Michael Jackson Trial

Jackson Former Wife: Witness for the Prosecution

Attorney Gloria Allred was online Friday, April 29, at 2 p.m. ET to discuss the Michael Jackson trial and the latest developments, including the testimony Wednesday of former wife Debbie Rowe.

Read the latest: Jackson's Ex-Wife Calls Him a Great Father (Post, April 28)

A transcript follows.

____________________

Washington, D.C.: Do people, even in California, believe those are really his biological children? I've heard he dyes their hair to appear more like MacCauley Culkin. Yuk.

Gloria Allred: Whether or not the two children that he had with Debbie Rowe are in fact his biological children under the law they are legally his children because they were born during the marriage to Debbie Rowe and there was no challenge to his paternity within two years of their birth and therefore they are legally his children.

As to the third child, the mother of that child is unknown and I can only assume that his attorneys have taken all legal steps to assure that legally the child is his. We do not know if, biologically, that third child is his.

_______________________

Indianapolis: Why did the prosecution not declare Ms. Rowe a hostile witness?

Gloria Allred: It may have been that they decided that they didn't wish to alienate her or intensively examine her for fear of what else might come out of her mouth. They may not have wanted her to become more of a runaway witness than she was.

It is a bit of a mystery as to why they did not attempt to impeach her if they could in reference to any prior statements that she might have made to law enforcement or to the district attorney in reference to whether or not she read from a script or rehearsed what she would say for the rebuttal video. It appears from remarks in the district attorney's opening statement that the DA anticipated that she would corroborate the testimony of the mother of the accuser who testified that her statements were scripted.

I have to believe if the DA said that in his opening statement, it must have been because there were interviews with Debbie Rowe before the trial began or statements by her which led them to believe she would also testify that what she said was scripted.

However, they chose not to attempt to impeach her with prior inconsistent statements. Of course, there's always a possibility that there were no prior inconsistent statements. But if that were the case, then it's hard to explain the DA's opening statement about Ms. Rowe.

_______________________

Gloria Allred: The DA did appear to be blind sided by Ms. Rowe's testimony on that issue.

_______________________

Gloria Allred: However, it should be noted that even though she said her statements on the rebuttal video were not scripted, she did testify that the interviewer had 105 prepared questions.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: How damaging to the prosecution was Debbie Rowe's testimony?

Gloria Allred: The defense obviously thought that her testimony was helpful to them rather than the prosecution because they initially made a motion to strike her testimony but at the end of the day withdrew their motion to strike. In summary, I think that it was somewhat damaging to the prosecution but it is by no means fatal to their case.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I've been following the case closely, and on one hand, I don't think the prosecution has done a great job of proving its case. But on the other, I can't help but think how unlikely it is that all of these prosecution witnesses would lie in order to send an innocent man to prison as a child molester, whether it's for money or revenge. Can the jury take this into account when deciding Jackson's fate? Should they?

Gloria Allred: The jury can always take into account the credibility of witnesses and in determining whether or not to believe them to think about what bias they may have when they testify. For example, Debbie Rowe clearly wants Michael Jackson to allow her to see her children. In fact, she's in litigation and is attempting to see them but to date has not been permitted to see them. Some people speculate that she may have wanted to help Michael Jackson in order to get him to change his mind about allowing her to visit with the children. She may have been telling the truth but the jury can take into account all of the facts and circumstances in weighing whether or not to believe what she says.

_______________________

Gloria Allred: She also characterized some of Jackson's associates as "opportunistic vultures" and appeared to suggest that they were just trying to profit from Michael Jackson. But she has no idea what the business arrangement is between those persons and Michael Jackson. So the jury can decide whether or not she really had any basis for reaching that conclusion.

_______________________

Gloria Allred: Since she had not even seen or spoken the Michael Jackson since 1999 with the exception of a 2 1/2 telephone conversation with him in 2003 wherein he asked her to participate in the rebuttal video and where she told him that she would like to visit the children. She also testified that Mr. Jackson is a brilliant businessman. So I think the jury could also conclude that he willingly associated with the persons that she called vultures and that he also was profiting from rebuttal video since there was testimony that he made over $1 million from it.

_______________________

Gaithersburg, Md.: Do you share my sense that this trial is... um, not going well for Mr. Jackson? Seems like once the past stuff was ruled able to come in, the prosecutor's case just got immensely stronger. How susceptible might that ruling be to appeal?

Gloria Allred: In California, under Section 1108 of our Evidence Code the court has the discretion to allow evidence of alleged prior bad acts if the court finds that it is in the interest of justice to do so. This is sometimes called propensity evidence. It is evidence that is admitted with a goal of corroborating allegations of child sexual abuse in the current pending case.

