Official hearing thread.
Official Jan 12 2005 Hearing
- Thread starter whisperAdmin
- Start date
HeavenSent
New member
So what's on the agenda today?
>> MSNBC : Valez-Mitchell talks about Jan 12 hearing
Version: .wmv
Submitted Date: 2005/1/12
Edit This DownloadDescription:
Air date: Jan 12 2005
Valez-Mitchell says the judge has pretty much been ruling in the favor of the prosecution, so the hearing may be open as prosecutors have requested
-talks about secrecy
-says defense is arguing that it is unfair if you have a parade of these disgruntled ex-employees trying to tell the alleged stories of these boys without Jackson having a right to confront or defense against these accusations
-(my note: in some cases, none of these people have even alleged or accused Jackson of anything. So prosecutors want to call people to talk about speculation in some instancs where the actual person has never even accused Jackson of anything)
-says defense says only 1 of these people are even scheduled to testify
-says a lot of people are saying that prosecutors have a weak case if they have to go back so far
-talks a little about the mother's scam for money
-says this family's credibility is at issue
3.98 MB
Version: .wmv
Submitted Date: 2005/1/12
Edit This DownloadDescription:
Air date: Jan 12 2005
Valez-Mitchell says the judge has pretty much been ruling in the favor of the prosecution, so the hearing may be open as prosecutors have requested
-talks about secrecy
-says defense is arguing that it is unfair if you have a parade of these disgruntled ex-employees trying to tell the alleged stories of these boys without Jackson having a right to confront or defense against these accusations
-(my note: in some cases, none of these people have even alleged or accused Jackson of anything. So prosecutors want to call people to talk about speculation in some instancs where the actual person has never even accused Jackson of anything)
-says defense says only 1 of these people are even scheduled to testify
-says a lot of people are saying that prosecutors have a weak case if they have to go back so far
-talks a little about the mother's scam for money
-says this family's credibility is at issue
3.98 MB
HeavenSent
New member
I like her comments.
HeavenSent
New member
Also I wanted to add:
Disgruntled ex employees. pfst. Yeah, that makes them REAL credible.
once again, if their jacked up stories are true, Jackson should have been indicted. Stupid. What would them coming forward in '05 do?
Disgruntled ex employees. pfst. Yeah, that makes them REAL credible.
HeavenSent
New member
This can be moved if need be.
Journalist who made documentary subpoenaed
By Quintin Cushner/Staff Writer
Prosecutors have subpoenaed the journalist whose documentary led to charges that Michael Jackson was having a sexual relationship with a 13-year-old boy.
Television reporter Martin Bashir has been ordered to appear March 1 at Superior Court in Santa Maria to answer questions about his controversial program "Living with Michael Jackson."
"The witness is material on the issue of the production, editing and displaying of the video documentary," Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville wrote in certifying the prosecution's subpoena.
Bashir produced the program for Granada TV, but is currently employed by ABC News. He was served with the subpoena Jan. 4 in New York City by staff from the New York County Prosecuting Attorney's Office.
Court documents released Tuesday did not reveal if the journalist has agreed to appear. If he complies with the subpoena, the prosecution will pay him the standard $20 a day plus expenses for his appearance as a witness.
Bashir's documentary aired in England on Feb. 3, 2003 and three days later in the United States. The program showed Jackson holding hands with the boy and included the singer's acknowledgment that he shared a bed with children.
After Bashir's documentary aired, a public backlash against the singer ensued. Jackson and his representatives tried to control the negative publicity by gathering positive statements from the accuser and his family as part of a "rebuttal video."
Prosecutors allege that as Jackson worked to secure the testimonials, he kept the accuser and his family at his 2,700-acre Neverland Valley Ranch in the Santa Ynez Valley against the will of the accuser's mother. Jackson also allegedly molested the boy and gave him alcohol during this time.
Jackson, 46, has pleaded not guilty to four counts of engaging in lewd acts with the unnamed boy and four counts of administering alcohol to help him with the alleged molestations. He also has pleaded not guilty to a conspiracy charge involving child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion, and a count of attempted child molestation.
The defense vehemently denies the accusations, and has argued that the accuser and his family were treated well by Jackson.
Jackson is scheduled to stand trial Jan. 31.
A hearing has been scheduled for today to determine if past uncharged allegations of sexual misconduct against the singer are admissible at trial.
* Staff writer Quintin Cushner can be reached at 739-2217 or by e-mail at qcushner@pulitzer.net.
Jan. 12, 2005
http://www.santamariatimes.com/articles/20...raffic/8470.txt
How dumb. So exactly what's Bashir gonna say? What CAN he say?
Journalist who made documentary subpoenaed
By Quintin Cushner/Staff Writer
Prosecutors have subpoenaed the journalist whose documentary led to charges that Michael Jackson was having a sexual relationship with a 13-year-old boy.
Television reporter Martin Bashir has been ordered to appear March 1 at Superior Court in Santa Maria to answer questions about his controversial program "Living with Michael Jackson."
"The witness is material on the issue of the production, editing and displaying of the video documentary," Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville wrote in certifying the prosecution's subpoena.
Bashir produced the program for Granada TV, but is currently employed by ABC News. He was served with the subpoena Jan. 4 in New York City by staff from the New York County Prosecuting Attorney's Office.
