If Michael Jackson was on trial for being "wierd" he would be found guilty hands down. Since that is not the issue, on what basis are people accusing him of being a ped?
The prosecution has brought forth their strongest witnesses and have presented their strongest evidence. I tuned into the reconstruction with the idea that Jacko could well be guilty, I dont buy tabloids and have only seen the reconstruction so what I have seen has been unbiased and an actual recording of what has been said. I'm doing a quick summary of what I observed. I'm beginning to think people are just accusing him of being a ped simply because they dont like him because he is wierd rather than based on factual evidence.
1st strong witness for the prosecution. Martin Bashir....weak evidence! Wouldnt even answer the questionsand could be held in contempt of court for refusing to answer most of the cross examination. Nothing much can be said since he thinks he doesnt owe any explanations and doesnt give any.
2nd Witness. Lady who claimed to be an "expert" on helping celebrities regain a good character. She worked with MJ for only 6 days and was then fired. In 6 days she did not become an "expert" on any of Jackos music, lifestyle or anything. The only other celebrity she had ever worked with turned out to be an unknown magician! She was for the prosecution, very weak!
3rd Witness, the victims sister. She basically acknowledged that she told the truth to some people but lied to others, divulging the truth depended on who was asking the questions! She was key witness in whether alcohol was being given in the MJ wine cellar, she said since it was a wine cellar "Only wine" can be drunk in it. She also says her brothers nature changed a lot after the abuse, the school says his behaviour was always disruptive. Hmmmm, a strong witness for the prosecution?
4th witness. The brother of the victim. He says he saw MJ abusing the child when he entered into the bedroom. He didnt know that an alarm goes off when someone heads towards MJs bedroom, so the story is that he walked into the bedroom unbeknown to MJ and saw the molestation taking place. Before the jury he gives different accounts of what the child was wearing and where MJs hands were. He says that MJ gave the boys alcohol to drink in a soda tin. He saw red wine around the edge of the tin. He later says that he looked inside the tin and yes, it was white wine. Under cross examination he blames the reporter for making the mistake of saying it was white wine. He argues that he could easily enter the cellar, he later argues that he couldnt enter the cellar since it was locked with a key that he didnt have.
Kidnapping: He claims that all clocks were hidden from them during the time the family were kidnapped, then admits that huge clocks were stationed all around neverland.
The victim. He looks at the magazines that say "barely legal" etc, he says those were the ones MJ showed him. Defence points out that those mags were not reproduced until way after the accusations were made. victim says that he didnt mean those magazines but mags with the same title. At school he tells the teacher on 2 occasions that MJ had not touched him, he then says he lied because he was embarrased to admit this (understandable though).
Police say there is no genetic evidence to support this case. After they first raided MJs neverland they found no evidence what so ever of any wrongdoing. Later they made other raids to support the story of abuse. The defence is set to show how the family tried to get money from Jay Leno and another celebrity. .
I'll add more as I remember it but in my honest opinion, MJ is guilty of being wierd, thats undeniable but in this instance he could well be the victim. Of course, he could have also committed the crime. After listening to the prosecution I cant help but think the defence has a stronger case.
I tend to lean towards the defence here, how would you argue in favour of the prosecution?