This particular evidence code section has been challenged in court but has been upheld by higher courts. Therefore, I think the likelihood of the Jackson defense teams being successful on appeal -- if there is a conviction -- is slim to none using that particular ground for appeal.

A prior bad act need not be an act that resulted in a criminal prosecution nor need it be an act that resulted in a civil law suit.

_______________________

Gloria Allred: I do think that the evidence that has been admitted in this case of alleged prior bad acts is damaging to Mr. Jackson if it is believed. If the jury finds that it believes those acts by a preponderance of the evidence then it can use those acts as corroboration for the current child molestation allegations.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: My wife thinks Debbie Rowe has been influenced by the Jackson camp by threats. I don't know, but I do wonder what the legal system can do to prevent such influence. Does anyone come to court without outside pressures?

Gloria Allred: She did not testify that there were any threats against her. I think with Debbie Rowe it appears to be more of a carrot rather than a stick approach. In other words, it was clear that she testified in answer to the question by the prosecutor, Mr. Zonen. He asked, "What was your motivation for participating in this interview?"

She answered, "To see my children."

The accuser's mother testified about threats so if they were to be believed, that would be the stick.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: What is the likely sentence for Jackson if convicted? Thank you.

Gloria Allred: It depends on what he is convicted of. In any case, he would face a number of years in prison.

_______________________

San Bernadino, Calif.: Ms. Allred, I know it would just be speculation but how many days do you expect the Jackson defense to go? And, take you best guess, will Jackson himself testify?

Gloria Allred: It's been reported that the defense might take two months but that would be a soft estimate. No one really knows. And the defense could always shorten or lengthen the defense, depending on how it goes.

It may also be that they will move to dismiss the conspiracy charges before they put their defense case on. If they were to be successul with that motion, it could significantly shorten the case.

As to Mr. Jackson's testimony, I think it's highly unlikely that he will testify. He did testify in a civil case in the last few years that was brought against him by a promoter who was alleging breach in contract and the jury obviously did not believe Mr. Jackson because they found against him and in favor of a promoter.

His defense attorney, Mr. Mesereau made an ambiguous statement in opening remarks about what he said Mr. Jackson would tell them. Some felt that this meant that Mr. Jackson himself would testify. But others felt that putting it this way gives Mr. Mesereau an out to later say that he's speaking for Michael Jackson and that his defense is what Mr. Jackson says.

Let's remember that O.J. Simpson invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and did not testify in the criminal case. However, he did testify in the civil case. The jury obviously did not believe his testimony and found against him in the civil case. This is one of the reasons that defendants do not testify. Scott Peterson did not testify and I think it's unlikely Michael Jackson will.

On the other hand, Mr. Jackson may decide to do it and take his chances. But I think that would only happen if the defense believes that the prosecution had presented an extremely strong case and that that was Mr. Jackson's only hope of saving himself.

I'm sure that Mr. Mesereau would recommend against it. The only question is whether Mr. Jackson will take his advice or not.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: I can't imagine that the prosecution feels good about how the trial has gone so far. Every one of their witnesses seems to have ulterior motives. The defense has shot gaping holes in almost all of their testimony. They seem to have dug themselves a hole, and the defense has even presented their case yet. Is this a case of over-zealous prosecutors trying to take down a celebrity?

Gloria Allred: Let's remember that there was a great deal of gloom and doom at the early stages of the case against Scott Peterson but ultimately there was a conviction for double murder and the prosecution prevailed despite vigorous defense attacks on prosecution witnesses.

We don't know what the outcome will be in this case. I think it's too early to predict a result.

You have a defendant who admits to sleeping in bed with young children who are unrelated to him and that defendant has allegations against him of child sexual abuse by another child who sued him and reportedly received a multimillion dollar settlement. In addition there are allegations of improper conduct against another child who is now an adult and a minister and who testified in this case. With this set of facts it is no surprise that Michael Jackson is being prosecuted. The only surprise would be if he weren't prosecuted with this set of facts.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: What's Michael Jackson look like in the courtroom?

Gloria Allred: Michael Jackson often appears frozen in place at the counsel table. He doesn't look back at the audience. When he stands up he is often blocked by his attorney from view. He appears as though he doesn't want to be seen. He comes in, of course, in what appears to be full makeup and long hair. He doesn't appear to look at the jury but he does look at the witnesses.

He did look at Debbie Rowe and she tried to speak to him through her testimony when she was asking him about which tours she'd been on with him and the prosecution rightly objected.

_______________________

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.