An Unfair Ruling by Judge Saied Could Ultimately Benefit Michael

In a very interesting article published on CNN, Jonna M. Spilbor admitted that the judge’s decision to bring up old cases against Jackson in the current trial was a mistake and unfair. At the same time, she believes that evidence related to past accusations—on none of which Michael Jackson was found guilty—may raise doubts in his current case and ultimately work in the defense team’s favor.

In any case, the reason the prosecution has brought up past charges again is that it knows the current case against Jackson does not have enough strength. In other words, it is not confident in the success of its current case against Jackson.

A summary of the text published on CNN… Judge Melville has announced that he will allow the prosecution to subpoena the five boys who claim they were sexually abused by Jackson to testify in court.

Of these five people, only one has agreed to testify. The other witnesses are not the remaining four boys, but rather people who claim they witnessed Jackson committing inappropriate acts with the boys.

In this article, I will prove with solid reasoning that the judge’s decision was wrong and unfair. But at the same time, I will also prove with solid reasoning that it is possible for evidence related to past accusations—on none of which Michael Jackson was found guilty—to cast doubts on his current case and ultimately benefit the defense team.

The previous case dates back to 1990. Since recalling details from 15 years ago is very difficult, any testimony about that time can be questioned.

Moreover, only one of these allegations (the current ones) has ended in a criminal trial. Therefore, there is no guarantee that the allegations and evidence related to the previous cases are reliable. If they are strong evidence, why were they never properly addressed?

And if these allegations are true, why does only one of the alleged victims testify in court?

Perhaps it is understandable that children avoid the unpleasant experience of testifying in court, but “Macaulay Culkin” and “Jordan Chandler” (two of the five alleged victims named by the prosecution) are in their twenties to thirties. Yet they refuse to testify.

[Jordan Chandler is the boy who, in 1993, after the sexual abuse allegations against Jackson were raised, withdrew his lawsuit for a settlement of $20 million.]

In addition, “Macaulay Culkin,” who may be called to the witness stand by Jackson’s defense attorneys, has consistently stated that he was never sexually abused by Jackson.

Eight people have claimed they saw Jackson sexually abusing children. Again, these strange claims raise questions in people’s minds.

The prosecution claims that Jackson was so careful that, in order to ensure that no one approached his room and to make sure he would not be caught during sexual acts with his victims, he had installed a bell in the hallway connected to his room. [So that when you walked down the hallway, the bell would ring.]

At the same time, they claim that these acts were carried out very openly—so openly that eight people witnessed them. And these events left such an impact on their minds that, after more than a decade, they are still able to recall even the details.

The prosecution must clarify one issue: Is Jackson an “openly sexual abuser,” or a “secret sexual abuser”?

These eight people are former Jackson employees at Neverland. None of them reported such crimes committed by Jackson at the time. Therefore, it seems the prosecution will ask the jury to believe that these eight people witnessed sexual crimes against children, but only stood by and watched with their mouths open.

This issue creates even more problems in accepting the credibility of their testimony. Even if the employees were worried about losing their jobs at Neverland, wasn’t it more important to reveal such serious crimes? And what about when they were fired—shouldn’t they have reported the crimes immediately?

In the end, these testimonies do not prove that a crime occurred. The prosecution says that one of its witnesses saw Michael Jackson licking the head of a young boy. The crime of doing that is as serious as the crime of sharing a waffle cone with someone else. Anyone could easily see parents or friends doing this as an affectionate joke.

Any acceptable definition of child sexual abuse is limited to sexual touching. So what is the next crime they accuse Jackson of—kissing a child?

This trial is not meant to determine whether Jackson behaved inappropriately with children. This trial is about a crime—whether Jackson committed the crime of sexually abusing children or not. This is a completely different matter.

But why do I still think that the testimony of these eight people could benefit the defense attorneys?

Because the defense attorneys will prove with solid reasoning—and the jury will see—that the reason the prosecution’s team has dragged old evidence into the current case is that their case against Jackson is weak. The defense attorneys may call their own alleged victims—including “Macaulay Culkin”—to testify.

Or the defense attorneys may simply ask why the prosecution’s team did not call these witnesses to the stand itself. And ask the jury: “Why didn’t the prosecution want to present the evidence using the best possible sources (the victims) in court?”

The sensitivity of the previous victims—who are now young men—cannot be an acceptable reason for their absence from the witness stand.

After the sessions of repeated questioning of the prosecution’s witnesses—so far displayed in court by Thomas Mesereau—this professional attorney can make the jury think that the main witnesses of the case (the alleged victims) would have collapsed too if they had been put on the stand like the others.

Mesereau can also raise the issue: “If prosecutor Tom Sneddon truly believes there are five victims, why has he never filed a lawsuit against Jackson on their behalf?”

Sneddon makes no effort to seek justice for those he believes were abused. Perhaps because he cannot prove the allegations.

Source: CNN