sistahlamb
New member
There was alot of chaios on MJNO about what happened today at court with the judge changing that alchahol charge. But Wendy2004 from that forum posted something that I think sums this whole case up and I really think it's important.
Wendy2004 @ MJNO:
Guys, it's not a new charge. A couple of others explained it just as well. All this means is that if the jury doesn't believe the alcohol was given to Gavin to get him drunk for molestation, they could STILL believe MJ provided alcohol to him. BUT there was no proof or testimony provided by ANYONE in this case to say they saw MJ give this kid alcohol. No one even said, he had a tendency to give children in general alcohol. So why would the jury believe this. The only 2 people who ARE saying MJ gave Gavin alcohol is the brother and sister....both who were discredited on the subject of alcohol. Plus, they have a reason to lie and back their brother cuz they would ALL benefit from any civil suit Gavin filed against MJ. They've been caught lying on the subject of alcohol and the jury may wonder why they might lie about such a thing. Money. They all backed the Mother in her JC Penney's scam to say she was beaten and sexually assaulted...cuz the sexual assault allegation made the settlement amount go up. The jury might believe the family is back at it again (with their acting and lying schtick) only it's against MJ this time.
Now, this COULD also be a situation as easygoingeezer mentioned where the jury may think MJ DIDN'T give the child alcohol to molest him, NOR did he give him alcohol Period....BUT....they may think it was irresponsible of MJ to allow the child access to alcohol in his wine cellar. However, like another poster mentioned, MJ DID NOT have the wine cellar easily accessible to children. It was kept locked.....and a key was needed to open it. And even though Star testified on the stand that he didn't know where the key was....in his Grand Jury testimony (as Mez pointed out in court) he easily said that he DID know where the key was....and went on to describe that it was in the maid's room, on a hook. That's a lot of description for a kid who doesn't know were to find the key...lol. Seems like he DID know where to find the key....which means, he and his brother getting ahold of the key and getting into the wine cellar on their own, is NOT Michael's fault. In fact, they were caught in there while MJ was nowhere on the property.
In any case, this "lesser charge" is just a back up for the jury to get MJ with "something" if they want to. The issue is, even if they wanted to, I'd like to know how they could....when no witness other than the brother and sister claim to have seen MJ give Gavin alcohol. And MJ having a glass of wine while children are present is not illegal in any way....otherwise MANY parents should be convicted of having one at the dinner table with their kids. I mean, if they turned their backs for one minute and the child reaches over the table and takes a sip from their glass, is that punishable by law. How many parents relax and have a beer in the presence of their kids and leave their can unattended to answer the phone or take a potty break? That's madness to draw the conclusion that because MJ might drink wine while children are present, that he MUST be serving it to them as well. WTF??! Why does he have to be serving it to them? No one has testified that he has a tendency to serve kids alcohol. NO ONE!!
If they convict MJ of drinking in front of kids, then every adult/parent in the USA who have wine during dinner while their kids eat at the same table should be called up on charges for providing alcohol to those children?? It's ridiculous.
Now, about the "prior bad act"....it works both ways. If the jury uses it against MJ regarding molestation, they can also use it against the Mother with all her schemes and money-grubbing scams against others. So that one is a double edged sword. But I think there's more proof that the mother is a grifting swindler who coaches her kids to lie (JC Penney) and uses them and/or their illnesses to advance her scams. There's more of credible evidence presented by the defense to support that than anything shown by the State regarding 1108. In fact, 1108 was supposed to be admitted for the purposed of showing a "pattern"....yet no pattern in those obviously made-up instances match ANY of those being alleged here. NO alcohol, no porn, no kidnapping and hostage taking was alleged back then??
The only things that are the same is the molestation act, but it's not as if Gavin didn't know about Jordy's allegations. He mentioned Jordy when first "confessed" to Katz....who was the same therapist who worked on Jordy. And Katz only evaluated Gavin cuz Feldman suggeted he ummm get to the bottom of some *ahem* teasing* yeah, right. Feldman was the same lawyer who got the settlement for Jordy. So please, I think this kid has a ton of sources regarding Jordy's allegations....if he wanted to make them similar. And Lemme see, all Jason got was some life- scarring tickling? Tickling he just came up with after being badgered by the cops. There's a few things wrong with his story as well...if the jury takes the time to evaluate it beyond all the boohoo tears.
