Official April 28 2005 thread

M

maintenant

New member
Originally posted by sistahlamb
This is really off topic but I don't really know why he thinks he has to dress like he's about to get married when he's really just going in a courtroom to sit and listen to all these idiots lie thier asses off. Not including Debbie though, she's at least telling the truth unlike every other witness.

Sorry to get off topic I'm just making a lighthearted comment not that it means anything.

Anyway, what else is Debbie supposed to testify about???
Click to expand...

Maybe somebody else already answered this about Michael's clothes, but I had read that Michael had a special clothing designer who was designing his outfits specifically for the trial. I'm not sure what Michael (or the clothing designer) has in mind with this, but to me it communicates the following things:

1. Michael is a totally unique individual (therefore don't judge him as if he were a common criminal, or even a common man).
2. Michael cares about every detail (and thus doesn't do stupid stuff or make mistakes or get into a mess or do something wrong).
3. Michael is elegant and refined with sophisticated tastes (so why would he be interested in sex with a little kid--BORING and UNEXCITING for a mega-star like this).
4. Michael is beautiful (and therefore a beautiful PERSON).
5. Michael thinks this whole trial is a sham and an ultimate waste of time, but if he has to go, he'll make the best of it (and entertain the equally-bored jury with his fascinating outfits).
6. Michael is memorable (and the one thing the jury will think about and remember when they are having their deliberations is "boy, he sure looked NICE!--what, THAT guy guilty, send him to PRISON, are you out of your mind, no way, Jose!"
 
M

MystiqueX2004

New member
Originally posted by koprulestheworld
According to a undecided poster on Court TV board, there is buzz in Santa Maria that the prosecution has a smoking gun?!

The "smoking gun" that people keep referring to is Rudy Provencio. Here's the run-down of what Sneddon said Rudy will testify about when called to the stand (taken from a recent court filing):

---
Provencio will testify he is familiar with Jackson's signature and initials and will authenticate that a work agreement worth hundreds of thousands of dollars was signed by both Jackson and Schaffel.

Provencio will testify that he personally faxed a document for Schaffel to Schaffel's attorney Thomas Byrne. The document conveys rights from Michael Jackson to Marc Schaffel for the song, "What More Can I Give."

A Neverland Valley Entertainment Balance Sheet for the song, "What More Can I Give" will provide circumstantial corroboration of Rudy Provencio's statements regarding the fact that Schaffel and Jackson were business partners.

Provencio will testify that e-mails were sent from Kathryn Milofsky to Schaffel about the February 2003 crisis. Ms. Milofsky is a media source for Schaffel that kept him informed about the scope of the disaster that was confronting Jackson during the LWMJ period.

Provencio will authenticate the handwriting of a document which contains notes about family and co-conspirators -- that the hand-writing is that of Marc Schaffel.

Provencio will authenticate that a hand-written message on the back of a FAX reads, "Take care of Janet and family $ - fund for children remain a family w/-him Make arrangement for vacation will I soon follow," was written by Marc Shaffel.

Provencio will testify that during the alleged conspiracy, two cars were rented to move the Arvizo family around (by Marc Schaffel)

Provencio will testify that the Britto Party was a party held at Neverland that was organized by Marc Schaffel in the fall of 2003. The prosecution seized a signed check to Paul Hugo for $50,000 pertaining to the Neverland party.
Click to expand...


All this testimony seems to prove is that Marc Schaffel was behind the majority of this not Michael..still doesn't really link Mike to this "conspiracy"...His name keeps coming up more that Mike's. He seems to be the one that was orchestrating everything..Based on this, I ask: "Why was Schaffel not indicted, seeing as he was the one who was obviously in control of these events??" :2thinking
 
M

maintenant

New member
Originally posted by HeavenSent
Since things are looking so good for Michael, now it's time for the haters to go full steam about Michael's surgeries, his "bleached" skin and his umbrella man. I mean, really go at it full steam.
Click to expand...

This post was so good, I laughed my head off! "I mean really, go at it full steam!" I love it--people like that are such losers, aren't they? That's REALLY what this whole trial is all about it, isn't it--losers, parasites, do-nothing nobodies who are envious of Michael and who want want he has, but won't do anything to go get money and achieve success on their own, they just want to rip HIM off. Why don't THEY work on a singing or songwriting career, learn to dance, get into show business, invest their money properly, go on "American Idol," I don't care, just DO something instead of hating and plotting and lying and sniping at somebody who has WORKED HIS BUTT OFF since the age of five.
 
I

IrishFaery

New member
Originally posted by Tiger Lilly
Thank you for the vid whisper!

You know, I feel like eating every bad thing I've been saying about Debbie these past few months. =s
Click to expand...
That's so sweet of you. I never understood why most people went on the attack when it came to her. Is it the custody case? I'll admit, I didn't (until now) quite understand her reasons for doing that. But then again, I don't understand why anyone in that situation would teeter totter in and out of children's lives. I do, however, get the impression that MJ is putting up a bit of a fight with this situation. Am I wrong about that? If not, I have to wonder why.

