official May 10 2005 thread

[sistahlamb]

This maybe off topic, however does anyone know when Michael def. going to be said to be aquitted/convicted yet? I am not so certain!

Well, it's kinda hard to say.

First of all the defence has to finish up thier case, which I think will last about 6 weeks-2 months.
After that there is a phase in the trial called the "rebuttal" where both sides re-direct/re-cross witnesses that they feel need be and can bring in more evidence if it's relevant.
Next, it's the closing statements, where both sides lay out thier whole case to the jury.
Finally the deliberations: the jury will take both cases and use that to decide thier virdict.

 

[Tiger Lilly]

I completely agree with all you said frenchy, but I just wanted to point something out...

As to the alcohol charge, I am sure that the defense will definitely show that the kids were reckless enough to get into the wine cellar.

I believe the alcohol charge goes hand-in-hand with the molestation charge. You can't have it without the molestation because the charge is intoxicating a minor with intent to molest. So that's gonna be shot down.

 

[got2makeitright]

wow the virdict.

 

[Frenchy]

Originally posted by Tiger Lilly
the charge is intoxicating a minor with intent to molest.

Is it specifically "with intent to molest"? And if so, does that mean that if he's found guilty of molesting Gavin, he will automatically be convicted of giving him alcohol? (Please guys, don't start saying stuff like 'But who gives a rat's a*** because he's innocent' -- we all know that, but I'm trying to understand the procedure... And also please keep in mind that it's the jury that decides so the defense does not have to prove anything to us but only to the jury...)

Also, doesn't that mean that, if that's the case, it's more difficult to prove that Mike is innocent? I mean, showing that the kids are devils and that Mike did not molest other kids does not prove that he did not molest Gavin, it only undermines the accusers' testimony... It looks to me that the defense's strategy is to show that they made all that up, because how can they prove Mike didn't do that?

I'm not sure... Your thoughts?

 

[Aaliyah]

Joe Marcus :

 

[Anonymous]

Is it specifically "with intent to molest"? And if so, does that mean that if he's found guilty of molesting Gavin, he will automatically be convicted of giving him alcohol?

Yes.

 

[HotMJ!]

Originally posted by Black Loafers


I think Macaulay will testify today

I think Wednesday's the day.

I posted this yesterday morn:



:thumbsup

This was emailed to me hours ago (early Monday morning):

Debra Opri: Says Culkin Will Testify, Probably Wednesday


On Fox News earlier tonite (Sunday eve) Debra Opri said that the media reports were inaccurate, and that MacCaulay Culkin will be testifying, possibly Wed. Opri also said that Culkin does not have "cold feet" or 2d thoughts as the media has been claiming

Dan

opcorn

 

[Tiger Lilly]

^^^ Lol, Vicky beat me to it.

 

[alfredo]

Originally posted by Frenchy
Is it specifically "with intent to molest"? And if so, does that mean that if he's found guilty of molesting Gavin, he will automatically be convicted of giving him alcohol? (Please guys, don't start saying stuff like 'But who gives a rat's a*** because he's innocent' -- we all know that, but I'm trying to understand the procedure... And also please keep in mind that it's the jury that decides so the defense does not have to prove anything to us but only to the jury...)

Also, doesn't that mean that, if that's the case, it's more difficult to prove that Mike is innocent? I mean, showing that the kids are devils and that Mike did not molest other kids does not prove that he did not molest Gavin... How do you prove that??? What do you think the defense's strategy will be?

You can't prove anything directly. That's the beauty of the scam. No one saw anything but the family members. To be found innocent, you have to go to the opportunity of MJ and the motive of the family. MJ/Mez is showing that there was no oppotunity or proclivity to molest. They are illustrating the flaw witnesses of the prosecution. They have lied in other proceedings as well as in this one. They claimed to be hostages to further this case. But there is no evidence of hostages. They have confessed to countless professionals that nothing happened.

Remember, the timeline is critical. MJ/Mez will show that there was no opportunity to commit the crime as well. Witnesses include the owner of a casino in Los Vegas, friends, and hotel folks. At some point, Mez will wrap it all together for you. This case is falling apart piece by piece. Rome wasn't built in a day.

 

[Frenchy]

Ewww... Not good, because the molestation charge will be the most difficult charge to challenge (and I think we all agree on that).

 

[BillieJeanLover]

The jury does not have to be a fan of Michael's or not to see through all this BS. So for us true believers, are we or are we not also believing that the jury will see through the haze of lies and untruths?

So, we should be about believing and stating that Michael will not be convicted. There should be no ifs, ands and buts about it. We here are supposed to already be intelligent enough to know that all of the members of the jury will not buy into all the BS. Some of them, and if not most, should already be able to see that Michael has been framed. It only takes one to hang up the jury. If it gets hung up, this case will not be brought again.

By this point, I hope the verdict comes back Not Guilty, rather than a hang-up. I already believe it will not come back Guilty. Isn't already knowing and believing that is why most of us are here? Who are we if not potential jurors? Again, one doesn't have to be a fan to believe that this case is bogus.

 

[Tiger Lilly]

Originally posted by Frenchy
Ewww... Not good, because the molestation charge will be the most difficult charge to challenge (and I think we all agree on that).

Yeh maybe it is the hardest but that doesn't mean it's difficult to prove it didn't happen. Is there any mood changes in gav!n? No. Is there any DNA evidence? No. Is there any tape to show he was molested? No. Was Michael alone with the boy? As far as we know, no. Did any of the family say anything to the police about being molested? Not as soon as they "escaped" Neverland, no.

