A California prosecutor, unable to put together a compelling case in relation to the offenses charged, obtained the court's permission to present a "where there's smoke, there's fire" case against Michael Jackson. And today, this. Okay so we know that Macauley Culkin is an adult, we know that he has publicly denied that Jackson ever acted inappropriately toward him, and we know that the prosecution is not going to present Culkin as a witness. Whatever sympathy I have for the difficulty of proving a molestation charge, given those facts I think Culkin's right to privacy should trump the Prosecutor's desire to blow more smoke Jackson's way. And this?
Jackson's lawyer attacked the credibility of some of the other witnesses by pointing out that they had been involved in a failed lawsuit against him, and that they had sold stories about Jackson to the tabloids.Well, I doubt it is the cross-examination that the defense would choose, but I would really like to ask this noble character, "Isn't it true that you personally watched an adult molest a small child, and you did absolutely nothing?" I am inclined to sarcastically note that somebody being paid so well that they did nothing after witnessing such an event probably doesn't need overtime pay. But then, some people are happy to sell their soul for a few pieces of silver.
The witness today, however, hadn't sold any stories. He also hadn't been involved in the failed lawsuit - but had successfully sued for unpaid overtime.