What defense, exactly, is Michael Jackson’s attorneys asserting with the presentation of several individuals who have already, or soon will, testify that they have never been molested by Michael Jackson? Are his attorneys asserting that if Jackson has not molested everyone, he has not molested anyone? Might have Scott Peterson been acquitted had his attorneys called every live human being in the world to testify that they had never been murdered by Scott Peterson?
Or is this a brilliant new strategy that they don’t teach in law school? I hope the jury members are smart of enough to see through this, or at least around it.
The prosecution was permitted to offer evidence of pattern – that is, that Mr. Jackson had a pattern of sexual misconduct that is similar to that alleged by his accuser. In other words, the judge permitted the prosecution to allege (without having to prove) that Mr. Jackson had molested other children. The defense is merely rebutting the evidence presented by the prosecution.
For example, a former employee (with what could be perceived as a major grudge against Mr. Jackson) testified that he saw Mr. Jackson doing X, Y and Z with Macauley Culkin. Mr. Culkin was then called to tesify that it never happened. The jury must then weigh credibility to determine whether they believe it happened. Obviously, if the defense successfully rebuts the allegations that Mr. Jackson has molested children, there is no “pattern” and, given the credibility problems the accuser’s family has, the jury may acquit Mr. Jackson.
If that is true, Culkin’s, et al, testimony should not have been a suprise to the prosecution. Why would the prosecution present a witness who’s testimony, they know, is going to be directly contested? If their “employee” witness testifies that they saw Culkin molested by Jackson, but Culkin denies it in an interview; how could they pursue that legal thread?
Conflicting testimony is common; the jury must decide who is more believable. The jury as the trier of fact is one of the main reasons for having juries at all.
Nametag is right; all trials are about conflicting testimony. The jury is supposed to sort it out. Now, if the prosecution knew the employee was lying, or the defense knew Culkin was lying, they would not be permitted to put that witness on the stand. But if the lawyer makes the judgment that a witness is credible (i.e., the prosecution decides that the employee’s testimony is credible), even if the prosecution knows the testimony will be rebutted, the prosecutor can put the testimony on.
The same is true in civil cases. Because if you were only permitted to put on evidence that you knew would go unrebutted, it would be nearly impossible to get to the truth in any matter.
Well, specifically in the case of M. Culkin, the former employee’s testimony was that he saw MJ holding MC up so he could play a video game. The employee thought MJ’s hands were in an inappropriate position, and freaked at the sight. Culkin’s not denying that MJ lifted him up; he’s just denying that anything along the lines of what the accuser and some others say happened to them, also happened to him.
Personally, I think Culkin’s testimony is not proof of anything. MJ wouldn’t have crossed the line with Culkin because the consequences were too great (his family could afford to sue; Kit Culkin with or without a lawyer is a terrifying individual). What’s damning is the allegation that MJ had a shrine to Culkin. If that’s true, then that’s just sick.
(slight hijack)
Personally, I am a little squicked at the thought that Jackson might have been in the same bed as some of these kids.
To paraphrase a Chinese idiom, it’s like adjusting your hat while taking a walk beneath some ripe fruit trees - your actions are entirely innocent, but they sure as heck don’t look that way while someone else is passing by.
(/slight hijack)