Man, something really must be up if he didn't just say 'yes' to the prosecution. I believe he may be trying to protect Sneddon from something around 1993 that he doesn't even want to get into if he doesn't have to. I just think it's astonishing that he just didn't say 'yeah, Snuffy you can have what you want'.
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 Jan 12 2005 Hearing
- Thread starter whisperAdmin
- Start date
A
Anonymous
Guest
Yea, very interesting...
So does that mean this hearing was pointless...what else was there to discuss?
So does that mean this hearing was pointless...what else was there to discuss?
the judge has ruled not to rule? could the railroading going on be anymore obvious. jeez. Why does Melville need to hear waht they say, its either he allows past allegations or he doesnt. and Martin Bashir being payed to testify? I thought he called MJs union with children magical and spiritual, lol. ahh, whatever.
We don't know anything else yet. All we have is Dimond running out to the camera to talk about a specific ruling. I don't know what else is going on or what else has gone on. None of the other reporters from the other networks have come on to give an update just yet.
Well one person at MJJF suggested that Melville may be trying to protect Sneddon by screening these people's testimony: If they come across as believable,then he'll let it in. If they don't come across as unbelievable, he won't let it in.Originally posted by dangerous
the judge has ruled not to rule? could the railroading going on be anymore obvious. jeez. Why does Melville need to hear waht they say, its either he allows past allegations or he doesnt. and Martin Bashir being payed to testify? I thought he called MJs union with children magical and spiritual, lol. ahh, whatever.
So that may be what he's trying to do. Or he could be spooked by what the defense dug up on these 1993 fools and want to give the prosecution further time to look for alleged accusers.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Originally posted by whisper
Well one person at MJJF suggested that Melville may be trying to protect Sneddon by screening these people's testimony: If they come across as believable,then he'll let it in. If they don't come across as unbelievable, he won't let it in.
So that may be what he's trying to do. Or he could be spooked by what the defense dug up on these 1993 fools and want to give the prosecution further time to look for alleged accusers.
:nonono:
It's one of them, you know he's not really worried about tainting the jury pool. That doesn't make sense
So he'll decide after the trial starts? That's bullshit. IMO, it makes it harder on the defense. If he said no, then they wouldn't have to worry about working in depth on that 'case'. If he said yes, then they could get all the information they needed and begin to work on deciding who to call and such.
Fool.
danaluvsmj
New member
Did the defense happen to bring up the info that was leaked on the smoking gun? Because that went against the gag order and I think that should be accounted for.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Originally posted by danaluvsmj
Did the defense happen to bring up the info that was leaked on the smoking gun? Because that went against the gag order and I think that should be accounted for.
It is not known who leaked it. Thought it most likely was the prosecution...it can't be proven. So there is no one to put the blame on.
MsTenda Tody, 02:34 PM
I have two on site reports from MJJF Investigates and The Justice System:
1. Melville stated that the prosecution must put on the entire case without any past incidents. Once that is done, he will consider the 1108. Basically, as I am told, the is a PUT UP, or SHUT UP against the prosecution. They MUST put on the current case.
2. Court is over - next date, Jan 21. 2005
3. Jury voidere (don't know if I spelled that right) will be in OPEN COURT.
4. The Justicesystem.net will have a FULL report, which includes an interview with the media attorney.
5. This has been a great day for the defense.
Source: MJJF I-Unit/The Justice System.
I have two on site reports from MJJF Investigates and The Justice System:
1. Melville stated that the prosecution must put on the entire case without any past incidents. Once that is done, he will consider the 1108. Basically, as I am told, the is a PUT UP, or SHUT UP against the prosecution. They MUST put on the current case.
2. Court is over - next date, Jan 21. 2005
3. Jury voidere (don't know if I spelled that right) will be in OPEN COURT.
4. The Justicesystem.net will have a FULL report, which includes an interview with the media attorney.
5. This has been a great day for the defense.
Source: MJJF I-Unit/The Justice System.
Judge Wants Prosecutors to Stick to the Current Case
Wednesday, 12 January 2005
SANTA MARIA, CA — Today, Santa Maria Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville decided not to rule on the Prosecution's motion to bring in alleged ‘prior acts' of abuse, at this time.
Prosecutors are attempting to present evidence of similar alleged "prior acts," even though Michael Jackson has never actually been tried in a court on those issues.
The defense attorneys petitioned Judge Melville to bar this 'flimsy' evidence. Previous to this case, Michael Jackson has never been arrested or actually charged with a sexual offense.
Exercising caution, the judge cited a case early in his career where the prosecution first presented 'prior acts' of alleged abuse in a similar case. Consequently, the primary case that the prosecution then presented was so weak that the defendant was convicted on the alleged ‘past acts.’ Judge Melville called this a "miscarriage of justice" and stated that he would not allow something like that to happen in this case.
Judge Rodney Melville went on to inform the prosecution that he needs to see their main case first, effectively barring them from bringing in any past accusers or allegations, at this point.
