Details of the 27th Court Session

Contrary to the expectations of the prosecution team, the first witness today—who was expected to testify against Jackson—told the jury that he had never seen Michael lick the head of a boy. This testimony created fresh problems for the prosecution team.

Prosecutor Tom Sneddon called Bob Jones, Michael’s former publisher, to the stand to testify about a flight from Paris to Los Angeles—an incident that is claimed to have involved Jackson licking the head of a boy.

Prosecutors use accusations like these to show the jury that Michael has a history of misconduct with children.

When Jones was asked whether he had seen Jackson licking a boy’s head, he replied, “No.”

Prosecutor Gordon Auchincloss then asked him whether, during an interview with his defense attorney, the police investigator, or Auchincloss himself, he had ever stated that he might have seen Jackson doing this.

Jones’s answer was, “I was firm in saying that I wasn’t sure. I don’t remember anything about licking. I don’t remember ever seeing head licking.”

Jones is the most recent witness from the prosecution team who said something contrary to their expectations.

Previously, Jackson’s former servant Jesus Salas had claimed in an interview with the prosecution investigators that he had served alcohol and soft drinks to Jackson and several other boys. But on the witness stand, he said he only remembered serving soft drinks.

When prosecutor Auchincloss read a passage from his unpublished book—describing that Michael and a boy were kissing and hugging each other, and that Jackson had licked the boy’s head—Jones responded that he had doubts about what he had written.

During Thomas Mesereau’s repeated questions, Jones admitted that he had been heavily pressured by his publisher to write this book “in an exciting way.”

He also said that he works on the book together with a colleague, and that his colleague completed the writings related to this part of the book, and that he had not yet checked the text written by his colleague.

He added that he had not edited the text that the prosecution read in court, and that these writings are not accurate.

Mesereau, who objected to the prosecution’s excessive questioning for most of the time, said that when Bob Jones was writing this book, he had not sworn an oath to write the truth.

“When you were dealing with your co-writer and your publisher, you hadn’t sworn an oath. But today you have sworn an oath.”

Stacy Brown, an MSNBC journalist and Jones’s co-writer, also testified that the former publisher had talked to her about the head-licking story.

“He said how strange it was because that boy had a lot of back hair. I thought if the boy were bald, then something like that would make sense. But he really couldn’t understand head-licking when the boy’s head was full of hair.”

In response to the prosecution’s questions, Brown testified that Jones had been forgetful for about a month—almost from the same time he was saved from bankruptcy.

If the prosecution was trying, through these questions and answers, to imply that Jackson had paid Jones to keep quiet, Mesereau expertly turned the “aim” back toward them.

“Mr. Brown, I think the prosecution meant that when Mr. Jones was going bankrupt, they brought up the head-licking story—and when he didn’t have any financial problems, they said that such a thing didn’t exist.”

Brown replied, “Yes, I think so.”

Another witness today was the mother of “Jordan Chandler,” the complainant from 1993. On the witness stand, she said that during their visits to Neverland and during their flights to Las Vegas, Florida, and Europe in 1993, Jackson had asked her to let her son sleep in his room.

June Chandler said:

“He said you don’t trust me. We’re a family. Why don’t you let him stay in my closet?”

She said that after she allowed her son to sleep in Michael’s room, Michael invited her to travel and gave her valuable gifts. But she had never witnessed Jackson sexually abusing her son.

June Chandler added that after that, her son was always with Jackson. She said that Michael had visited their home in Santa Monica nearly 30 times and stayed in her son’s bedroom.

She continued by saying that gradually she noticed changes in her son’s behavior, and her brother—and then herself—became worried about the very close relationship between Jordan and Michael.

“He dressed like Michael. He didn’t want to be with me and my daughter. When Michael wasn’t with him, he would become moody and bad-tempered.”

She also said that once her husband told her that the relationship between Jordan and Michael was “an amazing way to secure their son’s future.” She refused to comment on what her husband meant by that statement.

She confirmed that in 1993 her son had filed a lawsuit against Jackson for sexual abuse and, after an out-of-court settlement, had withdrawn the complaint after receiving a million-dollar sum.

Thomas Mesereau, the defense attorney, asked the complainant’s mother whether Jackson had ever sued her family for extortion. The complainant’s mother replied that she didn’t know anything about it and that they had never paid Jackson any money.

This mother said that her son is now 25 years old and that she hasn’t spoken to him for the past 11 years. When asked whether this was her (the mother’s) choice, she said no. The woman’s son did not agree to testify in court.

It seems the complainant’s mother may be the prosecution’s final witness regarding the past allegations.

Source: CBS News / E Online! / Associated Press