Defense rests without putting Jackson on stand

[Lochloosa]

Because I'm sure that you would not see this anywhere else :sarcasm:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7979371/

[LibDemAlways]

1. Gee what a shocker that he didn't testify.

I'll be surprised if they convict him. His lawyer did all he could to paint the accuser's mother as a gold-digging con artist. I smell reasonable doubt. Plus, the jurors have to be weighing what Jackson's life would be like behind bars - not a pretty thought. Not expressing my own opinion here about his guilt/innocence, but I do think he'll be found "not guilty."

[KurtNYC]

2. It's a California celebrity trial so we all know how that goes

but the defense may have hurt themselves with many of their witnesses.

In a nutshell - The grifter mother approaches various celebs and lies and wants to grift off of them. Most shut her down without much $$ damage. Then she goes to Jackson and she gets $7000 per week. The question is what did Jackson get?

I think the jury has to find guilt on a couple of the charges. The defense admits that Jackson provided access to porn and wine. They only differ on whether the boys drank the booze and viewed the porn with MJ's permission.