A psychologist who is a pivotal figure in the Michael Jackson child molestation case testified Wednesday that children over age 5 rarely fabricate claims of molestation and “it would be extremely rare for a child of 12 or 13 to make a false allegation.”

Stan J. Katz, the first person to report to authorities claims that Jackson molested a 13-year-old boy, gave virtually no testimony about the boy’s claims but said only that he interviewed the accuser, his brother and sister after they went to attorney Larry Feldman, who handled another claim against the pop star in the early 1990s.

Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville ruled earlier that Katz could not testify about the credibility of the accuser or whether he believes molestation occurred.

“I was retained by Mr. Feldman to conduct some interviews,” Katz said. “My understanding was I was to interview three children regarding allegations they had been abused and possibly molested.”

Katz said he spoke to the children and their mother in May and June 2003, and made a report to child welfare authorities that June. He said he was interviewed by sheriff’s investigators the next day.

Katz did not reveal the content of his interviews with the children other than that he discussed a possibility of a lawsuit because the “purpose was to determine what the children’s expectations were in talking to me.”

On cross-examination, defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. confronted Katz with his own writings in books and articles in which he discussed false claims, including those in the famed McMartin Pre-School case.

Katz said that he was involved in that case, which ended with no convictions after the longest criminal trial in Los Angeles history.

“Other than Michael Jackson, how many cases of alleged molestation have you worked on involving well-known celebrities?” Mesereau asked.

“Probably less than half a dozen,” said the witness, who is a therapist on the TV show “Starting Over.”

In response to questions about key indicators of false allegations, Katz said, “Children who make false allegations are usually consistent, almost scripted.” He said that accusers who seem to be authentic are those who sometimes change their stories and embellish or exaggerate.

Jackson’s defense has noted inconsistencies in testimony by the accuser and his brother.

“Are you suggesting to the jury that you do not see false claims of abuse by teenagers?” Mesereau asked.

“Yes,” said Katz.

He acknowledged he has done no research on the area of civil suits by teenagers in abuse cases, but under prosecution questioning he said, “I don’t recall any adolescent or preadolescent making claims for profit.”

Source: CBS

The jury also heard again from charter jet flight attendant Cynthia Bell, who has undercut a prosecution claim that Jackson served alcohol to the boy as they and the boy’s family flew from Miami to Santa Barbara in February 2003.

Bell repeated testimony from Tuesday that she served Jackson wine in a Diet Coke can and did not see his accuser drink from it, as the prosecution contends. She said Jackson appeared relaxed from the wine but not drunk.

She said the boy was rude, made complaints and demands about meals, and his mother did nothing about it. She said he started a food fight by throwing potatoes at a sleeping doctor traveling with the group.

“The initial flinging of mashed potatoes was not playful. Throwing mashed potatoes at a sleeping man?” she said.

Bell also said the boy boasted that Jackson gave him a watch, which prosecutors contend was a bribe to keep the him from revealing that Jackson gave him alcohol.

“He was saying things like, ‘Look at what Michael got me,’ and, ‘These are very expensive watches,”‘ she said.

“He did say, ‘Michael bought this watch for me and he’ll buy me anything,”‘ she said.

Deputy District Attorney Gordon Auchincloss asked if the boy’s behavior changed during the flight.

Bell said the boy was consistently rude except when listening to music.

When the prosecutor asked if she saw Jackson cuddling the boy, Bell said she didn’t think so but that Jackson had an arm around the boy while listening to music.

Auchincloss asked Bell, “What do you define as cuddling?”

She hesitated, smiled and said, “I’d have to show you.”

The courtroom erupted in laughter and Auchincloss quipped, “Your honor, may I approach the witness?”

The trial was recessed through Thursday for the Cesar Chavez state holiday.

Source: CBS

A lawyer for Michael Jackson’s former bodyguard is fighting efforts to get him from Las Vegas to California to testify at the singer’s molestation trial.

Christopher Eric Carter pleaded innocent this morning in Las Vegas to multiple felony charges stemming from a series of armed robberies.

A Clark County District Court judge denied a request to lower Carter’s bail — and also denied a defense request to hold a hearing about whether Carter should be forced to appear at Jackson’s trial.

Carter’s been expected to testify for the prosecution that he once found a boy who says Jackson molested him inebriated and that the boy told him Jackson had encouraged him to drink.

Defense lawyer Lloyd Baker says he’ll appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court to try to keep Carter from having to go to California.

