Closing Arguments

I think Michael Jackson may in fact be guilty of all the charges brought against him. I also think he’s going to walk and here is why: with all the stuff brought out so far in this trial there is just too much material that can be used to cast reasonable doubt in a closing argument. If I were helping put it together it would probably pan out something like this:

Mesearau: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the first thing that must strike you about this case is the number of witnesses for the prosecution. The number of people assembled is impressive and the prosecution is counting on this to have an effect on you. If a large number of people are saying something it must be true right? But when you look at each individual they have brought before you, there is not a single one whose testimony could stand alone. Each one they have presented has either a serious flaw to their testimony or a blatant ulterior motive. The prosecution has not a single good witness to bring before you so they’ve assembled a lot of bad ones. They hope that numbers will take the place of credibility. I ask you to show them that it does not.

The family of the boy who was paid off in 1993 made a claim of sexual molestation but never tried to get my client criminally charged. That was never their motive, they went straight for the money. “You molested my child, where’s the cash?” Is that the normal reaction of a person whose family has been outraged, or does that sound more like the hustle of an opportunist who was looking to score some money by trumping up baseless but embarassing charges against an eccentric multi millionaire?

If I suspected someone of molesting my child I wouldn’t stick my hand out and ask for money, somebody would be missing some teeth. The family’s actions make it more likely they were making stuff up to extort money from the freak. And ladies and gentlemen, by the perception of most people in the civilized world my client, Michael Jackson is a freak. That makes him even more of a target than the average celebrity.

The security guard who testified that he saw Mr. Jackson perform sexual acts with the boy? He lost a $16 million lawsuit against my client and was in fact ordered to pay my client $1.4 million in damages, which he hasn’t done by the way. Are we to believe that one has nothing to do with the other, that there are no hard feelings about the million dollar judgment against him? Are we to believe that people see crimes against children and don’t start caring about them until years later when a lawsuit goes the wrong way? Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I wouldn’t trust this man with a grocery list.

We have the maid who claims she saw my client showering with a boy at Neverland and claims that she was concerned. But she by her own admission continued to bring her son to Neverland. Does this sound consistent?

We have the son of the maid himself who claims that my client tickled and groped him on two occasions and that on both of those occasions he was given $100 in hush money. He further claimed that my client groped him again at a later date and yet that time gave him no money at all. I think that within this claim lies a Freudian tidbit, a causus bellis for the whole thing and that is this: the money dried up.

If you ask me my client surrounded himself with too many elements that were drawn towards money. He was too trusting. It’s interesting that people around him who were already financially set have not claimed any improprieties about him. McAuley Culkin says nothing happened. Jay Leno says in fact that he went to the police to report concerns not about my client but about the family of the alleged victim! He told them he was concerned that they were looking for a mark.

The mother of the alleged victim in the past brought false charges against JC Penny claiming that the security guard who arrested her groped her sexually in the process. The modus operandus here is clear. Claim sexual improprieties, go after the cash.

The prosecuting attorney will tell you, however, that the case before you today was initiated not by the family of the alleged victim but by his school counselor after coaxing the admission out of him. I will, however, point out to you that the prosecutor Mr. Tom Sneddon looks like a fag and he is a nOOb.

Prosecutor: OBJECTION!!

Judge: Overruled, nOOb!

Michael Jackson: OMG LMFAO

victim: p@wned!!!!

Meseareau: In summation the prosecution’s case which is before you today is what they are asking you to consider for taking away a man’s freedom, his very life. Our system of jurisprudence takes this very seriously. You cannot find a man guilty of a crime if you think he might have done it. You cannot find him guilty if you are “pretty sure” he did. You can only find him guilty if you are certain beyond a reasonable doubt. Is there reasonable doubt in this case? I submit to you that every single witness the prosecution has brought before you is reasonable dubious which is to say doubtful. I can’t take two steps left or right in this courtroom without bumping into doubt. The prosecution is counting on the hope that you don’t notice it. Justice demands that you do.

9 Responses to “Closing Arguments”

  1. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    I beg to differ…..
    #1. The 1993 child went after a criminal prosecution before the $$ came out. Wako and Johnnie Cochran came at them with the cash settlement to keep wacko from going down. Thereby shutting him up.

    #2. Cash settlement in sexual abuse cases is not necessarily a bad thing. Why have the 13 Victim go up on the stand and get flamed by a kick ass lawyer in a criminal case. That can’t be good for an abuse victims manetal state.

    #3 This is a case of a scumbag surrounding himself with scumbags. Kind of like all the witnesses in a mob trial. They are all dirty and are all criminals that doesn’t mean that the person on the stand is going down. I say Jacko is going to go down for this one. I think once the defense starts calling witnesses we are going to see the same credibility issues.

  2. Mexigogue says:

    Bet $20!

  3. Nice Rack says:

    I wouldn’t be suprised if every single juror has been paid off, Jacko will walk, and it will all come out in the press a year from now. The jurors will all get nailed for obstructing justice, and Jacko will go back on the stand again. Since he won’t be convicted, it isn’t a case of double jeopardy

  4. Mexigogue says:

    I heard the jurors were heard making fun of one of the victims. One juror was heard saying “Boo hoo, Michael Jackson tickled me!” and then the rest of the jurors burst out in laughter. That doesn’t bode well for the prosecution.

  5. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    $20 dollars it is! Suka….You had better pay up to!!

  6. rae says:

    I think he’ll be let off the hook too. It’s kind of depressing to think that but most likely will happen. If it was my kid, I couldn’t imagine asking for money at all-it’s like blood money er something.

  7. Mexigogue says:

    If they don’t find glitta you must acquitta!

  8. Phelps says:

    “Mr. Jackson’s attorney would like you to think that Mr. Jackson is the victim here. Mr. Jackson’s attorney would like for you to think that because all these other things have turned out in his favor, that this must be another one of those. The judge will instruct you that you are to decide this case on its own merits — that is the law, and that is what you, as Americans, have a duty to do.

    “Mr. Jackson’s attorney wants to tell you about all of Mr. Jackson’s civil court victories, and then cry about how this is the first time he has been brought into court. I assure you, he has a reason to cry. Mr. Jackson has been paying whatever it takes to stay out of this courtroom — away from you, The People — for as long as he can. He has done so because he knows that when he has to face a jury, he can’t look you in the nose. EYE! Look you in the eye!

    “Mr. Jackson wants to talk about all of the foibles of the witnesses because he is afraid to talk about himself. Mr. Jackson’s attorney doesn’t say that the witnesses are wrong, because he can’t. He just wants to drag them down. He wants to drag everyone else down to his own level — down into the muck.

    “Mr. Jackson thinks — Mr. Jackson prays — that if he makes everyone else — people who aren’t on trial, and don’t have the benefit of a rhyming lawyer — look bad, that somehow in your mind, “well, they are just as bad as Michael.” Ladies and gentlemen, I assure you — there was no one in the witness box that has done anything as terrible, anything as heinous, as what Mr. Jackson has done. Mr. Jackson molested this boy, and no amount of mud slung on everyone else can change that fact.”

  9. Michael Jackson says:

    Haha! Yeah I did it!