home

Michael Jackson: Grandiose Witness Claims

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 10:57:43 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
Trial Update
April 7, 2005

The prosecution may rue the day it decided to put former Jackson security guard Ralph Chacon on the stand. Chacon testified today he saw Michael perform oral sex on a young boy. No other witness has made that claim to date. The defense wasted no time in tearing Chacon apart:

"Jackson defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. quickly established that Chacon had sued Jackson, claiming he was improperly fired, and that Jackson had countersued, accusing Chacon of stealing from him."

"The witness acknowledged he was ordered to pay $25,000 for allegedly stealing Jackson's property, which Chacon said was only a candy bar. He also acknowledged that he and others were ordered to pay more than $1 million in legal expenses to Jackson but that he had not paid anything because he had filed for bankruptcy."

"The boy Chacon referred to received a multimillion-dollar settlement from Jackson in 1994 and refused to cooperate in a police investigation. No charges were filed against Jackson in that case."

In related news, according to one reporter, Jackson jurors may be laughing at an earlier prosecution witness' claim that Jackson fondled him during a tickle session. The Judge says no investigation into whether it's true is necessary.

< Valerie Plame Investigation May Be Over | Appeals Court Tackles Detainee's Trial Rights >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Michael Jackson: Grandiose Witness Claims | 16 comments (16 topical)
    Re: Michael Jackson: Grandiose Witness Claims (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 11:43:39 AM EST
    If Jackson is guilty (I have to say I hope he isn't), this prosecution will blow it. Who dares me to call the prosecution and tell them I saw MJ have homosexual sex?? :) Betcha they hustle me right up to the witness stand without even checking to see if I was in the same state!

    Re: Michael Jackson: Grandiose Witness Claims (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 01:45:03 PM EST
    Actually, I have a funny feeling that Jackson may be innocent. This case just reeks of selective prosecution.

    Re: Michael Jackson: Grandiose Witness Claims (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jay on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 02:49:22 PM EST
    who cares about this washed up weirdo?

    Re: Michael Jackson: Grandiose Witness Claims (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 03:01:57 PM EST
    The prosecution has yet to come up with a witness who saw/experienced anything but didn't try to get money for it. One of the charges in the case is that Jackson had the mother, Janet Arvizo Jackson, falsely imprisoned. The false imprisonment was at department stores and beauty salons, where she spent thousands of dollars of Jackson's money while imprisoned.

    Re: Michael Jackson: Grandiose Witness Claims (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 05:56:51 PM EST
    Does anyone have a URL for the trial transcripts in Jackson's case? As a def. atty I REALLY want to see how these witnesses are being destroyed, and of course incorporate them where helpful. - k

    Re: Michael Jackson: Grandiose Witness Claims (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 05:59:43 PM EST
    Transcripts are available daily at Exemplaris but they probably cost a fortune.

    Re: Michael Jackson: Grandiose Witness Claims (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 06:49:03 PM EST
    I'm so glad I wasn't called up for jury duty!!! (I live in the area) I think anyone who is trying to be impartial is going back and forth, based on the trickle of evidence we're hearing about in the news.

    Re: Michael Jackson: Grandiose Witness Claims (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 07:03:59 PM EST
    I have to add this as I listen to yet another Michael Jackson report on the news: Doesn't Michael Jackson ever use locks or close his door? You'd think he does all his molesting with open doors and lets his staff walk in on him any old time, and keeps on molesting kids despite the fact that people keep walking in on him. I find that rather hard to believe.

    Re: Michael Jackson: Grandiose Witness Claims (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 08:31:58 PM EST
    The Maid Is On Record and so is the security guard as being employed by Michael Jackson.They too are in on it. They are all liars except Michael Jackson.That's what you would have to believe in if you think he is innocent.

    Re: Michael Jackson: Grandiose Witness Claims (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 09:05:49 PM EST
    Casey, your logic...isn't.

    Re: Michael Jackson: Grandiose Witness Claims (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 11:46:49 PM EST
    I have no idea if MJ is guilty or not, but I'm starting to lean towards 'not'. It's fairly obvious that all of the witnesses to date have a motive to testify against MJ for reasons other than wanting to see justice done.