Baker says that if Carter is forced to testify, he’ll take the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination.

Carter’s being held on 265-thousand dollars bail at the Clark County jail.

Source: Associated Press

Also testifying was attorney William Dickerman, who was contacted by the family on Feb. 21,2003. He said he was hired to get back possessions that were placed in storage when the family moved to Neverland.

Dickerman said he also wrote letters to Jackson’s then-lawyer, Mark Geragos, claiming the family was being subjected to surveillance and harassment by Jackson associates.

He acknowledged on cross-examination that during the first months that he represented the family he wrote many letters to Geragos but never mentioned allegation of molestation, false imprisonment or giving wine to children.

Dickerman said he eventually referred the case to Feldman — the “go-to guy with regard to Michael Jackson matters.” He said he has a fee-sharing arrangement with Feldman that would give him part of any money obtained in a civil suit by the family but he knew of no plans for a lawsuit.

Mesereau repeatedly implied that the family went to Dickerman because they were after money, but the witness denied that.

“I never made a demand for money for the (family) for any purpose under the sun,” Dickerman said.

He said that when he wrote a letter to a tabloid that had been printing pictures of family members he was not seeking royalties but merely want the paper to stop using the material.

“The concern was to stop exploiting them,” Dickerman said.

Source: CBS

District Attorney Tom Sneddon has had a legion of help in packaging and selling Michael Jackson’s guilt to the world. On a daily basis, for the past twelve years, we have heard and seen an endless number of molestation jokes that imply Michael’s guilt or, at least, intelligent and wise people should think so. These are the establishment satirists and comics who subtly influence public opinion. Without any reference to context or even probable evidence, the quest for the most salacious stories are considered fair game if it is Michael Jackson on the receiving end. The over-arching assumption has always been that something inappropriate was happening at Neverland, and even if there wasn’t any evidence to support that claim, that it was okay to assume he was guilty of child molestation because the architects of public opinion in the media made it appear so. Isn’t there any worry, by members in the media, that there can be the possibility of a blacklisting backlash? Especially during a time where trust in the media and government are at an all-time low.

It is worrisome how many people have been more than willing to profit mercilessly off of these unsubstantiated charges with no regard or care that he could be innocent and that this kind of white-collar corruption could easily happen to them. Many brilliant satirists such as Robin Williams, Chris Rock, Howard Stern or Eminem, who come across as your witty non-conformists and voices for the voiceless, clearly sold out something when they jumped on the bandwagon and arrogantly implied in their material that Michael is a child molester. Now that the case has finally unfolded, with surprisingly suspicious timelines and poorly coached testimony, it will be intriguing to see how people like the aforementioned will rationalize their blindsided ignorance and apologize to him for it. I am sure they wouldn’t like being called child molesters as they pursue their own careers; even if it was ‘just a joke.’

All this time, so many were so sure that he was guilty. So sure, that Tom Sneddon, an accomplished District Attorney, had a solid probable cause, some evidence and a superb circumstantial case to compliment his giddiness when he demanded that Michael Jackson turn himself into authorities. Tom Sneddon has produced an alarmingly weak and baseless case. The transcripts speak for themselves, which is a highlight reel as to how many forms or patterns of lies one can count. It is Sneddon who is pathetically pushing Sisyphus’ boulder. This case is demolishing the reputations of several professionals who gambled their careers on Michael’s guilt. Michael has endured unprecedented alienation although his innocence is shining bright at this moment.

How the tides have turned. In classrooms across the world, this poorly presented and constructed case has cast a brand new light on to the situation. The question with which students must wrestle is no longer merely that of guilt or innocence. Today, the question is this: How did this case come to be? Why was Michael Jackson blacklisted throughout the media if their information from inside sources proved to be weak? Why should we trust law enforcement after this? With such a massive absence of evidence, what factors drove this prosecution to proceed using such a baseless case?

Those irritating whispers regarding Sony Music’s influence are certainly getting louder in a world where we are all too familiar with the ominous partnership between some corporations or organizations and the State. It was okay when the story framed law enforcement as being the good guys and the wealthy eccentric celebrity as the disturbed bad guy. But it is clear, at this juncture, that the State’s case against Michael Jackson is bankrupt.

Due to its poor performance, the prosecution’s case will never rest peacefully. Imagine all of those poor media profiteers who must now come to terms with the ill-advised investments made into all of those Michael Jackson specials, exclusives and late-night jokes. That monumental momentum that any prosecutor would dream of has vanished within weeks. With the absence of tangible evidence, questions are being asked as to why these media outlets weren’t aggressively exploring how this case was conceived and what is the nature of this obvious entrapment?

