Perhaps Michael Jackson wasn’t taking his legal situation seriously enough…
SANTA MARIA, Calif. (Reuters) – The judge in Michael Jackson’s child molestation case issued a warrant for the entertainer’s arrest after Jackson failed to show up for his trial on Thursday, the day his young accuser was set to continue his testimony.
Jackson’s attorney explained that the 46-year-old entertainer was in the hospital with a back problem. The judge rejected that explanation, ordering that Jackson’s bail be revoked and the entertainer jailed if he did not appear within an hour.
Jackson’s 15-year-old accuser was to have begun his second day on the witness stand on Thursday morningThe order take effect at 9:30 AM Pacific. Jackson’s attorney, Thomas Mesereau Jr., was seen awaiting his clients arrival outside the courthouse talking on his cellphone.
Jackson arrived at the Santa Barbara County Courthouse approximately 5 minutes past the judge’s one hour deadline, coming directly from the hospital according to his lawyer. Jackson arrived to court wearing what appeared to be pajama bottoms, looking fragile and confused. There was no word yet on what the judge is planning to do about the arrest warrant.
FOX News is reporting:
Sources close to Jackson told FOX News that his lawyer, Thomas Mesereau Jr., was informed his client would get a 15-minute grace period for his arrival in court, but the singer would likely get a major tongue-lashing from the judge. Melville was said to be furious and fed up with Jackson, and swore that such antics wouldn’t happen again, sources told FOX.
Since Jackson appeared within that 15 minute grace period it looks like he won’t be going to jail today.
Final Update: While Jackson’s attorney were surely read the riot act in chambers, in court the judge downplayed the incident and told the jury to disregard Jackson appearance (heh). Testimony from Jackson accuser proceeded.
Semi-related: MSNBC contributor, and Jackson family friend Stacy Brown, reported Monday that the Jackson camp is already planning a victory tour.
Jed:
Who said that rich celebrities are above the law? Wasn’t it you. Your arguments are so weak, it’s pathetic.
No, you did. You’re too ignorant to even recognize a valid argument.
Fred:
You create your own conclusions. I never made any. You could use the stat, and say that is much less likely to see a black male pedophile than white, if you want to. Nothing more, like you seem to be getting at.
Sure you made conclusions. And where is the link to the stats you are relying on? Why won’t you post it if it exists?
I found a vague statement in an online magazine by a fbi agent. I did not find any specific and detailed studies done by the doj, fbi, bps. I then realized that if they existed, you would have posted a link. You did not. Yet, you keep making references to these “statistics” to give false credibility to your arguments. So, post your links to these mythical statistics.
Lamont:
If someone perjurers themselves, yes they should be prosecuted. But, just because a defendant is found ng is not evidence that a witness perjured themselves.
And, now here comes your “if you think Jackson is a pedophile you must be a racist meme”. Couldn’t see that coming a mile away! That isn’t going to work on me or anyone else here.
Fred:
Just check the FBI website. Do some research on your own as well.
I checked the FBI website. There are no statistical reports on pedophiles broken by race and percentage. Caught you in a lie, Fred. If not, post a link.
Lamont:
You just don’t have any spine on your own. That’s why you must use someone else to support you. What about your own independent brain? Oh yeah, you don’t have one!
Are you referring to AD? Do you think AD can’t have a view of his own? Applying your dumb logic, you must have 50% less of a spine then me since you need both Jed and Fred to help you! lol Thank you again for demonstrating YOUR lack of a brain!
Even if the jury is hung. they still have to use the facts in the next trial either way, so what’s your point?
The point was to correct your mis-statement.
You are confused because you really think that saying “you want him convicted”.
I’m confused by your sentence!
Let’s say he’s found to be innocent and the parents found guilty?
He won’t ever be found innocent. The most he can hope for is not guilty. And, the parents are not on trial.
Should he be convicted? You are truly confused. You have your order of operations backwards.
Uh, you ask if he is found innocent [not guilty] should he be convicted? And you call me confused and say I have it backwards! lol!
It’s his word against the kids, but the only way it will be sorted out is by testing the evidence.
Oh, there’s a lot more evidence then their testimony.
If you hate MJ because you think he’s freaky what other celebrities do you hate because they are freaky?
I dislike pedophiles. And, I’m not the one going on and on about people being freaky and celebrities. You are projecting your own, and your friend’s, nonsensical statements and beliefs on me.
If you conclude he’s a pedophile without proof (taking one person’s word over another)you are an idiot. You want him convicted before the facts are all inl. You are definitely an idiot.
I don’t know any intelligent person who believes he is not a pedophile. So, of course, that would exclude you and your friends.
RE: Fred’s post (March 11, 2005 01:21 PM)
Just check the FBI website. Do some research on your own as well.
Actually Fred, I was hoping you’d present a link so that we could go over the same data. Nonetheless, the dataset (whatever it is), is probably too small and I think I’d remain a skeptic.
I suspect white males would be overrepresented in the U.S. because Anglo-Saxon is the statistically significant majority in this country. Go to Canada and you’ll probably find about the same statistics. However, traverse non-European regions of the globe and you’ll likely find a very different result. A “valid” conclusion, if such a behavioral conclusion can be determined due to the differing social/judicial mores/restraints around the world, would necessarily require the pooling of many countries’ data.
I suspect that this (pedophilia) is a recessive, sex-linked chromosomal anomoly that is not determined or regulated by superficially autosomal gene expression. Unless someone has mapped it already, the best odds are that its phenotypic expression resides predominantly on either the X or Y chromosome. To that end, I doubt ethnicity plays much of a role. However, DNA and its expression are tricky things and who really knows the exact protein expression that causes one to do what they do.
Now, if you were to conclude that men were more likely than women to express this recessive trait and subsequent aberrant behavior, then that would seem much more likely based on our current understanding of genetics.
Mj is guilty as hell, supplying grog to the underaged, even if that prick gets off all other counts, he is still guilty of the supply of alcohol to kids, hope he goes down
Fans and supporters of MJ, with several witness’s and more to come in the trial, all stating that MJ had supplied alcohol to several persons under the legal age, Does this not bother you ??? Please answer this question, does it not seem strange to you, a man suppling alcohol to underaged people, that in its self is wrong, as a man (MJ) whom so calls loves children ?? I just wonder why a man would supply alcohol to a minor, without strings attatched (?) or the thoughts to do !!!!!!!!!