to you and your mother and his friends."

At the end, Robel assured the boy he was doing the right thing.

"I'm very proud of you," he said at the end. "What he has done to you. He's the bad person, not you. You and your mother and brother and sister are the good people."


hmmm......wonder why no further action from defense?

[strandinthewind]

I have rarely seen a prosecution screw up a case so badly. To my recollection, every single one of their main witnesses has been directly refuted, most by the person they claim to have seen abused a la M. Caulkin. Then, just about all of their main witnesses is an opportunistic crook, extortionist and one, I believe, convicted of that. It just amazes me that they were that bad. Maybe, a la the Peterson case, they are relying on the public prejudgement in this case.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I have rarely seen a prosecution screw up a case so badly.

Well, just think back to OJ.......there's a man who walked who shouldnt have

as for MJ, this isnt his first time down this particular path, he paid off the other accuser, and got away with who knows what??? From what Ive read, I thot the prosecution did quite well, I didnt notice all THAT much refutation of direct witnesses. From what I read (not saw mind you) the accuser and his sister and to a lesser extent the brother all stood firm in their basic statements. and the police interrogation of the boy underscores his original testimony AND the fact that he wasnt EAGER as the defense was saying to go public with this.

Personally, I hope MJ rots in a nasty little cell. what a sicko.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Well, just think back to OJ.......there's a man who walked who shouldnt have

I think he was innocent on those facts I fully realize I, and that jury, are prob. the only people in the world who think that

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I think he was innocent on those facts I fully realize I, and that jury, are prob. the only people in the world who think that

ah, the Jury.........never was there a more dedicated group of people! dedicated to letting one of their own go free no matter what he did

that change of venue was the saving of a murderer. Those attorneys were crazy like foxes to ask for that. truthfully, he should have been tried in his OWN courthouse, by his CHOSEN peers, the upwardly mobile affluent types.

bleh, the whole thing makes me sick.