After they have presented their main case and witnesses pertaining to the current case, Judge Melville stated that he may entertain an evidentiary hearing and then possibly consider allowing the motion.
Additionally, in court filings, the defense argued that media coverage of the hearing could prejudice potential jurors. Judge Melville said that under California law, he did not believe he could conduct the hearings behind closed doors.
The judge has scheduled hearings on Jan. 21 and Jan. 27.
Judge Rodney Melville also stated that Michael Jackson will be required to appear in court beginning January 31, 2005.
Source: http://mjjsource.com/main/index.php?option...d=334&Itemid=32
Wednesday, 12 January 2005
SANTA MARIA, CA — Today, Santa Maria Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville decided not to rule on the Prosecution's motion to bring in alleged ‘prior acts' of abuse, at this time.
Prosecutors are attempting to present evidence of similar alleged "prior acts," even though Michael Jackson has never actually been tried in a court on those issues.
The defense attorneys petitioned Judge Melville to bar this 'flimsy' evidence. Previous to this case, Michael Jackson has never been arrested or actually charged with a sexual offense.
Exercising caution, the judge cited a case early in his career where the prosecution first presented 'prior acts' of alleged abuse in a similar case. Consequently, the primary case that the prosecution then presented was so weak that the defendant was convicted on the alleged ‘past acts.’ Judge Melville called this a "miscarriage of justice" and stated that he would not allow something like that to happen in this case.
Judge Rodney Melville went on to inform the prosecution that he needs to see their main case first, effectively barring them from bringing in any past accusers or allegations, at this point.
After they have presented their main case and witnesses pertaining to the current case, Judge Melville stated that he may entertain an evidentiary hearing and then possibly consider allowing the motion.
Additionally, in court filings, the defense argued that media coverage of the hearing could prejudice potential jurors. Judge Melville said that under California law, he did not believe he could conduct the hearings behind closed doors.
The judge has scheduled hearings on Jan. 21 and Jan. 27.
Judge Rodney Melville also stated that Michael Jackson will be required to appear in court beginning January 31, 2005.
Source: http://mjjsource.com/main/index.php?option...d=334&Itemid=32
HeavenSent
New member
At last, a ruling I can smile about. Put up or shut up. I like that. Thats how it should be.
SpecialJanet25
New member
For once, this damn judge is opening his eyes. I like too PUT UP or SHUT UP. AMEN. IT BEEN GOOD DAY FOR DEFENSE.
HeavenSent
New member
I wouldn't categorize it that way. For your own sanity. It's been a proven fact that things aren't always as they seem.Originally posted by Mimonde
I'm sorry guys- but I don't like to talk about this case in good day , bad day terms-
I smiled at the ruling because it's what I wanted. But the drunkard judge's motivations have never been pure. Hmm, wait and see, right?
Cristine87
New member
It's about damn time! How were they gonna prove these past acts anyway?
how can you perpare accordingly if you dont know what will be allowed in untill AFTER the pros case? how are you suppose to plan effectively? It makes no sense. If he wants to see if there is a case, you take it to a prelim, you dont test to see if there is a case during the trial, make a rulling, and then be like, "Ok defense, plan your case accordingly with these new 65465465 peices of added evidence, by the way ur up next week" what a crock
A
Anonymous
Guest
Originally posted by dangerous
how can you perpare accordingly if you dont know what will be allowed in untill AFTER the pros case? how are you suppose to plan effectively? It makes no sense. If he wants to see if there is a case, you take it to a prelim, you dont test to see if there is a case during the trial, make a rulling, and then be like, "Ok defense, plan your case accordingly with these new 65465465 peices of added evidence, by the way ur up next week" what a crock
Exactly!
>> Court TV: Leo Terrell Blasts Prosecution Jan 12 2005
Version: .wmv
Submitted Date: 2005/1/12
Edit This DownloadDescription:
Air date: Jan 12 2005
(the other crap has been cut out)
Leo Terrell says Jackson has a right to confrontation
-says it'll be unbelievable if this judge allows this to be 7 little mini trials
-says prosecutor's latest actions indicate that they have a problem
-says Jackson DOES NOT fit the so-called "pedophile profile"
-made the point that there hasn't been 1 single conviction in anything in 46 years
(my note: this is the first criminal case against Jackson for anything)
-says the $20M is peanuts to Mike
…and more
9.35 MB
Version: .wmv
Submitted Date: 2005/1/12
Edit This DownloadDescription:
Air date: Jan 12 2005
(the other crap has been cut out)
Leo Terrell says Jackson has a right to confrontation
-says it'll be unbelievable if this judge allows this to be 7 little mini trials
-says prosecutor's latest actions indicate that they have a problem
-says Jackson DOES NOT fit the so-called "pedophile profile"
-made the point that there hasn't been 1 single conviction in anything in 46 years
(my note: this is the first criminal case against Jackson for anything)
-says the $20M is peanuts to Mike
…and more
9.35 MB
SpecialJanet25
New member
What does Mr. Terrell mean when he said $20M is peanuts to Michael?