Official April 11 2005 thread

[sistahlamb]

Yeah, I have yet to hear a single substansial news article all day since she testified.
My only guess is that she wasn't much of a witness for either sides.

 

[HeavenSent]

Dammit, she should have been worth something! I mean, she's the mother of Jordan, and no revelations?

All I've really heard was that she eventually allowed Jordan to share beds with Michael, after he allegedly begged her to, and that thereafter, Michael showered her w/gifts.

I'll have to go find the article.

Now if that's it... how frustrating.

 

[whisperAdmin]

Remember Dimond was going out of her way to claim that the "head licking" crap was "approved for accuracy" by Jones? Well it doesn't seem that was true (I'm shocked....not) unless Jones was too damn wishy washy. Anyway, here's a clip from the cross-examination:

• 5544
  24 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Jones, I'm showing you
  25 what has been marked as Exhibit No. 803, okay? Do
  26 you see that?
  27 A. Uh-huh.
  28 Q. That starts off with a title that you said
  
  5545
  1 is not accurate and has not been approved, correct?
  2 A. That is correct.
  3 Q. And you told the prosecutor you had written
  4 the words at the bottom of the page that refer to
  5 licking, right?
  6 A. Uh-huh.
  7 Q. And is it your testimony that you have not
  8 approved the accuracy of that statement?
  9 A. That is correct.

But I really think the jury is going to look at Jones and say 'Damn, Jackson can't even trust people who have worked for him for decades without them trying to cash in.'

 

[HeavenSent]

Here we go w/the head licking. We need not only Bob Jones to get that spinster to shut up about it, we need the Mama to get caught up and say it wasn't true, too.


ugh, I can't stand dimond.

 

[jukugurl]

he is writting a book , a sensational book. his email may have said head licking just to throw that into the book. sensationalism does not mean "true" it only means based on things heard or interpreted. He may say he say but does not necessarily mean it's true but he borrowed someone else's language and instead of writting in third person he is writting in the first person. Licking head is not a sueable offence or libel or slanderous but a dramatic enhancement which in the literary community means dramatic license. Remember Kitty Kelly, she ever sued? She uses the same practice.

Many years ago I was interviewed by a newspaper columnist on an inocuos subject next day (less than 24 hrs later) it was totally different but the basic gist was captured.

 

[SpecialJanet25]

Originally posted by whisper
Remember Dimond was going out of her way to claim that the "head licking" crap was "approved for accuracy" by Jones? Well it doesn't seem that was true (I'm shocked....not) unless Jones was too damn wishy washy. Anyway, here's a clip from the cross-examination:

• 5544
  24 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Jones, I'm showing you
  25 what has been marked as Exhibit No. 803, okay? Do
  26 you see that?
  27 A. Uh-huh.
  28 Q. That starts off with a title that you said
  
  5545
  1 is not accurate and has not been approved, correct?
  2 A. That is correct.
  3 Q. And you told the prosecutor you had written
  4 the words at the bottom of the page that refer to
  5 licking, right?
  6 A. Uh-huh.
  7 Q. And is it your testimony that you have not
  8 approved the accuracy of that statement?
  9 A. That is correct.

But I really think the jury is going to look at Jones and say 'Damn, Jackson can't even trust people who have worked for him for decades without them trying to cash in.'

Yeah, Dimond got her head struck in a tuba, so everyone can lick her ass. :lol:

 

[HeavenSent]

Originally posted by jukugurl
he is writting a book , a sensational book. his email may have said head licking just to throw that into the book. sensationalism does not mean "true" it only means based on things heard or interpreted. He may say he say but does not necessarily mean it's true but he borrowed someone else's language and instead of writting in third person he is writting in the first person. Licking head is not a sueable offence or libel or slanderous but a dramatic enhancement which in the literary community means dramatic license. Remember Kitty Kelly, she ever sued? She uses the same practice.