If a state like California is going to attempt to attract entrepreneurs and businesses, as Governor Schwarzenegger has frequently said it must, people need to be assured that its civic institutions are for the most part legitimate, and that the rule of law applies to all. This is paramount for free-market capitalism to flourish and a guarantee to attract the best talent. This case is being watched very closely from all over the world and the State’s action or inaction will speak volumes as to its sincerity as being progressive.

Will Californian Attorney General, Bill Lockyear, look the other way and permit this kind of conduct to continue? Is it acceptable for a prosecutor to pursue a case on a whim or for a price? How has this case demonstrated otherwise? These types of questions are just beginning to emerge as the state’s case against Michael Jackson comes to a close. By allowing the 93 allegations as evidence, Judge Melville’s home-court ruling to desperately resurrect such an embarrassing showcase of American jurisprudence will logically give solid premises to connect these toxic questions into substantial indictments.

At this moment, it is plausible that there is an uncomfortable nexus of anxiety tormenting the taxpayers of Santa Barbara.

Source: MJJ Source (Author: John Karrys)

A flight attendant who testified for the prosecution said Jackson’s accuser was a “rude and discourteous” loudmouth, who threw food and raised a ruckus when his chicken wasn’t warm enough.

“He was saying, `Serve me my food. This isn’t warm.’ It was embarrassing to have him on board,” Bell said.

Source: NY Daily News

A flight attendant testfied in court yesterday she never saw Jackson inappropriately touch the accuser or any child.

Bell said she doesn’t miss a thing when she flies Gulf Stream jet flights because of the prime location of her work station.

“I probably have the best seat in the house because I’m standing in the galley,” she said.

Source: NY Daily News

A corporate flight attendant says the Michael Jackson never shared his soda pop can of wine with his young accuser or any other child on a flight from Miami to California, contradicting key testimony from the boy and his siblings.

In a setback for prosecutors who called her to the stand, Xtra-Jet International flight attendant Cynthia Ann Bell shot down the accuser’s claim that Jackson urged him to tank up on “Jesus Juice” to shake off flying fears on the Feb. 7, 2003, flight.

At first, prosecutors looked pleased when woman labeled Jackson “a very private drinker” who downed almost two bottles of white wine, hidden inside a Diet Coke can, during the cross-country flight. “It’s a long flight,” she said sheepishly.

But when prosecutor Gordon Auchincloss asked Bell whether she’d seen Jackson share his can of wine on that flight - as the accuser, his brother and sister testified earlier - she replied sharply, “No.”

Jackson’s defense lawyer Tom Mesereau quickly made hay. “You have never seen Mr. Jackson share a Diet Coke can with wine with any child, have you?”

“That is correct,” Bell agreed.

Source: Ny Daily News

A prosecution witness lashed out at Michael Jackson’s attorney from the witness stand Tuesday, quoting another witness saying: “You have made this court like O.J.’s court or Robert Blake’s court.”

Jamie Masada sparred with Thomas Mesereau Jr. throughout a long cross-examination, mostly trying to keep the tone light and frequently drawing laughter.

The tone changed when Masada, who owns the Laugh Factory club in Hollywood, was asked by Mesereau about comedian Louise Palanker, who testified last week.

“She wants to be a comic,” he said. “We help them. Sometimes you have to give them bad news.”

“You’ve told her she’s not funny?” asked Mesereau.

“Let me tell you,” Masada said. “I find you more funny than she is.”

Masada said Palanker had been in touch with him since she testified and that she once referred to O.J. Simpson’s acquittal in the 1994 killings of his ex-wife and her friend and Blake’s recent acquittal in the 2003 slaying of his wife.

“She said that you have made this court like O.J.’s court or Robert Blake’s court, and you lied and changed the words around,” Masada said.

Source: Associated Press

Michael Jackson has made the following statement following the very sad passing of Johnnie Cochran, who represented Michael in 1993 in the child abuse case against Jordy Chandler.

“Johnnie Cochran was a true gentleman who embodied class, brilliance, honesty and integrity. His fight for justice transcended color, age or economic status. So many have been touched by his life of service as well as his infectious smile and personality. Johnnie Cochran was a great humanitarian. I loved him and I will miss him. I am proud to have called him my friend.”

Michael Jackson

Source: Associated Press