And I think the fact that Jordy didn't show up is ringing very loudly in the jury's ears. It's like a ghost in the room. All these 1108 people (all proven liars and thieves) showed up to talk about what they saw done to him, yet he's the only one who didn't come to back those liars up. And if they lied about what happened to Mac, Wade and Brett, the jurors just may think they're embellishing on the Jordy tales, too. I think the majority of the 1108 testimony from those 3rd party witnesses will be disregarded by the jurors. None of them could be believed. Even Jordy's mother saying MJ stayed overnight 30-50 nights with Jordy wasn't so bad. Seems Wade and Brett spent wayyyy MORE time than that and they're saying NOTHING happened to them. Go figure.
What I want to know is what decision was it that made Sneddon so upset with Melville that he leaned over to another attorney and said "We got screwed!!". I heard this was on Abrams Report but it's not repeating right now where I am so I can see it. They're showing a special report on something else. I soooo wanna know what decision was made that pissed Sneddon off so royaly. It had to be good for the defense...whatever it was. Anybody know?
Edit: Oh....and on the "lesser" alcohol charge, MJ would serve NO jail time. He would pay any fines and get community service. Yes, he would have a criminal record but lots of Hollywood has criminal records nowadays. And performing community service is something MJ knows how to do best. He can do a charity concert or something of that nature and be done with it. No sweat. Of course we want him to be spotless....but if the jury has to "get him" on something, that wouldn't be so bad if that's all they gave him. It's almost saying he was kinda negligent....but then again, if he's found guilty on that alcohol...even as a misdemeanor it's Friggin' lawsuit time. The Arvizo's can sue for that if not molestation. I guess Melville is still giving the family a way to capitalize from this BS....IF and that's IF the jury goes this way. They may thinks it's all BS and say not guilty to even the "lesser" charge. Like I said before, as well as others, even that wasn't proven. But if the jury has to save Sneddon's face and go with something, this "lesser" offense won't be THAT bad.
Pretty damn well said if U ask me....
Wendy2004 @ MJNO:
Guys, it's not a new charge. A couple of others explained it just as well. All this means is that if the jury doesn't believe the alcohol was given to Gavin to get him drunk for molestation, they could STILL believe MJ provided alcohol to him. BUT there was no proof or testimony provided by ANYONE in this case to say they saw MJ give this kid alcohol. No one even said, he had a tendency to give children in general alcohol. So why would the jury believe this. The only 2 people who ARE saying MJ gave Gavin alcohol is the brother and sister....both who were discredited on the subject of alcohol. Plus, they have a reason to lie and back their brother cuz they would ALL benefit from any civil suit Gavin filed against MJ. They've been caught lying on the subject of alcohol and the jury may wonder why they might lie about such a thing. Money. They all backed the Mother in her JC Penney's scam to say she was beaten and sexually assaulted...cuz the sexual assault allegation made the settlement amount go up. The jury might believe the family is back at it again (with their acting and lying schtick) only it's against MJ this time.
Now, this COULD also be a situation as easygoingeezer mentioned where the jury may think MJ DIDN'T give the child alcohol to molest him, NOR did he give him alcohol Period....BUT....they may think it was irresponsible of MJ to allow the child access to alcohol in his wine cellar. However, like another poster mentioned, MJ DID NOT have the wine cellar easily accessible to children. It was kept locked.....and a key was needed to open it. And even though Star testified on the stand that he didn't know where the key was....in his Grand Jury testimony (as Mez pointed out in court) he easily said that he DID know where the key was....and went on to describe that it was in the maid's room, on a hook. That's a lot of description for a kid who doesn't know were to find the key...lol. Seems like he DID know where to find the key....which means, he and his brother getting ahold of the key and getting into the wine cellar on their own, is NOT Michael's fault. In fact, they were caught in there while MJ was nowhere on the property.