Court documents released Tuesday did not reveal if the journalist has agreed to appear. If he complies with the subpoena, the prosecution will pay him the standard $20 a day plus expenses for his appearance as a witness.
Bashir's documentary aired in England on Feb. 3, 2003 and three days later in the United States. The program showed Jackson holding hands with the boy and included the singer's acknowledgment that he shared a bed with children.
After Bashir's documentary aired, a public backlash against the singer ensued. Jackson and his representatives tried to control the negative publicity by gathering positive statements from the accuser and his family as part of a "rebuttal video."
Prosecutors allege that as Jackson worked to secure the testimonials, he kept the accuser and his family at his 2,700-acre Neverland Valley Ranch in the Santa Ynez Valley against the will of the accuser's mother. Jackson also allegedly molested the boy and gave him alcohol during this time.
Jackson, 46, has pleaded not guilty to four counts of engaging in lewd acts with the unnamed boy and four counts of administering alcohol to help him with the alleged molestations. He also has pleaded not guilty to a conspiracy charge involving child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion, and a count of attempted child molestation.
The defense vehemently denies the accusations, and has argued that the accuser and his family were treated well by Jackson.
Jackson is scheduled to stand trial Jan. 31.
A hearing has been scheduled for today to determine if past uncharged allegations of sexual misconduct against the singer are admissible at trial.
* Staff writer Quintin Cushner can be reached at 739-2217 or by e-mail at qcushner@pulitzer.net.
Jan. 12, 2005
http://www.santamariatimes.com/articles/20...raffic/8470.txt
How dumb. So exactly what's Bashir gonna say? What CAN he say?
DirtyDiana87
New member
They are gonna call him to testify. Oh boy!
Heather~
Heather~
DirtyDiana87
New member
I agree with Heaven Sent. This is unreal.
Heather~
Heather~
HeavenSent
New member
Like that helps the prosecution. Bashir is already on record saying "positive" things about Michael so how the hell does Sneddon feel that bolsters their case?
And Martin, IF he agrees to testify can't say he was suspcious of Michael because then question arises: why didn't he do/say something?
And Martin, IF he agrees to testify can't say he was suspcious of Michael because then question arises: why didn't he do/say something?
MJPowerOfLove
New member
damn, again this mutant 
Tabloid Junkie
New member
:laughOriginally posted by MJPowerOfLove
damn, again this mutant
Anyways....Bashir betrayed MJ after the documentary was aired. But if Bashir saw any misconduct, I'm sure he would have addressed that....so in other words...this means nothing.
RottenBlackRoses
New member
this is all f.ucked up.........I SO HATE THAT GUY!!!!!!!!! MIchael should've never trusted him. And yeah that was very smart of Michael recording Bashit saying really good things about him lol. Michael ain't stupid ..Bashit gonna look like an idiot. I like to kick that bitch in his shit.
MethadonePretty
New member
What exactly is he going to say that isn't already well documented on tape?
The operative words there are "a public backlash ensued." Now we're suppose to believe MJ said, 'well they're accusing me of awful things, quick, let me grab this boy."
This is bull___. Mike is innocent and will be exonerated. If Sneddon was a man he'd
send Janet and the kids home and admit he had a dog that just wouldn't hunt.
This is bull___. Mike is innocent and will be exonerated. If Sneddon was a man he'd
send Janet and the kids home and admit he had a dog that just wouldn't hunt.
A.Beautiful.Mind
New member
I'm not worried in the slightest. Martin Bashir has already released an account of his experience with Michael. After the "take two" documentary, bashir released a statement declaring that he never suspected any illegality on Michael's part. If Bashir is subpoenaed, and if he contradicts himself then his testimony should be classed as objectionable.
~Jamie~
~Jamie~
InspirationMoonwalks
New member
Blah.. :bs But I'm not too terribly worried, to be honest. After all, the man is ON THE RECORD saying that he NEVER was witness to any inappropriate behavior on Michael's behalf in regards to the accuser or any other kid. Therefore, any remarks he may make of a different nature shouldn't hold much weight...
A
Anonymous
Guest
?????
About today's hearing:
The judge ruled NOT to rule yet. Let me explain from what Dimond said:
It was kind of convoluted what she said. Something about the judge making Sneddon put on this current "case" in its entirety and then having a hearing to decide on whether this 1108 information will come in. And yea DImond did say that the judge needed to actually hear what these people would say and he couldn't just take the prosecution's word for it (although she said "attorneys" instead of just saying prosecutors b/c they are the ones alleging this mess).
Either way, she seemed to be trying to find a ray of light for prosecutors, so it must not have gone too well for them.
The judge ruled NOT to rule yet. Let me explain from what Dimond said:
It was kind of convoluted what she said. Something about the judge making Sneddon put on this current "case" in its entirety and then having a hearing to decide on whether this 1108 information will come in. And yea DImond did say that the judge needed to actually hear what these people would say and he couldn't just take the prosecution's word for it (although she said "attorneys" instead of just saying prosecutors b/c they are the ones alleging this mess).
Either way, she seemed to be trying to find a ray of light for prosecutors, so it must not have gone too well for them.
HeavenSent
New member
EDIT
A
Anonymous
Guest
Im lost...:laugh