Jim Avila Answers Your Questions on the Michael Jackson Trial (5/10/05)

Michael Jackson's defense team is now presenting their case, after the prosecution spent 10 weeks taking the lead in court. Jackson, 46, has pleaded not guilty to charges that he molested a 13-year-old cancer survivor and plied the boy with alcohol.

What were some of the key moments as the prosecution presented their case? Here is a selection of your questions with answers provided by ABC News' lead Jackson reporter Jim Avila and field producer Tarana Harris.

1. Simon in Sweden asks: Do you think the prosecution has done a good job in proving their case?

Avila: Unfortunately, Simon it's not my role to give that kind of overall critique. Here is what I can say; the prosecution has had several problems with their witnesses. From Debbie Rowe who praised Jackson on the stand and said he was a victim, not the center of the conspiracy... to the accuser's mother whose erratic personality made her a less than sympathetic witness.

On other hand they have had a couple of major successes ... the mother of the 1993 victim who settled with Mr. Jackson for more than $20 million was a home run witness. She was strong and sympathetic in many ways.

And the other young man who actually took the witness stand was strong as well in his first hand testimony of alleged molestation.

Overall, most courtroom observers seem to believe that the conspiracy charge has been difficult to prove. Difficult to put Jackson at the center of it, and difficult for the jury to believe that a family that went to the movies, beauty salon and shopping was really falsely imprisoned. And the molestation charges are basically "he said, he said" -- one person's word over another. The critical question is did the other boys testimony allowed under California law tip the balance one way or another.

2. Why did the prosecution present its witnesses in the order that it did? You'd think they would have wanted to end with the testimony about the prior similar allegations Jackson instead of the weak evidence about conspiracy.

Avila: There was some logic in it. First, the judge told prosecutors before trial, that before he would allow 1108 witnesses, (witnesses who would testify Jackson had committed previous bad acts that prove a pattern of child molestation) he wanted to hear their "case in chief". In other words he wanted to make sure they had some evidence of the current molestation, before allowing previous boys to tell their unproven stories.

So the prosecution had to start out with their theory of what happened — starting with Martin Bashir, and then move to the accuser and his family.

Finally, I think they were surprised by a few of their conspiracy witnesses and felt they would be stronger, and ending with Debbie Rowe and an insider Rudy Provencio seemed like a good idea. When Rowe backfired, it no longer seemed like a good strategy. But if she had testified to what they thought she would, it could have been quite effective to end with Jackson's wife telling stories about their marriage.