evidentiary:alchemy

I apologize for mentioning the Michael Jackson child molestration trial at all, but the testimony - and the corroborating videos, notes, and audiotapes - are just far too interesting to ignore.  Not because of Michael Jackson.  And not because of the nastiness of the charges.  No, this trial is interesting because it shows the uniquely riveting power of the unreliable narrator.

Take the accuser's mother.  Her story is almost as bizarre as the King of Pop and his thousand noses: false imprisonment at Neverland; threats against her life; constant video surveillance; thugs at her door; head licking.  Her testimony makes her look like a paranoid nutcase.  She claims Michael Jackson held her at Neverland against her will, even though she left and returned on more than one occasion. While "imprisoned," she luxuriated in expensive spa treatments and shopped at exclusive boutiques, all on Jackson's tab.  (If prison feels that good, hell, sign me up.)

Jackson allegedly licked her son's head, but she allowed the two to share a bed in spite of it.  Why?  Because she simply did not believe her own eyes. 

Toss in her history of purgery and welfare fraud, and reasonable doubts begin to blossom.

Then there is the problem of the rebuttal video, made after the infamous "Living with Michael Jackson" documentary made him look like a pedophile creep.  On the tape, the accuser and his mother praise Jackson, even calling him "Daddy Michael."  According to the mother, Jackson thugs scripted the whole video, and she had no choice but to take the starring role.

So who do jurors believe? 

Prosecutors have produced corroborating evidence for almost every one of the mother's claims.  They have surveillance videos, audiotapes, and documents to back up every charge.  Jurors watched video tapes of the accuser's mother as she packed up her apartment to move.  They watched as her daughter looked directly into a camera lens and darted away, obviously afraid.  They listened to audio of Jackson guards.   

On the other hand, the defense has receipts.  The mother says she received a leg wax, but the receipt shows a full body treatment.   Is she minimizing the luxuries in order to look better?

Sometimes, even the corroborating evidence fails to make witnesses credible. (Or put another way: an incredible witness makes the evidence incredible, too.)  When this happens, the tension builds and builds without relief.   I will spend the next couple of posts exploring the unreliable narrator  & corroborating evidence.