In any case, this "lesser charge" is just a back up for the jury to get MJ with "something" if they want to. The issue is, even if they wanted to, I'd like to know how they could....when no witness other than the brother and sister claim to have seen MJ give Gavin alcohol. And MJ having a glass of wine while children are present is not illegal in any way....otherwise MANY parents should be convicted of having one at the dinner table with their kids. I mean, if they turned their backs for one minute and the child reaches over the table and takes a sip from their glass, is that punishable by law. How many parents relax and have a beer in the presence of their kids and leave their can unattended to answer the phone or take a potty break? That's madness to draw the conclusion that because MJ might drink wine while children are present, that he MUST be serving it to them as well. WTF??! Why does he have to be serving it to them? No one has testified that he has a tendency to serve kids alcohol. NO ONE!!
If they convict MJ of drinking in front of kids, then every adult/parent in the USA who have wine during dinner while their kids eat at the same table should be called up on charges for providing alcohol to those children?? It's ridiculous.
Now, about the "prior bad act"....it works both ways. If the jury uses it against MJ regarding molestation, they can also use it against the Mother with all her schemes and money-grubbing scams against others. So that one is a double edged sword. But I think there's more proof that the mother is a grifting swindler who coaches her kids to lie (JC Penney) and uses them and/or their illnesses to advance her scams. There's more of credible evidence presented by the defense to support that than anything shown by the State regarding 1108. In fact, 1108 was supposed to be admitted for the purposed of showing a "pattern"....yet no pattern in those obviously made-up instances match ANY of those being alleged here. NO alcohol, no porn, no kidnapping and hostage taking was alleged back then??
The only things that are the same is the molestation act, but it's not as if Gavin didn't know about Jordy's allegations. He mentioned Jordy when first "confessed" to Katz....who was the same therapist who worked on Jordy. And Katz only evaluated Gavin cuz Feldman suggeted he ummm get to the bottom of some *ahem* teasing* yeah, right. Feldman was the same lawyer who got the settlement for Jordy. So please, I think this kid has a ton of sources regarding Jordy's allegations....if he wanted to make them similar. And Lemme see, all Jason got was some life- scarring tickling? Tickling he just came up with after being badgered by the cops. There's a few things wrong with his story as well...if the jury takes the time to evaluate it beyond all the boohoo tears.
And I think the fact that Jordy didn't show up is ringing very loudly in the jury's ears. It's like a ghost in the room. All these 1108 people (all proven liars and thieves) showed up to talk about what they saw done to him, yet he's the only one who didn't come to back those liars up. And if they lied about what happened to Mac, Wade and Brett, the jurors just may think they're embellishing on the Jordy tales, too. I think the majority of the 1108 testimony from those 3rd party witnesses will be disregarded by the jurors. None of them could be believed. Even Jordy's mother saying MJ stayed overnight 30-50 nights with Jordy wasn't so bad. Seems Wade and Brett spent wayyyy MORE time than that and they're saying NOTHING happened to them. Go figure.
What I want to know is what decision was it that made Sneddon so upset with Melville that he leaned over to another attorney and said "We got screwed!!". I heard this was on Abrams Report but it's not repeating right now where I am so I can see it. They're showing a special report on something else. I soooo wanna know what decision was made that pissed Sneddon off so royaly. It had to be good for the defense...whatever it was. Anybody know?
Edit: Oh....and on the "lesser" alcohol charge, MJ would serve NO jail time. He would pay any fines and get community service. Yes, he would have a criminal record but lots of Hollywood has criminal records nowadays. And performing community service is something MJ knows how to do best. He can do a charity concert or something of that nature and be done with it. No sweat. Of course we want him to be spotless....but if the jury has to "get him" on something, that wouldn't be so bad if that's all they gave him. It's almost saying he was kinda negligent....but then again, if he's found guilty on that alcohol...even as a misdemeanor it's Friggin' lawsuit time. The Arvizo's can sue for that if not molestation. I guess Melville is still giving the family a way to capitalize from this BS....IF and that's IF the jury goes this way. They may thinks it's all BS and say not guilty to even the "lesser" charge. Like I said before, as well as others, even that wasn't proven. But if the jury has to save Sneddon's face and go with something, this "lesser" offense won't be THAT bad.
Pretty damn well said if U ask me....