-MyAngelMJ-
New member
Official.
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 June 1 2005 Thread
- Thread starter -MyAngelMJ-
- Start date
frozen rose
New member
I think its going to be more instructions for the jury, today? isn't it? Is Michael going to attend this one?
DirtyDiana87
New member
I'm not sure.
Heather~
Heather~
senecajackson
New member
i think today is instructions for the jury...
not sure if MJ is going to be attending today.
Does he really have to anyway?
not sure if MJ is going to be attending today.
Does he really have to anyway?
I've been out of the country for a week, so now I need to catch up. As the trial is almost over, I have a few questions for you guys, and I think it's a good time to ask today because we'll hear the closing arguments.
1. Vote: Do you think that MJ will be found Not Guilty of all charges or rather, will there be a hung jury?
2. How long do you think the deliberations will take? Obviously, if there's a hung jury, that's because they can't agree so it could last for days...? But also, it could last for days even if the verdict is not guilty of all charges (see the Robert Blake or OJ Simpson trial...).
3. What if MJ is convicted of something? Can he ask for a retrial?
Please don't tell me there's no way he will be convicted -- I have faith he will be vindicated or at least that there will be a hung jury. I'm just trying to understand the American system a little bit better.
4. In case of a hung jury, do you think it's likely that the persecution will retry the case?
5. What if the Arvizos are unhappy with the verdict? Can they ask for a retrial?
6. Can the judge or someone bring charges against the Arvizos for fraud, lying under oath, etc.? And if so, when will we hear about it?
7. Can the persecution bring more charges after the verdict? I remember Sneddon saying that the inquiry was ongoing and Melville saying that the persecution might reopen their case...
Thanks for your help! It's good to be back...
Love one another.
Love to all of you!
1. Vote: Do you think that MJ will be found Not Guilty of all charges or rather, will there be a hung jury?
2. How long do you think the deliberations will take? Obviously, if there's a hung jury, that's because they can't agree so it could last for days...? But also, it could last for days even if the verdict is not guilty of all charges (see the Robert Blake or OJ Simpson trial...).
3. What if MJ is convicted of something? Can he ask for a retrial?
Please don't tell me there's no way he will be convicted -- I have faith he will be vindicated or at least that there will be a hung jury. I'm just trying to understand the American system a little bit better.
4. In case of a hung jury, do you think it's likely that the persecution will retry the case?
5. What if the Arvizos are unhappy with the verdict? Can they ask for a retrial?
6. Can the judge or someone bring charges against the Arvizos for fraud, lying under oath, etc.? And if so, when will we hear about it?
7. Can the persecution bring more charges after the verdict? I remember Sneddon saying that the inquiry was ongoing and Melville saying that the persecution might reopen their case...
Thanks for your help! It's good to be back...
Love one another.
Love to all of you!
got2makeitright
New member
So do you guys think we can still have hope MJ is going to walk out from that courthouse with a 100% not guilty verdict ?
senecajackson
New member
Originally posted by got2makeitright
So do you guys think we can still have hope MJ is going to walk out from that courthouse with a 100% not guilty verdict ?
I still believe!
The devil is doing overtime man...but in the end all is going to work out!
@ least I hope...
got2makeitright
New member
Originally posted by senecajackson
I still believe!
The devil is doing overtime man...but in the end all is going to work out!
@ least I hope...
Me too its scary and that count is scary. :cryptic
The verdict can come anytime after closing arguments. I think it'll be at the lastest next friday.2. How long do you think the deliberations will take? Obviously, if there's a hung jury, that's because they can't agree so it could last for days...? But also, it could last for days even if the verdict is not guilty of all charges (see the Robert Blake or OJ Simpson trial...).
He can appeal of course. That is a lengthy process3. What if MJ is convicted of something? Can he ask for a retrial?
Please don't tell me there's no way he will be convicted -- I have faith he will be vindicated or at least that there will be a hung jury. I'm just trying to understand the American system a little bit better.
They have to unless they drop charges4. In case of a hung jury, do you think it's likely that the persecution will retry the case?
They can appeal as well.5. What if the Arvizos are unhappy with the verdict? Can they ask for a retrial?
Michael can, and the judge can (i beleive) i think both are unlikely6. Can the judge or someone bring charges against the Arvizos for fraud, lying under oath, etc.? And if so, when will we hear about it?
That was inregards to before both sides rested7. Can the persecution bring more charges after the verdict? I remember Sneddon saying that the inquiry was ongoing and Melville saying that the persecution might reopen their case...
got2makeitright
New member
Well iam hoping MJ will win but you never know what the jury is thinking.
senecajackson
New member
Originally posted by got2makeitright
Well iam hoping MJ will win but you never know what the jury is thinking.
THAT'S WHAT I'M WORRIED ABOUT!
I just pray that they think back to everything said...and just are fair and use COMMON SENSE!!!
Again an important word!
got2makeitright
New member
Originally posted by senecajackson
THAT'S WHAT I'M WORRIED ABOUT!
