Official June 1 2005 Thread

D

Drizzl

New member
I can imagine what it's going to be like when Michael comes out of that courtroom on Friday a free man. It's gonna be nuts :p
 
M

maintenant

New member
Originally posted by Mack Dogg
Michael must have saw the tape and thought, "why is this happening to me?" That must have been it.
Click to expand...

Remember how much Michael did for that family and how much he gave them, and THIS is how they repay him. That's enough to make ANYONE with a heart very, very sad.
 
M

maintenant

New member
Originally posted by Off_the_wall
gah I know! I was watching ITV earlier and the bastards made me cry coz they were talking as about it as if he was going to prison, like showing the holding cells and BS. Now I know why I've been avoiding the news programs!
Click to expand...

Please, this is all just media sensationalism B.S. like everything else they've done. They've got nothing else to say about it, so they have to fill in time and just yak yak yak about nothing that makes any sense.

I've said it before and I'm going to say it again, and I don't CARE if "nobody knows what the jury is really thinking," let's be reasonable, after all this crap case in which an obviously generous and charitable man is wrung through the ringer by a vindictive D.A. and a corrupt police system, who paraded a long string of witnesses against Michael who are crooks, liars, and out for money (not justice), with Michael being mistreated by treacherous person after treacherous person (including Bashir)--"treacherous" means "they pretend to be your friend, but really they are out to get you", would the jury EVER convict Michael on the stupid little "serving alcohol to minors" crap? First of all, WHY would they believe THAT if they didn't believe any of the other stuff? And EVEN if they DID think "well, he might have done this one little thing," why would they even CARE? WHO is the victim here? WHO has been treated badly here? WHO deserves vindication here? What kind of sick jury would ever declare him not guilty on all the big charges and then stick him with this alcohol bullsh.t? They just wouldn't.

The kind of people who have been saying these things are those who really do think that Michael is guilty, the haters, those who WANT him convicted of ANYTHING big or small, but that is NOT the jury. The jury is not composed of Michael haters, the jury is composed of normal people who have seen every shred of evidence and experienced every nuance of witness testimony. If there are one or two slow ones who still want to think "Where there's smoke, there's fire," all the OTHER ones will jump down their throat and PROVE to them which side is the right one here. I know it, I've been on three different juries in which we had to do that, but we did it, and it can be done, the slow ones can be made to see the light like everybody else did.

If you're still feeling really bad about this, go rent the movie "Twelve Angry Men" and allow it to give you hope about juries. I mean it, go do that (it's a really good movie in any case). Also, go look up Mesereau's bio again and see what his huge level of success has been, even against cases that really WERE close. This one isn't even CLOSE. If we didn't have the press yammering day and night against Michal, we wouldn't even think there was an issue.

Again, I'll run it down one more time:

WHY would they think Michael was a pedophile? NO child porn, NO DNA evidence, more witnesses who slept with him said NOTHING happened than those who said something happened, even GAVIN said NOTHING happened more than he said something did, and only then AFTER his mother went to Chandler's lawyer.

WHY would they think Michael was involved in some kind of kidnapping conspiracy? Remember Mesereaus's classic question to the mother, "How many times did you return to Neverland after you escaped?" One thing the jury is bound to remember: "body waxing."

WHY would they think Michael gave the kids alcohol? How many witnesses were there who said that the kids were hellions who (a) broke into and drove Michael's cars, (B) broke into Michael's private areas and took girly magazines, and © stole wine bottles and drank from them?

So here is my summary of my prediction of the factors that will win this case for Michael:

1. Hundreds of heterosexual girly magazines, no child porn.
2. Kids were disrespectful hellions.
3. Janut was totally wacko.

In my view, the BEST witnesses on either side?

