[benVFR]

Sounds like there has been some really nasty evidence & testimony against "Jacko" in court today.

Will the Europeans STILL love him?

[TheIglu]

Just read that. Ouch to be Jacko!

I hope they send him away.

Oh no! He's gunna commit suicide! Oh poor man...LET HIM.

[mikeb]

pass the jesus juice, teee heeee, woooo

[highsider]

Chacon testified that Jackson and the boy -- who was involved in a civil suit against Jackson in 1993 -- were engaged in "passionate" kissing and were caressing before the sex act.

The 46-year-old singer is accused in this case of molesting another boy -- now 15 years old -- at Neverland, giving him alcohol and conspiring to hold the boy's family captive in 2003.

Jackson has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Without admitting guilt, Jackson agreed to a multimillion-dollar settlement to end the 1993 case.

Chacon's testimony marks the first time in this trial that jurors have heard allegations of sexual contact that went beyond fondling or masturbation.

Defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. pressed Chacon on a $16 million wrongful termination suit he and other former employees filed against the pop star.

Chacon and the former employees lost the case and were ordered by a jury to pay nearly $1.5 million for Jackson's legal fees.

The former guard denied that his testimony Thursday was designed to get even with Jackson. But he did admit that the jury in the wrongful termination suit found that he had stolen $25,000 in property and acted with malice and fraud against Jackson.

I dont know....I always had Jackson pegged as guilty, but the more I read, the more I notice that all of his accusers are motivated by greed.

The dude is a freak, for sure, but I am starting to wonder if maybe he doesn't deserve the child molester label.

[hohum]

via cnn:

The defense tried to counter the testimony of Chacon and McManus by painting them as disgruntled former employees who lost a $16 million wrongful termination lawsuit they and three other Neverland employees filed in 1995.

The suit, financed in part by selling information about Jackson to tabloid newspapers, backfired when he countersued and the jury found in his favor, leaving the employees liable for nearly $1.5 million in legal costs.

The jury also found Chacon and McManus had engaged in fraud and malice toward Jackson.

Chacon was ordered to pay $25,000 in damages, after which he said he declared bankruptcy, and McManus was ordered to pay $35,000, leading to garnishment of her wages, according to their testimony.

Wow, these are unbiased witnesses....

I dunno, MJ really is truly fucked up, but it really is starting to look like there isn't any 'unbiased' evidence in this case....

Good thing Michael has some good defense attorney's

[benVFR]

Whether or not someone has an ulterior motive someone has to prove they are lieing in court, which is of course a crime in itself.

If they are telling the truth and Jackson did molest these kids it does not make Jackson any less wrong that the accusers are oddballs too.

[hohum]

Originally posted by benVFR
Whether or not someone has an ulterior motive someone has to prove they are lieing in court, which is of course a crime in itself.

If they are telling the truth and Jackson did molest these kids it does not make Jackson any less wrong that the accusers are oddballs too.

Ummm, no, this is not the case at all! All the defense has to do is raise a reasonable doubt about their testimony and one of those "reasonable" doubts can be their motive in testifying. Noone has to "prove" they lied in court for the jury to write them off as unreliable, the only time the defense has to prove anyone is lieing is when they are trying to convince the prosecutor to brina perjury case.

IF they are telling the truth, yeah, who cares if they are oddballs. But the fact is, there is no burden to prove they are lieing (since that may not even be possible in this case) but only a burden to raise questions in the mind of the jury. I'd say that one of the people testifying was forced into bankruptcy for a frivolous suit, and the others wages are still garnished as a result of the same frivolous suit is reason enough to raise doubts about their motive.

[bigred875]

Interesting...

[benVFR]

Isn't that just what the defense lawyer tries to use to get the jury to doubt?

If I was on the jury and you raised the doubt to me that these people had financial gain motives, but did not prove that they were lieing, would I in any way be required to vote to acquit Jackson? Or is that just a Lawyer's tool to try and create doubt?

Jackson is on trial, not the witnesses, I can't see how their motives would effect me if I was on the jury and their testimony was considered truthful. But then I've never done jury duty so maybe I am misunderstanding the requirements of the jury.

[hohum]

As a hypothetical jury member in this case, it would be your choice whether or not to believe the witnesses. I don't think that the defense was trying to raise a question of financial gain in the case, but rather that the fact that these people are testifying against Michael and they have a pretty strong motive to really hate him (forced bankruptcy due to him and garnished wages due to him)

The key is that as a jury member it would be up to you to decide if the fact that these people have a motive other than altruism to testify against Michael, and if they do, how much weight to give their testimony.

If these people were proven to be lieing (likely impossible) then yes you would HAVE TO disregard their testimony, as a matter of law. As the case is, the defense is just presenting a "use your best judgement" case to the jury, and as such you wouldn't HAVE TO ignore their testimony, but you would certainly be allowed to think that it was suspect.