He got Michael Jackson off of the charges against him, and now Michael Jackson’s lawyer is saying that he’s seeing significant issues in child molester Jerry Sandusky’s case.
Thomas Mesereau, who defended Michael Jackson against child molestation charges in 2005, has made some claims about the trial of former Penn State coach and convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky.
As seen on Radar Online, Jackson’s former lawyer compared Jackson to Sandusky.
Mesereau said, “Much of the public and the vast majority of the news media presumed that Jackson was guilty and that his defense was a lost cause… Jackson, like Jerry Sandusky, was charged with horrific acts… Like in [Sandusky’s trial], witnesses testified to sex acts in the shower and bedroom.”
Jackson’s lawyer then got around to explaining that the charges against Jackson eventually “fell apart,” with Jackson being found not guilty and that perhaps the same should have happened in Sandusky’s trial.
Jackson’s lawyer then stopped with the comparisons and shared exactly what he noticed in Sandusky’s trial.
“As a college football fan, I was both shocked and captivated by the developments surrounding Penn State’s football team in late 2011. A native of New Jersey, I loved Joe Paterno. Within days of the arrest of Jerry Sandusky and a suspiciously leaked grand jury presentment, both Paterno and university president Graham Spanier were fired without a hearing. This seemed wrong.”
Jackson’s lawyer then talked about how the firings seemed to be confirmation of Sandusky’s wrongdoing, making a conviction inevitable.
Jackson’s lawyer then points out, “This entire case appears to be an all or nothing proposition. Because the only non-victim eyewitness in the entire case against Sandusky (a then-graduate assistant coach named Mike McQueary) apparently claimed in the grand jury to have heard/seen a rape, there are only two reasonable scenarios: either there was indeed a cover-up at Penn State, or McQueary’s story is not true.”
As seen on Centre Daily, which has Mesereau’s entire statement, “Without McQueary, there appears to be no direct non-victim witness against Sandusky…all that really remains would be inconsistent testimony from men who ended up receiving (or are still pursuing) millions of dollars from Penn State.”
Jackson’s lawyer then goes on to seemingly blame the investigators, saying, “[I]t is almost certain that investigators used McQueary’s story to convince new accusers to come forward. The prospect of huge financial settlements from Penn State looming from very early on in the case could have easily incentivized testimony in a way few, if any, cases like this have ever seen.”
So, according to Jackson’s former lawyer, it was all about the money?
Finally, Mesereau states, “The Michael Jackson trial was littered with the testimony of people who had a financial incentive to exaggerate, embellish or worse. It was an embarrassment.”
The Los Angeles-based lawyer defended Michael Jackson in his 2005 trial after a 13-year-old boy accused Jackon of molestation and also of holding his family captive at Jackson’s Neverland Ranch.
[Photo Courtesy of Centre Daily]