1. Flight attendant who said Gavin was rude and the only kid drinking alcohol was Davellen with a FAKE ID (has nothing to do with Michael).
2. Head of Security who said kids broke into and drove Michael's car (proves these kids are juvenile delinquents).
3. Child Protection Services who interviewed family and felt that nothing had happened.
4. Attorney Mark Gregaros who smelled a rat and warned Michael agaisnt the Arvisos.
5. Macaulay Culkin.
6. The outtakes of the video that showed how good Michael REALLY is.
7. Debbie Rowe's testimony about Michael being a good father.

Also, I forget, did the jury get the info about how the Arvisos lied in the J.C. Penney case and yet got over a hundred thousand dollars when they were SHOPLIFTERS?

Again: WHO are the BAD guys and WHO is the GOOD guy? What kind of stupid would the jury be to NOT see this?

Folks, I'm sorry there are so many doubters, but I think we have this one in the bag and Sneddon's head on a platter.

Put positive energy out there, don't keep being sucked in by evil media.
 
M

maintenant

New member
Originally posted by Frenchy
That sounds fair to me... Anyway, now that it's been allowed in court, the jury MUST consider the 93 allegations. They may disregard them, but they have to consider them. Still, that's what I was saying: the possible history is not sufficient to find him guilty of the charges. If the prosecution had proved the 93 allegations, it would have been a serious problem, but still not enough to prove the current charges. They didn't prove anything, and I am not even sure that they reached the reasonable doubt threshold, so I don't think it's a huge problem. At best, they confused the jury, that's all.
Click to expand...

If you ask me, bringing in the 93 charges HELPED Michael by showing an entirely different pattern than the one Sneddon hoped for: that Michael has had a history of people using sexual molestation accusations as a method of obtaining money, either from a story sold to the tabloids, or from an out-of-court-settlement because it was too time-consuming and expensive for Michael to bother with a trial (or his insurance company forced the settlement).

It is so obvious to me, and I hope to the jury, that this current case stands on the shoulders of the previous ones, but the previous ones are standing in quicksand. The Arvisos hoped they'd get a "Chandler-type" settlement too, so they cooked up a similar story, but went too far in their ridiculousness.
 
M

maintenant

New member
Originally posted by Albamelia
No, no, no, Honey. That's what the judge is there for, to make sure it's justice!


Take this: what if the jury hates Michael, they think like DS, and just say "hey we think he's guilty". the judge has to be given a why, he ain't gonna let it pass, it wouldn't be fair/justice. If he doesn't follow what the jury says or think they're being unfair, he can say that they're not being fair and go on about, w/out their decision. That's what he's there for. Get it?
Click to expand...

No, if what you said were true, what would be the point of the jury? The jury is the "trier of fact," and the judge administers the law. The jury is to determine WHAT Michael did. If they say he molested Gavin, etc., then the legal FACT is that he DID and the judge must rule accordingly. If the jury said that Michael did NOT molest Gavin, etc., then the FACT has been determined that Michael did not.

Now, what the judge CAN do is throw out the verdict if there was some wrong-doing among the jury, such as a juror was caught talking on a cell phone to the DA's office during deliberation, or there was evidence of jury tampering or whatever. But if the jury does their job correctly, then their verdict is what STANDS. The judge can't change it.

But suppose the jury comes back with a "guilty on all counts" verdict, but the judge actually thinks the whole case is bullsh.t? He can't say, "Nah, Michael's really innocent," but what he can do is impose a light sentence or suspend a sentence or whatever he thinks might be fair in that case. On the other hand, if the jury says "not guilty on all counts," but the judge thinks "You're kidding right, the guy's a pedophile from WAY back," well, too bad, the jury has determined that Michael committed no crime and that is the end of it.

Remember: the jury determines the FACT,
the judge administers the LAW based on the jury-determined FACT.
 
F

Frenchy

New member
Originally posted by Drizzl
I can imagine what it's going to be like when Michael comes out of that courtroom on Friday a free man. It's gonna be nuts :p
Click to expand...
Don't expect the verdict on Friday. The closing arguments are supposed to take all day Thursday AND some of Friday... And the deliberations usually take several days, even if they're short.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top