    Re: Michael Jackson: Grandiose Witness Claims (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 05:41:54 AM EST
    Let me see, a 46 yr old man hangs around young boys,lets them sleep in his bed, gives them alcohol. What is more, he continues to do this after paying off a multimillion dollar settlement and being accused in the national press of molestation. But he "loves children". Then where are the girls? Face it the man is a pedophile. The case is hard to prosecute because he chooses his victims well. Boys from disfunctional, manipulative families. Because of this they look bad on the witness stand. They may be doing this to get money, but Michael is guilty. If he could control himself he would have stayed a million miles away from such situations after the first case. This is not an issue of left vs right.

    Re: Michael Jackson: Grandiose Witness Claims (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 09:41:15 AM EST
    It's alleged that he gave alcohol to minors, but I don't think that's been proven yet. As for being accused in the press, as a member of the press I would hesitate to take accusations in the media at face value. Often reporters can't get all sides of a story, even those reporters who make a diligent effort to be fair. Not every media organization goes all out to be fair, either, but the power of the press to shred a reputation is nonetheless considerable. As for settlements, they don't look good, that's true. It creates a whole lot of smoke, and naturally has a lot of people asking where the fire is. But then again, someone as well known as MJ will probably do anything to get the media to go away, even if it costs millions.

    Re: Michael Jackson: Grandiose Witness Claims (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 12:10:03 PM EST
    TL: The graphics and styles you've been applying to the Michael Jackson posts are really pretty.

    Re: Michael Jackson: Grandiose Witness Claims (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 01:58:01 PM EST
    Thanks, Mike. It's my first graphic creation. I know a lot of readers aren't interested in the Jackson trial, so I figured they'd know when they saw the graphic to just stroll on by.

    Re: Michael Jackson: Grandiose Witness Claims (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 11:28:54 AM EST
    Well, he has not settled. |His career insurance company did this for him, whithout asking permission from him... Strange, but true! I was so shocked when i read a fragment from a dismissal document, I think, a response to a motion filed by his lawyers asking to not pay for the settlement. Look! Memo in Support of Objection to Subpoena for Settlement Documents The following are excerpts from that recently released court document: Pg3 The settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Mr. Jackson's insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr. Jackson and his personal legal counsel. It is general practice for an insurer to be entitled to control settlement negotiations and the insured is precluded from any interference. …Under the majority of contracts for liability insurance, the absolute control of the defense of the matter is turned over to the insurance company and the insured is excluded from any interference in any negotiation for settlement or other legal proceedings (emphasis added). …An insurance carrier has the right to settle claims covered by insurance when it decides settlement is expedient and the insured may not interfere with nor prevent such settlements. Pg2 Because insurance companies were the source of the settlement amounts, and the insurance companies make the payments based on their contractual rights to settle the proceeding without Mr. Jackson's permission, the settlement does not constitute an admission and cannot be used to create such an impermissible inference to the jury. Pg3 The speculative suggestion that Mr. Jackson somehow made an admission when an insurance company required a settlement, and in fact paid for the settlement, creates an impermissible inference to the jury that would deprive Mr. Jackson of due process of law. Pg 4 It is unfair for an insurance company's settlement to be now held against Mr. Jackson or for the Settlement Agreement to be admitted as evidence of Mr. Jackson's prior conduct or guilt. Mr. Jackson could not control nor interfere with his insurance carrier's demand to settle the dispute. Pg9-10 Permitting evidence of settlement agreements or amounts would be speculative because there is no evidence Michael Jackson made the settlement. Settlements in civil suits many times are dictated by insurance companies who settle claims regardless of an individual's wishes. Although Jordan Chandler was interviewed "thereafter" by detectives seeking evidence to offer in a child molestation prosecution of Michael Jackson, "no criminal charges were filed as a result of that interview." This interview took place prior to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Stogner v California, 539 U.S. 607, 613 (2003), holding California's retroactive extension of the statute of limitations to be unconstitutional. In other words, Jordan Chandler's statements were not sufficient even at that earlier time, to support child molestation charges against Michael Jackson, and to now permit the suggestion of a settlement agreement for some improper act is not only irrelevant, but also a speculative violation of the statute of limitations.

    Michael Jackson: Grandiose Witness Claims | 16 comments (16 topical)