official May 10 2005 thread

[MystiqueX2004]

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, 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?

If the defense is able to prove that these kids are lying, then they are proving that Michael did not do it. If the defense proves that Michael was not there the majority of the prosecution's timeline(which is indeed the case), then it proves that Michael did not do it. How can he commit said crime if he wasn't even there to do it? They can prove that Michael did not do it, because there is no DNA evidence, nor any other logical evidence to prove he did do it. The defense can prove Michael did not do it, because previous employees have lied with malicious intent. It is not more difficult, because you already have testimony that the daughter had a fake ID and used it to get a drink. Michael did not give it to her(as the flight attendant, who was a prosecution witness, said). It is not harder to prove that Michael did not give these kids alcohol because there is hardly any evidence of that allegation.
And the testimony that Michael did not molest this Gavin kid is essential, because the prosecution is trying to paint Michael as a serial molester( not someone who just singled one victim), who has molested all these kids. They are trying to say that since Michael "supposedly" molested those kids, then of course he molested this kid. That is the basis for their case. But you have these kids come in and say no Mike didn't molest me, and it casts doubt on the prosecution's case, because the very thing that they have been trying to prove, to give more weight to their case, has been shot down. And remember this kid, has made allegations like this before and it turned out to be lies.
And no, he will not be automatically found guilty of the alcohol charge because there is no evidence of it. There is no evidence that Michael gave these kids alcohol and even the "star" witness turned dud, Chris Carter backed out of testifying.
P.S, the defense is not proving to us anything, you are correct, and the defense knows that as well. which is why, the case is not televised, to ensure a (supposedly) fair trial...... Does this help in anyway?

 

[got2makeitright]

Do you think the defense has to prove that Michael Jackson was not all the time around these past boys( 1108) ?

 

[Anonymous]

I was laying in my bed last night and I was thinking about the case....about the sleepovers specifically.

I was laying with my back facing the wall and I imagined my bed about twice the size it is. Then I imagined a little kid about 3 feet across from me...at the other end of the bed, sound asleep.

If you guys do that before you go bed, I know it sounds stupid..you seriously will think to yourself. 'WTF, why is Michael being persecuted for this?'.


Michael said it and people like to mock him and say he's just being stupid, but when you say you 'slept' with someone it has a sexual connotation. That's why, but people deny that...but it is the truth. That's why they can't get over it because they keep thinking sex. Especially since it's what he's being accused of.

If they were to walk into maybe..say they have an older brother. They walk into his room and see him and a little boy..a little boy he knows well sleeping, not touching or doing anything suspicious...just sleeping. They wouldn't think twice about it.

They just can't get over the molestation, so they think of the sleepovers as suspect. Hopefully, the jurors can look at it from my perspective.

 

[Frenchy]

Originally posted by MystiqueX2004
the prosecution is trying to paint Michael as a serial molester( not someone who just singled one victim), who has molested all these kids. They are trying to say that since Michael "supposedly" molested those kids, then of course he molested this kid. That is the basis for their case. But you have these kids come in and say no Mike didn't molest me, and it casts doubt on the prosecution's case, because the very thing that they have been trying to prove, to give more weight to their case, has been shot down.
...... Does this help in anyway?

Totally helps, thanks.
To me, having Wade, Brett and Mac testify means more than that: it also means that the persecution is on a crusade to get Jackson AND also that they don't know what the hell they're talking about.

 

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by got2makeitright
Do you think the defense has to prove that Michael Jackson was not all the time around these past boys( 1108) ?

That doesn't matter. Michael never denied being around them...or even how many times they had sleepovers.

The defense will only have to prove that Michael wasn't around with these current allegations.

 

[got2makeitright]

Originally posted by NevaehDreamz
I was laying in my bed last night and I was thinking about the case....about the sleepovers specifically.

I was laying with my back facing the wall and I imagined my bed about twice the size it is. Then I imagined a little kid about 3 feet across from me...at the other end of the bed, sound asleep.

If you guys do that before you go bed, I know it sounds stupid..you seriously will think to yourself. 'WTF, why is Michael being persecuted for this?'.


Michael said it and people like to mock him and say he's just being stupid, but when you say you 'slept' with someone it has a sexual connotation. That's why, but people deny that...but it is the truth. That's why they can't get over it because they keep thinking sex. Especially since it's what he's being accused of.

If they were to walk into maybe..say they have an older brother. They walk into his room and see him and a little boy..a little boy he knows well sleeping, not touching or doing anything suspicious...just sleeping. They wouldn't think twice about it.

They just can't get over the molestation, so they think of the sleepovers as suspect. Hopefully, the jurors can look at it from my perspective.

Michael Jackson is a big kid a heart that see everything as in child point of view but lets turn the tables say that iam a 55 year old man wishing for someone who is not my son or family member to sleepover with me it does sound good i think.

 

[HotMJ!]

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, 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?