 

[got2makeitright]

Originally posted by Tiger Lilly
^^^ Lol, Vicky beat me to it.

Very happy to hear that news I wonder how the haters will spin this lol. :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Also, doesn't that mean that, if that's the case, it's more difficult to prove that Mike is innocent? I mean, showing that the kids are devils and that Mike did not molest other kids does not prove that he did not molest Gavin, it only undermines the accusers' testimony... It looks to me that the defense's strategy is to show that they made all that up, because how can they prove Mike didn't do that?

It doesn't change anything. They are trying to prove a pattern, there is no pattern. The way Jordan Chandler said it happened, is totally different than what these people say now. With Chandler there was no porn, no alcohol, no encouraging him to swear...no nothing. They are saying that Michael is a serial child molestor.

That means he does it over and over. If the jury believes the three that say it never happened, that really disproves that. You better believe that a REAL child molestor isn't going to be able to resist if he's in the same bed with a child over and over without other supervision. These people...Robson, Culkin, Barnes...they are all essential.

Also with the conspiracy, if the jury doesn't believe that allegation, then it's going to be hard for them to believe the molestation. It would be like 'Hey, I was molested! But I'm just going to throw in this capitivity thing to make it seem worse.' No. They jury has to believe both of the allegations. It would be odd to say, okay...these people are lying about this...but not about THAT.

The only thing that is going to make the jurors think is the 93' evidence, which is another reason why these three that say nothing happened are essential. They are refuting claims from people that say they saw things. Francia says she saw Michael and Robson in the shower together, Robson says Michael never ever showered with him. Which one is more credible? The one that said she went to tabliod and in a sense 'pimped' (if what she says really did happen) her son because she knew she'd get money? Or Robson?

All of the people that 'saw' things have baggage. Grudges, financial motivations....and failure to go to police, but tabliods instead.

 

[Tiger Lilly]

Also with the conspiracy, if the jury doesn't believe that allegation, then it's going to be hard for them to believe the molestation. It would be like 'Hey, I was molested! But I'm just going to throw in this capitivity thing to make it seem worse.' No. They jury has to believe both of the allegation.

Exactly. Everything in this "case" ties in together. Once one allegation comes falling the rest will. Have some faith in the defense guys!

 

[HotMJ!]

Originally posted by sistahlamb


(referring to pic in reply #29) Doesn't it look like Michael didn't shave his face this morning???
I noticed a little shadow on his upper lip and around his mouth.

I'm not expecting a reply, just making an observation.

You know, I hope he gets through this damn trial! Sitting 6+ hours a day is NOT good for someone having trouble with their back! Even for healthy backs this isn't good.

I wouldn't blame him if he started coming to court on a stretcher!

:wink

 

[motown lady]

Originally posted by HotMJ!
You know, I hope he gets through this damn trial! Sitting 6+ hours a day is NOT good for someone having trouble with their back! Even for healthy backs this isn't good.

I wouldn't blame him if he started coming to court on a stretcher!

:wink

From a lady's point of view, that scruff can be very exciting stuff on a man! My favorite pics of him always were with a shaving shadow! ummmm! :tooexcite :wink

 

[Frenchy]

Originally posted by NevaehDreamz
Also with the conspiracy, if the jury doesn't believe that allegation, then it's going to be hard for them to believe the molestation. It would be like 'Hey, I was molested! But I'm just going to throw in this capitivity thing to make it seem worse.' No. They jury has to believe both of the allegations. It would be odd to say, okay...these people are lying about this...but not about THAT.

Wow, thank you guys for your input. I read absolutely everything that I can about this case, but I had not gone that far. Thanks for helping me understand all this better. I often think that maybe the Diane Demons and Nancy Disgraces of the world should read all the fan threads...

 

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Frenchy
Ewww... Not good, because the molestation charge will be the most difficult charge to challenge (and I think we all agree on that).

It all goes hand in hand.

Say I accused you of rape and then said you also held me captive in a cage for 24 days.

It goes to trial right? The jury finds out that the 'captive in a cage' allegation is completely BS, you think they are going to convict you on the rape charge? No. If I lied about the cage, why not about the rape? Why would someone who was raped feel the need to lie about anything?

Then to top that off, lets say they put me on the stand and I'm a total nut job. Say they find evidence that I've accused my ex-boyfriend of holding me captive in a cage too. Say they find evidence thay I've accused Wal-mart workers of raping me in a storage room too. Hell no.


I said before that what will make this jury think is the 93' allegations. But the defense is working on those, they've already refuted some claims from ex-employees. It all comes down to who they jurors believe. ...We all know who has more credibility.

 

[Frenchy]

Originally posted by BillieJeanLover
By this point, I hope the verdict comes back Not Guilty, rather than a hang-up. I already believe it will not come back Guilty. Isn't already knowing and believing that is why most of us are here? Who are we if not potential jurors? Again, one doesn't have to be a fan to believe that this case is bogus.

Thanks for your input!
Two things, though:

1. We all hope it's not gonna be a hung jury because we want a clear victory for the defense. We do not want the media to always remind everyone on TV or in newspapers that MJ was not convicted because the jury could not agree -- it would be like with the 93 charges, when he was never convicted but never proven innocent either. Honestly, some people will still think that he is a child molester even if he is found innocent.

2. I completely agree that you should not be a fan to see the accusers are full of crap. But I don't want -- and I don't want anybody -- to believe that MJ is innocent just because "oh well, I don't know, I don't think he did it". We want people to know why he didn't do it. We all want this to be proven in court. And that's also what MJ wants.