Posted on 04/07/2005 12:25:46 PM PDT by ex-Texan
From correspondents in Santa Maria, California
A FORMER security guard at Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch has claimed he saw the star kissing, fondling and performing oral sex on a young boy in the 1990s.
Ex-guard Ralph Chacon told the superstar's child molestation trial in California that he saw the alleged incident when he peeked through a bathroom window one evening in late 1992 or early 1993.
The then 13-year-old boy involved in the alleged assault won a 1994 out-of-court settlement from Jackson in a deal that ensured his silence and averted a criminal trial.
Mr Chacon, who left Jackson's employment on bad terms in 1994, said he first saw the star and the boy in a Jacuzzi in a building near Neverland's amusement arcade, but the two got out and headed to the shower together.
Feeling something was amiss, the guard said he peeked through a window to see what was going on and saw Jackson and the boy standing naked together in the lighted bathroom.
"I was thinking, 'what's going on in there? Grown man in the shower with a boy' ... it wasn't right," he told trial jurors, who could jail Jackson for up to 20 years if he is convicted in the present case against him.
"I saw Mr Jackson caressing the boy's hair, he was kissing him," he said, adding that Jackson kissed the boy on various areas of his body.
He then told the court in the town of Santa Maria, where Jackson is on trial for allegedly molesting a 13-year-old boy two years ago, of the alleged incident of oral sex.
The former security guard, whom Jackson's lawyer said had lost a lawsuit he filed against the star for alleged wrongful dismissal, also recalled other incidents in which he claimed he saw Jackson kissing and touching the boy.
He said that on one occasion the kissing was "not long, but passionate".
Mr Chacon, who first mentioned the alleged assaults under oath in 1994, said he did not immediately report the incident to authorities as he did not think anyone would believe him. "Who would believe me?" he asked.
Legal analysts following the case said the testimony would deal a major blow to Jackson's defence as it was likely to make an impression on jurors.
The pop icon's mother, Katherine, left the courtroom shortly before the graphic testimony began, and some fans of the embattled superstar cried in the public gallery as they heard the account.
But Jackson's lead lawyer Thomas Mesereau immediately moved to limit the damage from Mr Chacon's testimony.
He pointed out that the former security guard, who worked for Jackson from 1991 to 1994, had lost a wrongful dismissal lawsuit against the star and had been ordered to pay Jackson $US1.5 million ($1.95m) in damages and legal costs after his lawsuit was ruled fraudulent and malicious.
In the lawsuit, Mr Chacon had sought $US16 million ($20.8m) in damages from Jackson, Mr Mesereau said.
"You tried to extort Mr Jackson, right?" he asked the witness before he was interrupted by an objection from prosecutors.
Relatives of the now 25-year-old boy involved in the alleged incident have said he will not testify at Jackson's trial.
While Jackson has never faced criminal charges in connection with previous alleged acts of molestation, Judge Rodney Melville has allowed prosecutors to tell jurors of five unproved claims against the star in order to show a possible pattern of child abuse.
The star has denied 10 counts in the case against him, including molestation, plying the boy with alcohol and plotting to keep him and his family captive at Neverland.
Geraldo thinks he's innocent and since he promised never to sleep with little boys again....we should just forget the whole thing.
So you think that MJ sleeping with young boys is beautiful, not sexual?
Are you referring to the youth minister who testified the other day. Newly married young man who is the son of a maid who worked for MJ
Oh, really?
Yes really. if I were on the jury I would be legally obligated to presume innocence. As a private citizen, not involved in that legal process I am free to presume anything I want concerning guilt or innocence. That has been pointed out to you by different people on this thread. What's hard about it?
Of course he approaced low life people.
Wonder how Michael's defense lawyer is going to tear apart this one? After all, what can he say he saw instead of what he knew he saw?
This is such horsesh*t. Everyone who sees a future cameo for themselves on Access Hollywood is coming out with every fish story you can imagine. It's all bunk. He will be acquitted. They should throw the Mother in prison.
A little contradictory aren't you. If nothing happened why should the mother be thrown in prison.
I don't know - another poster mentioned a youth minister being one of the credible witnesses - but that sounds right - do you have info on his testimony?
He's the young man who said tickling turned into touching...over the clothes and then under the clothes.
He's gonna flee the country before the verdict is read.
Ahem...curious but appropriate choice of words.
But, do you think he will get off???
Ugh........sorry I asked
Jacko's problem is that his attorneys did a really good job of imepeaching the prosecution's prime witness and closely realted parties, yet that testimony on direct remains on the record and in the jurors' minds. Their problem is deciding whether or not to believe it. All of this evidence of prior bad acts with other boys powerfully undermines the effects of what was a very good cross examination and enhances the credibility of the complaining witness. I'm beginning to think Jaco will loose.
Do you mean they will cut him loose....or that he will lose?
That's the real problem. He's undoubtedly guilty of terminal wierdness. However, that doesn't make him guilty of child molestation, and a lot of the witnesses against him are very dubious characters. This is nothing like the overwhelming case the Swiftvets made against John Kerry.
but geraldo says MJ is innocent. so he must be innocent, right? I mean, Geraldo cant be wrong.
If the jurors in this case respect evidence, they're going to have long and hard deliberations. So far all the witnesses against Jackson have been seriously impeached, but there are so many of them telling similar stories. Jacko's wierdness works powerfully against him, but terminal wierdness is not a crime. This is not an OJ or Mendez brothers case where a clearly guilty man walked and another two clearly guilty men almost walked. There are lots of real doubts and conflicts.
Lose. By error.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.