Michael licking the boy's head is a freakin' sticking point. Michael's being accused of a crime, whether it's just sensationalism or not, it's dangerous.

 

[Cristine87]

The whole issue of Michael licking some boy's just seems so stupid! You mean to tell me that no one, not even the mother did anything about the situation but the suspected it? How the hell is that? How convenient for Michael that everyone just sort of looked the other way & didn't do anything about the situation, but now all of a sudden, all these people are just bombarding the stand eager to tell there story. I find that amazing!

 

[SpecialJanet25]

MJJSource just posted this up http://www.mjjsource.com
Day 29: 1993 Accuser’s Mother Admits She Never Witnessed Any Molestation


Created: Monday, 11 April 2005

Day 29 brought the mother of a boy who received a settlement from Michael Jackson in 1993 to the stand.
After the boy received a reported multimillion-dollar settlement from Mr. Jackson, he did not cooperate in a law enforcement investigation, nor does he intend to now. No charges were ever filed against Mr. Jackson in the matter. She admitted that she never witnessed any molestation or improper acts between Mr. Jackson and her son.

The woman's now 25-year-old son is not expected to testify at Mr. Jackson's trial in the California town of Santa Maria. The woman is one of the most important witnesses to be called by prosecutors to testify to previous alleged abuse of five young boys by Mr. Jackson, although she admitted that she had not spoken to her son for 11 years.

The question remains whether her son will not speak to her because he is upset over what allegedly happened between himself and Mr. Jackson or perhaps whether he is upset at the allegations that he was possibly forced to bring against Mr. Jackson, thereby forever altering his life, his privacy and his future.

Earlier Monday, another witness surprised the prosecution by saying he did not remember seeing the pop star lick the same boy's head during a long flight in the early 1990s, but he later reversed himself and said it must have happened after being confronted with an e-mail he wrote.

The extremely consistent pattern of prosecution witnesses having memory lapses continued as former Michael Jackson publicist Bob Jones initially testified that "I don't recall ever seeing any head licking" by Mr. Jackson on the flight from Paris to Los Angeles.

Prosecutor Gordon Auchincloss then read a proposed passage from a book Jones is writing that stated that Mr. Jackson licked the boy's head.

Prosecutors claim Mr. Jackson also licked the head of a boy who now accuses Mr. Jackson of molesting him in early 2003.

Bob Jones was fired by Mr. Jackson a year ago. Reportedly, Jones was very angry about the termination.

Under cross-examination by defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr., Jones said that passages he writes are completed by a co-writer, MSNBC correspondent, Stacy Brown, and then reviewed. Jones said he had not reviewed the passage and it was inaccurate.

Jones was only the most recent prosecution witness to surprise prosecutors. For example, former Mr. Jackson former house manager Jesus Salas had told investigators that he brought wine to Mr. Jackson and several boys, but said on the stand that he had just remembered that he brought soda as well as wine.

Source: MJJsource / AP / AFP

 

[Anonymous]

>_> that still doesn't tell us anything! Was she not cross examined?!

!!

 

[HeavenSent]

Originally posted by Cristine87
...all these people are just bombarding the stand eager to tell there story. I find that amazing!

It's this driving need to slander Michael left and right, and it's starts with the prosecution. The ringleader. I have no reasonable explantion, except that they feel the best way to stick it to Michael is to plant the sentiment that he's freak and a sick man. They do it with lies, and with repetition.

I truly don't believe any of those people think that their testimony is so iron clad that it cannot be refuted, there's no way in hell.

Otherwise, how the hell can they get up their and admit to flat out lying. it's beginning to look like it's their m.o. as a witnesses for the prosecution. One day say one thing, the next day, it's out w/the truth. They're willing to risk their own reps for this.

It's plain crazy.

 

[SpecialJanet25]

Originally posted by NevaehDreamz
>_> that still doesn't tell us anything! Was she not cross examined?!

!!

Good Question! A least we know something. I guess we have to wait until will see the court transcript.