Thank you . You not like many fans in here that say Michael will win but we never know what the jury is thinking right?? We all want him to win, we all hope for him to win but can you grantee that Michael will win this case. Some say he has won this case since day one but i dont know if the jury if that way.
got2makeitright
New member
bump*
senecajackson
New member
Originally posted by got2makeitright
Thank you . You not like many fans in here that say Michael will win but we never know what the jury is thinking right?? We all want him to win, we all hope for him to win but can you grantee that Michael will win this case. Some say he has won this case since day one but i dont know if the jury if that way.
Right! U got it. U never know what to expect....
But the thing here is to just keep the faith and hope that all works out the way we hope. Leave it up to God basically.
I hate getting my hopes up and things don't work out the way I want. I've had too many dissapointments in my life.
But I do believe there was a reason why all of this is going down and the case has been going the way it has! There was a reason why Mez was brought into this case to defend Michael....and throughout this...he has kicked ass!
So I believe it's gonna work out fine.
got2makeitright
New member
This is
LONDON
01/06/05 - Showbiz section
Jackson is facing jail
By Bo WIlson, Evening Standard
Michael Jackson faces a year in jail even if he is cleared of child abuse.
The 46-year-old singer was told by trial judge Rodney Melville that he is to be charged with giving alcohol to a minor.
It is a lesser offence than the one he was originally accused of - plying a young boy with drink in order to sexually abuse him.
The jury only has to accept that the star gave Gavin Arvizo alcohol, which the trial has heard Jackson call "Jesus juice", to find him guilty.
The new charge, a misdemeanour rather than a felony, carries a sentence of up to 12 months in Santa Barbara county jail.
Jackson is charged with molesting the then 13-year-old at his Neverland ranch in 2003 and conspiring to hold the boy's family captive to get them to rebut a damaging documentary about the pop star.
He faces 20 years in jail if found guilty of all the charges, which he denies.
The judge's ruling on the alcohol charge comes amid fears that the jury would refuse to convict Jackson of child abuse after a trial which has severely damaged the credibility of his main accuser, Arvizo.
Prosecutors successfully persuaded Judge Melville that they can pursue the lesser offence, which is expected to be outlined to the jury today in the court in Santa Maria, California.
The accuser, both on the witness stand and in a videotaped police interview, said Jackson often gave him alcohol while he was staying with his family at Neverland.
The defence team has done little to challenge the use of alcohol and instead concentrated on refuting the allegations of abuse.
The judge allowed the move in the teeth of opposition from Jackson's legal team.
But he also boosted the defence attempt to clear the singer of committing child abuse at his home.
The judge said he had decided to tell the jury to consider previous allegations of abuse only if they believe that the singer intended to molest Arvizo.
Judge Melville said he would tell the jurors they could consider the alleged past acts if they showed a pattern of "intent" on Jackson's part.
But they will first have to decide whether the allegations of past acts, many made by former Neverland staff, were true.
"Evidence has been introduced for the purpose of showing the defendant committed crimes other than those for which he is on trial," the jury will be told.
"This evidence, if believed, may be considered by you only for the limited purpose of deciding if it tends to show a characteristic plan or scheme to commit acts."
Judge Melville also said he would supply each juror with a set of written instructions before he addressed the panel and would allow jurors to consult-them during deliberations. While not unprecedented, it is unusual for a judge in California to provide jurors with written instructions.
The judge's decisions come ahead of the closing act in the three-month trial, which could be over in days.
After a day of wrangling the judge said he would finish summing up today, bring jurors in at noon and instruct them, then have closing arguments on Thursday.
Jackson was not present yesterday-for the legal discussion. One instruction approved by the judge addressed the importance of the Martin Bashir TV documentary Living With Michael Jackson, in which Arvizo appeared with Jackson and the star said he allowed children to sleep in his bed in an innocent, non-sexual way.
The judge said: "I'm willing to rule that the video of Living With Michael Jackson is not offered for the truth of what is said except for certain identified passages. The rest is considered-hearsay and you can only consider that it aired and its impact if any on Mr Jackson."
The passages the judge referred to were not specified in open court.
Details of the alleged abuse first surfaced on 18 November 2003 when 70 detectives raided Jackson's ranch in Santa Barbara. On arrival, police provided an arrest warrant - only to discover Jackson was in Las Vegas.
The star spent the next two days in a hotel before flying home on a private jet.
Detectives handcuffed the singer and took him to a local police station where he was photographed and fingerprinted.
Just half an hour later, Jackson, accompanied by then lawyer Mark Geragos, was driven to his private jet and flew back to Las Vegas.
He then made a surprising drive around the city, waving at the crowds and shaking hands with fans.
http://www.thisislondon.com/til/jsp/module...itemId=19000439
LONDON
01/06/05 - Showbiz section
Jackson is facing jail
By Bo WIlson, Evening Standard
Michael Jackson faces a year in jail even if he is cleared of child abuse.
The 46-year-old singer was told by trial judge Rodney Melville that he is to be charged with giving alcohol to a minor.
It is a lesser offence than the one he was originally accused of - plying a young boy with drink in order to sexually abuse him.