I for one would have been shocked out of my skull if she ever had a nasty thing to say about him. I always found her to be warm, genuine, and strong-willed. They had to have known she wasn't going to lie for them otherwise Sneddon would not have said what he did in his opening statement. I truly think the only purpose the prosecution had in calling her was to get into his sexuality and paternity business. I've been wondering for MONTHS why they needed to swab his mouth.
 
K

koprulestheworld

New member
Theodore J. Boutrous, an attorney for the news organizations filed an urgent request to a division of the appeals court Wednesday asking that documents be unsealed in a lawsuit against Michael Jackson by F. Marc Schaffel, one of the unindicted alleged co-conspirators in the criminal case.

Schaffel produced two TV specials in early 2003 meant to salvage Jackson's image. He claims in the breach-of-contract suit that he's still owed $800,000 of the $3 million promised him for the specials, and $2.3 million for payments and loans for Jackson over the past three years.

Superior Court Judge Jacqueline Connor was to hear arguments in the civil case on Thursday in closed court in Santa Monica. Media organizations including four TV networks, CNN and USA Today asked that the courtroom be open to the public, but Connor denied the request Wednesday without a hearing.

http://www.mjstar.net/
 
F

forevercametoday

New member
Originally posted by koprulestheworld
Theodore J. Boutrous, an attorney for the news organizations filed an urgent request to a division of the appeals court Wednesday asking that documents be unsealed in a lawsuit against Michael Jackson by F. Marc Schaffel, one of the unindicted alleged co-conspirators in the criminal case.

Schaffel produced two TV specials in early 2003 meant to salvage Jackson's image. He claims in the breach-of-contract suit that he's still owed $800,000 of the $3 million promised him for the specials, and $2.3 million for payments and loans for Jackson over the past three years.

Superior Court Judge Jacqueline Connor was to hear arguments in the civil case on Thursday in closed court in Santa Monica. Media organizations including four TV networks, CNN and USA Today asked that the courtroom be open to the public, but Connor denied the request Wednesday without a hearing.

http://www.mjstar.net/
Click to expand...


I've had just about enough of Schaffel...
 
K

koprulestheworld

New member
Sneddon will rest his case on Tuesday! No more witnesses for the day. Partial day tomorrow - Ian will testify (the guy that asked Rowe her questions during the rebuttal)

Will end their case with Rudy P.
 
T

Tiger Lilly

New member
Originally posted by IrishFaery
That's so sweet of you. I never understood why most people went on the attack when it came to her. Is it the custody case? I'll admit, I didn't (until now) quite understand her reasons for doing that. But then again, I don't understand why anyone in that situation would teeter totter in and out of children's lives. I do, however, get the impression that MJ is putting up a bit of a fight with this situation. Am I wrong about that? If not, I have to wonder why.

I for one would have been shocked out of my skull if she ever had a nasty thing to say about him. I always found her to be warm, genuine, and strong-willed. They had to have known she wasn't going to lie for them otherwise Sneddon would not have said what he did in his opening statement. I truly think the only purpose the prosecution had in calling her was to get into his sexuality and paternity business. I've been wondering for MONTHS why they needed to swab his mouth.
Click to expand...
Yeh, I think it was because of the custody claims, even though I didn't whole-heartedly believed the rumours. Also, I got a bit annoyed about her interview thingy, even though she never really said anything about Michael at all. It just seemed like she was using Michael's situation to cash in a bit by making the interview. Bad timing.

But hey, she's good in my book now. :D Sowwie Debs! :rose:
 
K

koprulestheworld

New member
Tmez must be slightly disappointed. He does not get to show his full skills. Sneddon left so little for him to do.

However, things aren't over till they are over.

KEEP THE FAITH.





TMEZ walks out of court like this :mjblue and the DA is seen in he parking lot doing this :sneddoncr
 
K

koprulestheworld

New member
Provencio will have to come to the stand with a video tape of Michael sitting down with his co-conspirators and giving them orders to keep this family in Brazil until it no longer rains in the rain forests.

Michael would have to stand up at a blackboard and fill in a flow chart showing how he wants the plot to unfold. He would then have to be seen handing out written directives to everyone present, reading the entire handout aloud into the camera, and calling on the co-conspirators as they raise their hands and he answers their questions.

Without such a tape, there will be reasonable doubt that a conspiracy ever existed, and Count #1 of the charges will be HIStory!
 
C

Cristine87

New member
Originally posted by whisper
Yeah, the prosecution annouced that it would rest it's case Tuesday of next week.
Click to expand...
About damn time! Wednesday, the defense gets to begin presenting their case. I'm too happy! So let me get this straight, & correct me if I'm wrong, the defense presents their case, then they do closing arguments & then the jury goes in to deleberate & comes out with a verdict?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top