Official March 28 2005 Thread

W

whisperAdmin

Administrator
Staff member
"With the exception of Chandler and the maid's son, the five boys allegedly molested by Jackson--a group that includes actor Macaulay Culkin and choreographer Wade Robson--have all repeatedly denied being abused by the performer, Mesereau said."
Source: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/03280...cksonpast1.html

Can you just see the prosecution running into a brick wall? Good lord. All the defense has to do is call these grown men to testify.
 
M

Mjsangel

New member
I think letting in 93 in is not really that bad ,its like putting two weak cases together,which is like 0+0=0.I know it will be much harder on MJS health,but I have a feeeling 93 will come in ,in favor of the defense.Dont Worry.This will be too easy for T-Mez.
 
J

JUSTME

New member
"With the exception of Chandler and the maid's son, the five boys allegedly molested by Jackson--a group that includes actor Macaulay Culkin and choreographer Wade Robson--have all repeatedly denied being abused by the performer, Mesereau said."

omg is the pros. really that dumb? why are they bringing in mac and wade? and id just like to say did anyone else see how smug the people on courttv were. i cant wait til tmez gets started it will pile those smugs right off.
 
A

A.Beautiful.Mind

New member
Likewise, I'm beginging to accept the idea that prior investigation's are being introduced. This way, the defense will be able to explore the obvious inconsistencies in every alleged act. The fact that both Jordan Chandler and the former maid's son denied to ever testify and therefore settled for money, speaks volume even without their testimonies. The prosecution's purpose of introducing prior bad act's is to reveal the supposed pattern of, Michael behaviour, but the defense will also be able to divulge in the similarities between them.
 
H

HeavenSent

New member
I wouldn't feel sick, I'd feel pissed. This is wasting the jury's time. I wouldn't even call 93 a case. That shit never went to trial. By admitting this garbage in, Mez is going to clear Michael's name once and for all. It's not going to get worse.
 
H

hot4uMichael

New member
524875470bs.jpg
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Originally posted by HeavenSent
I wouldn't feel sick, I'd feel pissed. This is wasting the jury's time. I wouldn't even call 93 a case. That shit never went to trial. By admitting this garbage in, Mez is going to clear Michael's name once and for all. It's not going to get worse.
Click to expand...


I don't understand how he can fully do that with the ruling. The settlement can be mentioned, but no details? No accusers? Just hearsay?

Okay.
 
H

hot4uMichael

New member
lthumb.mdf910507.jpg


Michael Jackson (news) gestures to his fans as he arrives at the Santa Barbara County Courthouse in Santa Maria, California March 28, 2005. The judge in Jackson's child molestation trial said he would allow prosecutors to introduce evidence relating to five previous incidents of alleged abuse by the pop star. (Phil Klein/Reuters)
 
H

htarw

New member
LOL....sneddon clearly wanted this in because he knew the current case alone would NEVER ever get a conviction. So the more crap he throws, hes hoping some will stick. The problem is that those witnesses from the past are even less reliable than the ones now....Mez said "all is fair game" and they are going to attack these people like never before. This could actually be good, because it could clear his name once and for all....show that all those allegations were bogus
 
S

sunny2005

New member
Originally posted by HeavenSent
I wouldn't feel sick, I'd feel pissed. This is wasting the jury's time. I wouldn't even call 93 a case. That shit never went to trial. By admitting this garbage in, Mez is going to clear Michael's name once and for all. It's not going to get worse.
Click to expand...
I believe Mez will clear Michael, I am just very depressed and sad to know that the judge showed what a corrupted piece of trash he really is, I thought perhaps he might be fair after hearing Mez arguement, and the fact that the present case is so weak, but the judge showed his true colors, he is corrupt and disgusting like Sneddon and his tabloid trash witnesses.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The judge in Jackson's child molestation trial said he would allow prosecutors to introduce evidence relating to five previous incidents of alleged abuse by the pop star.
Click to expand...

Wow, that is BS.

I don't understand how they can say this...how they are ALLOWED to refer to it like this when it's not true. How can you call someone a victim when they say nothing happened?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top