The jury only has to accept that the star gave Gavin Arvizo alcohol, which the trial has heard Jackson call "Jesus juice", to find him guilty.
The new charge, a misdemeanour rather than a felony, carries a sentence of up to 12 months in Santa Barbara county jail.
Jackson is charged with molesting the then 13-year-old at his Neverland ranch in 2003 and conspiring to hold the boy's family captive to get them to rebut a damaging documentary about the pop star.
He faces 20 years in jail if found guilty of all the charges, which he denies.
The judge's ruling on the alcohol charge comes amid fears that the jury would refuse to convict Jackson of child abuse after a trial which has severely damaged the credibility of his main accuser, Arvizo.
Prosecutors successfully persuaded Judge Melville that they can pursue the lesser offence, which is expected to be outlined to the jury today in the court in Santa Maria, California.
The accuser, both on the witness stand and in a videotaped police interview, said Jackson often gave him alcohol while he was staying with his family at Neverland.
The defence team has done little to challenge the use of alcohol and instead concentrated on refuting the allegations of abuse.
The judge allowed the move in the teeth of opposition from Jackson's legal team.
But he also boosted the defence attempt to clear the singer of committing child abuse at his home.
The judge said he had decided to tell the jury to consider previous allegations of abuse only if they believe that the singer intended to molest Arvizo.
Judge Melville said he would tell the jurors they could consider the alleged past acts if they showed a pattern of "intent" on Jackson's part.
But they will first have to decide whether the allegations of past acts, many made by former Neverland staff, were true.
"Evidence has been introduced for the purpose of showing the defendant committed crimes other than those for which he is on trial," the jury will be told.
"This evidence, if believed, may be considered by you only for the limited purpose of deciding if it tends to show a characteristic plan or scheme to commit acts."
Judge Melville also said he would supply each juror with a set of written instructions before he addressed the panel and would allow jurors to consult-them during deliberations. While not unprecedented, it is unusual for a judge in California to provide jurors with written instructions.
The judge's decisions come ahead of the closing act in the three-month trial, which could be over in days.
After a day of wrangling the judge said he would finish summing up today, bring jurors in at noon and instruct them, then have closing arguments on Thursday.
Jackson was not present yesterday-for the legal discussion. One instruction approved by the judge addressed the importance of the Martin Bashir TV documentary Living With Michael Jackson, in which Arvizo appeared with Jackson and the star said he allowed children to sleep in his bed in an innocent, non-sexual way.
The judge said: "I'm willing to rule that the video of Living With Michael Jackson is not offered for the truth of what is said except for certain identified passages. The rest is considered-hearsay and you can only consider that it aired and its impact if any on Mr Jackson."
The passages the judge referred to were not specified in open court.
Details of the alleged abuse first surfaced on 18 November 2003 when 70 detectives raided Jackson's ranch in Santa Barbara. On arrival, police provided an arrest warrant - only to discover Jackson was in Las Vegas.
The star spent the next two days in a hotel before flying home on a private jet.
Detectives handcuffed the singer and took him to a local police station where he was photographed and fingerprinted.
Just half an hour later, Jackson, accompanied by then lawyer Mark Geragos, was driven to his private jet and flew back to Las Vegas.
He then made a surprising drive around the city, waving at the crowds and shaking hands with fans.
http://www.thisislondon.com/til/jsp/module...itemId=19000439
MystiqueX2004
New member
Originally posted by got2makeitright
The judge said he had decided to tell the jury to consider previous allegations of abuse only if they believe that the singer intended to molest Arvizo.
Judge Melville said he would tell the jurors they could consider the alleged past acts if they showed a pattern of "intent" on Jackson's part.
But they will first have to decide whether the allegations of past acts, many made by former Neverland staff, were true.
"Evidence has been introduced for the purpose of showing the defendant committed crimes other than those for which he is on trial," the jury will be told.
"This evidence, if believed, may be considered by you only for the limited purpose of deciding if it tends to show a characteristic plan or scheme to commit acts."
http://www.thisislondon.com/til/jsp/module...itemId=19000439
this is what i have a problem with. How can the jury take these people's word of alleged abuse, when not one of them reported it, and the defense brought these people to the stand and those alleged "victims" denied any abuse?
got2makeitright
New member
i dont know!! ugh!
nowayout11
New member
Originally posted by dangerous
They can appeal as well.
Just a quick correction. It's not the Arvizo's case, it's the county's case. So the Arvizo's have no means to appeal.
All they can do is file a civil case and hope it sticks.
sistahlamb
New member
That was a bullshit article that was just posted!!!!
I thought that charge wasn't added--just changed????
And is there any proof that Michael gave G alchahol????
Hell NO!!!!!!
I think that article should be deleted.
I thought that charge wasn't added--just changed????
And is there any proof that Michael gave G alchahol????
Hell NO!!!!!!
I think that article should be deleted.
the state (on their behalf) can appealOriginally posted by nowayout11
Just a quick correction. It's not the Arvizo's case, it's the county's case. So the Arvizo's have no means to appeal.
All they can do is file a civil case and hope it sticks.