Cristine87
New member
:lol: Man, that is just ****ed up!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Official April 26th 2005 Thread
- Thread starter -MyAngelMJ-
- Start date
sistahlamb
New member
haha yeah thats funny.
Anyway, I wish that whole "manhandling allegation" isn't brought up agian. he's moved on with his life and he's not suing anybody regarding that allegation as far as I know.
I wish I knew what his motivation for making such an allegation if it wasn't true???
Oh well, it has nothing to do with this case and I thought everybody could have moved on from that whole fiasco.
As for Debbie Rowe testifying tomorrow, again, Ramone Baine said on Larry King last night that Michael is not nervous about her testimony. I'm sure the defence is well prepared to cross exam. her.
Anyway, I wish that whole "manhandling allegation" isn't brought up agian. he's moved on with his life and he's not suing anybody regarding that allegation as far as I know.
I wish I knew what his motivation for making such an allegation if it wasn't true???
Oh well, it has nothing to do with this case and I thought everybody could have moved on from that whole fiasco.
As for Debbie Rowe testifying tomorrow, again, Ramone Baine said on Larry King last night that Michael is not nervous about her testimony. I'm sure the defence is well prepared to cross exam. her.
SOmething interesting was said by Montgomery. SHe said after watching Jackson with Ed Bradley and claiming to be hurt with handcuffs she contacted Santa Barbara SHerrifs Office.
I wonder , did Sneddon have her act a a covert operator like he tried with the Part time security guard at neverland who works fulltime for the police.
I wonder , did Sneddon have her act a a covert operator like he tried with the Part time security guard at neverland who works fulltime for the police.
To be honest, you don't know that it wasn't true b/c it hasn't been investigated to the fullest extent.I wish I knew what his motivation for making such an allegation if it wasn't true???
Cristine87
New member
Yeah, that's just it. I heard some court reporter saying that the prosecution can catch Michael in a lie & ruin his credibility if they ask him about the police brutality. The whole issue wasn't even really investigated for people to be saying weather it's true or not.Originally posted by whisper
To be honest, you don't know that it wasn't true b/c it hasn't been investigated to the fullest extent.
sistahlamb
New member
There's something I've been wondering about for the past few days about Debbie Rowes testimony.
I've heard alot of stuff about the prosecution wanting to question her about how her and Michael's kids were concieved and his sexuality.
The reason they want to question about the econception of the kids is to somehow prove that they were concieved by artifical insemination.
Will testimony about this be allowed in her testimony???
I've heard alot of stuff about the prosecution wanting to question her about how her and Michael's kids were concieved and his sexuality.
The reason they want to question about the econception of the kids is to somehow prove that they were concieved by artifical insemination.
Will testimony about this be allowed in her testimony???
ThrillerFan
New member
Originally posted by sistahlamb
There's something I've been wondering about for the past few days about Debbie Rowes testimony.
I've heard alot of stuff about the prosecution wanting to question her about how her and Michael's kids were concieved and his sexuality.
The reason they want to question about the econception of the kids is to somehow prove that they were concieved by artifical insemination.
Will testimony about this be allowed in her testimony???
When arguing the validity of approving the motion to allow Debbie to testify, the prosecution seemed to make it pretty clear that her testimony would be strictly limited to her involvement in the rebuttal video. Plus, according to California law, I understand that she cannot legally discuss anything discussed between her and Michael during the course of their marriage. She can only legally talk about things said before or after the marriage or anything she saw or did during the marriage, but nothing discussed. It's similar to the sort of privilege that exists between an attorney and a client or a priest and a confessor.
-Matt
MystiqueX2004
New member
Originally posted by sistahlamb
There's something I've been wondering about for the past few days about Debbie Rowes testimony.
I've heard alot of stuff about the prosecution wanting to question her about how her and Michael's kids were concieved and his sexuality.
The reason they want to question about the econception of the kids is to somehow prove that they were concieved by artifical insemination.
Will testimony about this be allowed in her testimony???
I doubt that this will be allowed in her testimony because the judge already said that he would find ways to restrict her testimony. The parentage of the children have nothing to do with this case at all. so most likely, he will not allow it, or sustain a defense objection to that part of her testimony.
okay the comment I made earlier about Mike being broke I was just being sacrastic, that's all! I didn't mean to offend anyone here. I totally believe in Mike's innocence. As for the 2,000 dollars comment I actually heard that from savannah guthrie on court tv, she said t-mez brought that out on cross right before court ended. Again sorry if I offended the trial is just getting on my nerves and humor sometimes is my way to deal with it.
when debbie rowe was selling her ring on ebay she said a couple of things to fans something like ''don't worry. you dont know the whole truth yet wait til it comes out in court. i wish michael all the best'' or something. so i don't think she'll be going up there with the intent of saying damaging things. maybe there is more to come out that we dont yet know about
Tiger Lilly
New member
LOL that cracked me up! :lol:Me: Hi, Michael! I'm a huge fan!
Michael: Yeah, that's nice, Sign here!
Why is the man-handling stuff being brought up again? Montgomery needs to sit her sleazy a$s down. Like Christine87 said, how would she know whether Michael was man-handled or in pain enless she was there when he was arrested? And besides, what does that prove about this "case"? It just gets further and further away from "molestation". Sneddumb's trying to sway it because he knows that allegation just won't stick.
Debbie today... can't say I'm worried at all. *yawn*