Some pretty significant Michael Jackson news....

SANTA MARIA, Calif. May 23, 2005 — The mother of Michael Jackson's accuser committed fraud when she did not disclose on a welfare application that her family received money from a $152,000 lawsuit settlement 10 days earlier, a welfare official testified Monday at Jackson's child molestation trial.

Jackson's lawyers, who are trying to portray the accuser's family as shakedown artists, also called an accountant to show that the family dined, shopped and ran up other expenses at a cost of $7,000 to Jackson during a week they were allegedly being held captive by the pop star.

Mercy Manriquez, an employee of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services, testified that she handled the mother's Nov. 15, 2001, application for assistance. The application, signed by the accuser's mother, said that the woman had no other sources of income and no assets.

Manriquez testified that a person who willfully excludes sources of income from the forms is committing fraud.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=783543

whether he should or not, I still don't know. It's entirely possible to me that he's just a weird little manchild.

Too much stinks about this trial for me to say "yeah he did it."

These people have too much of a credibility problem, of course so does Jackson, but the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the accusations, and I'm not sure they have.

Too bad that gets in the way of discovering whether molestation did actually occur.

Peter Pan.
I also think he has more than a few screws loose.

You echoed my sentiments, though mine are usually expressed in more vulgar terms.

he really has pedophilic tendencies. I honestly don't know, but if he is guilty of any of the charges, will he (and his handlers) then believe he has license to do as he pleases? We all know there are crazy fans and fan/parents who will send their kids right over there so I have little doubt he'll have opportunity...:eyes:

There is something about getting out of two high profile cases that might make someone think they have been vindicated.... If Jackson truly believes himself acting as a "guardian angel" to these children, what will be the impact?

No doubt. She pimped her kid to MJ for $7,000/week.

But that is not a defense to the charges.

And what explanation does Jackson have for driving to the home of the 1993 victim and sleeping in the kid's bed? Sometimes the obvious explanation is the explanation.

Jackson reportedly spent 30 consecutive nights in the home of Jordy and his mother, together with Jordy in Jordy's bed, in Jordy's own room.

http://www.answers.com/topic/michael-jackson-1993-allegation-of-child-sexual-abuse

on trial here, John Doe 2004 is. If the government and you want to argue the facts of the 1993 *victim*, then put THAT case on. But as I understand it, the question is whether MJ molested THIS 2004 boy.

and I have yet to see any credible defense (except to the "conspiracy to commit child abduction" charge).

It is not just the government and I that have an interest in seeing justice done here. Jackson walking away from this trial will send a very damaging message to molestation victims across this nation who have not come forward out the fear that they will not be believed or that they will wind up being on trial (as your post describes this trial).

The defense admits that Jackson has a wine cellar connect to his game room. Admits that boys were allowed to drink there and that in fact they got drunk there. The defense put up a 12-year-old male witness who testified that he saw the accuser masturbating with video pornography at the ranch and that he told MJ about it. It just gets worse from there. They admit to the internet porn, magazine porn, video porn, etc. -- all of which Jackson, at the very least, gave the boys access to. THIS IS THE DEFENSE? Providing porn and liquor to minors is a crime.

How can a jury find someone not guilty of things which they have admitted to and made part of their defense?

activities you listed the boy doing was MJ present. The reason for the defense NOT the prosecutor presenting the sexual information and the drinking was to impeach the boy who claimed that he learned about sex after MJ molested him. The incidents you claimed (regarding the masturbation/drinking/porn video) occured BEFORE the boy claimed MJ molested him. Let's stick to the facts. This informtion suggests the boy lied.

needs their fucking head examined.


I think he'll walk too.





What's this nut going to do after the trial?

Michael Jackson will walk.

I've heard any evidence to indicate that molestation occurred. The prosecution definitely has a weak, weak case to begin with and the fact that the accuser's family has a history of fraud in these cases seals the deal for me. I mean, does anyone logically think that Michael Jackson STARTED molesting the boy in the week after that documentary aired? That's what they claim and given the amount of heat he received immediately upon airing that doc, I find that very, very hard to believe.