 

[SpecialJanet25]

Originally posted by HeavenSent
It's this driving need to slander Michael left and right, and it's starts with the prosecution. The ringleader. I have no reasonable explantion, except that they feel the best way to stick it to Michael is to plant the sentiment that he's freak and a sick man. They do it with lies, and with repetition.

I truly don't believe any of those people think that their testimony is so iron clad that it cannot be refuted, there's no way in hell.

Otherwise, how the hell can they get up their and admit to flat out lying. it's beginning to look like it's their m.o. as a witnesses for the prosecution. One day say one thing, the next day, it's out w/the truth. They're willing to risk their own reps for this.

It's plain crazy.

Plain crazy indeed. It like people are praying to see Michael Jackson's downfall. For what reasons? Possibly jealous, and of course, GREED!

 

[Cristine87]

I'm so confident that Michael will be vindicated, there's just too much reasonable doubt in this case & could you just imagine what'll happen when the defense presents their case? So help Sneddon, he ain't gonna know where to put his head.

 

[dangerous]

I wish i knew the method to Mez' beautiful madness. Will some of these past 1108 witness' be recalled?

 

[megan23]

Well this crazy ass mother testimony is everywhere but where in the hell is the cross? :extremely Has anyone found out anything about the cross? Was it that good or was it not that good? The whole thirty nights in the kids room though not good for Mike, please don't kill me guys but it just don't LOOK right. I totally believe in Mike's innocence but you know that couldn't have set well with the jurors, especially the moms on this jury. I just pray and hope T-mez can maybe show those two were romantically involved or something, that would go a long way in explaining his constant presence and it could show she was lying to cover that aspect up.... if you really look closely the story doesn't make sense, what mom in their right mind would let a grown man spend the night in her teenage's son room? I mean come on :ahha but you know a lie told so many times people sometimes start to believe as the truth, here's hoping the jurors are smart and have tons of common sense :goodtalki

 

[Cristine87]

Originally posted by megan23
I just pray and hope T-mez can maybe show those two were romantically involved or something

Show who was romantically involved?

 

[dangerous]

Originally posted by megan23
Well this crazy ass mother testimony is everywhere but where in the hell is the cross? :extremely Has anyone found out anything about the cross? Was it that good or was it not that good? The whole thirty nights in the kids room though not good for Mike, please don't kill me guys but it just don't LOOK right. I totally believe in Mike's innocence but you know that couldn't have set well with the jurors, especially the moms on this jury. I just pray and hope T-mez can maybe show those two were romantically involved or something, that would go a long way in explaining his constant presence and it could show she was lying to cover that aspect up.... if you really look closely the story doesn't make sense, what mom in their right mind would let a grown man spend the night in her teenage's son room? I mean come on :ahha but you know a lie told so many times people sometimes start to believe as the truth, here's hoping the jurors are smart and have tons of common sense :goodtalki

that was direct testimony, and her story does not make sense. Do you honestly think that MJ or anyone would fly and stay at someones house, sleep in the bed with their son, and then leave in the morning? Its not logical. This is why i wish i could figure out Mez' game plan. Even with the Chacon witness, i feel there were so many questions unanswered. Id like to know of 1108 witnesses can be recalled. Linking them romantically isnt necesary, exposing her for the lying low life skany ass money grabbin child pimping whore, IS.

 

[megan23]

Christine I am sorry I didn't clarify more, I was refrerring to June and Mike, I heard a RUMOR on another board that Mez will try to show that in his defense that the reason Mike was around so much and went to a wedding with the family was because they were romantically together. I don't know if they is ANY truth to that just something I heard....I was just thinking that if that WAS true it could really dispell a alot of the innuendo concerning her testimony today. I am with the last poster I do hope they recall her later on in their case and really drop some bombs opcorn

 

[dangerous]

I think Joe Jackson said something in his book about them being linked as a couple. Whatever, shes a lying whore, theres a dark place in hell waiting for her.