My thoughts are that y'all are wasting time and effort on all this mind-bending stuff. This jury has already decided that Michael is innocent - INNOCENT - not just "not guilty!" :thumbsup


Quit racking your brains about all this, it's pointless. The only battle is the media battle. And that's one we can ALL wage by putting pressure on the damn media! :writing:


Start complaining to the media about the coverage and the lack of fairness, and say it LOUD! :screaming


Notice how Dimond and Grace disappeared from the Larry King Show after those fans got on and launched some well-deserved salvos at those two? :bustbubbl :bustbubbl


LET'S GO, y'all!!


opcorn

 

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by got2makeitright
Michael Jackson is a big kid a heart that see everything as in child point of view but lets turn the tables say that iam a 55 year old man wishing for someone who is not my son or family member to sleepover with me it does sound good i think.

Um.

In relation to the amount of times Michael did have these sleepovers, yes. You could say he's a big kid. That's what it was...the same way boys and girls of the same age have sleepovers. I've slept in the same bed with my friends...it's the same senario, except Michael is older.

We saw how Michael is when he was playing with the kids on Prive Home Movies. He became one of them. Can you imagine them all chilling out at night in his bedroom and then going to sleep? I can.


But if we were saying this about something that happened once or twice, what would be the big deal? Nothing.

But if you ask Nancy Grace, if you ask Gloria Allred, they'd tell you that it's wrong period.

I disagree. It's only wrong if you are doing something wrong.

 

[Anonymous]

My thoughts are that y'all are wasting time and effort on all this mind-bending stuff. This jury has already decided that Michael is innocent - INNOCENT - not just "not guilty!"

We don't know what the jury is thinking.

 

[MystiqueX2004]

Originally posted by got2makeitright
Do you think the defense has to prove that Michael Jackson was not all the time around these past boys( 1108) ?

There was only two boys who made that allegation, and the mere fact that the '93 accuser is not testifying and revelations that the settlement was made against Michael's will, is more ammo for the defense. Remember, Michael is not on trial for '93, but I am sure that all the necessary evidence refuting '93 will come out and make things much clearer. In addition, there is evidence that Chandler's father was very instrumental in concocting that story. Also, there was not enough evidence then to get a grand jury indictment. It's not necessary to prove that Michael was not there, when you have all this other evidence.

 

[got2makeitright]

Originally posted by MystiqueX2004
There was only two boys who made that allegation, and the mere fact that the '93 accuser is not testifying and revelations that the settlement was made against Michael's will, is more ammo for the defense. Remember, Michael is not on trial for '93, but I am sure that all the necessary evidence refuting '93 will come out and make things much clearer. In addition, there is evidence that Chandler's father was very instrumental in concocting that story. Also, there was not enough evidence then to get a grand jury indictment. It's not necessary to prove that Michael was not there, when you have all this other evidence.

Well ok but if Mac comes in this trial is that good or bad? DD says its bad :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by got2makeitright
Well ok but if Mac comes in this trial is that good or bad? DD says its bad :lol:

You shouldn't have to ask.

 

[BillieJeanLover]

I agree with you HotMJ. Some on this forum are not truly believers, and it is showing. That is why sometimes, I skip over posts from those that are deliberately trying to stir up a hornets nest.

It so clearly shows how clueless some are about the facts of this case, and that some of the jurors already believe that the accusers were perpetrating and lying. No one can convince me that all twelve jurors buy into this non-sense of a shameless case. May haps not all, but some on the jury are thinking that this case was manufactured.

I too think it is pointless to speculate on what looks bad for Michael. The only thing that looks bad for Michael is that this case was brought in the first place, and he is smack dab in the middle of it trying to clear his good name.

If I were some, I would ignore the baiters out here that want to turn this case on its head. Meaning, the ones of us that have witnessed the prosecution's case, and have noted that it was fake, false, foolish, ignorant, et al, know that they didn't make their case, and that is mostly all that matters. They didn't prove it. Their case is already shot. So what is left is the defense putting on witnesses that not only counter what the prosecution witnesses have stated but also gives the jurors further proof of the maufactured charges. And not to mention the timeline, etc.

If some of you keep getting baited, you will be going around in circles and wasting the positive energy you brought here to the table. Don't let anyone make you doubt your own intelligence and wisdom concerning the facts. Don't answer asinine questions.

Just the facts .......

 

[MystiqueX2004]

Originally posted by got2makeitright
Well ok but if Mac comes in this trial is that good or bad? DD says its bad :lol:

It's not bad. It's definitely good. Remember don't listen to DD. She's full of poopy..Of course it will be good for the defense simply because Mac is a well-known celebrity who will say that Michael didn't do anything. His testimony will pack a punch to the prosecution's case and all those ex-employees who were lying.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree with you HotMJ. Some on this forum are not truly believers

Excuse me? Believers in what?

Just because I don't say 'I KNOW MICHAEL WILL BE PROVEN INNOCENT. THE JURORS THINK SO TOO!'

That doesn't mean I don't believe in his innocence. I totally do.


So please. We don't know what the jurors are thinking. Acting as if we do is just as stupid as Dimond saying the jurors are shaking their heads at defense witnesses.

We don't know anything about these jurors, we don't even know what they look like.

I too think it is pointless to speculate on what looks bad for Michael.

It's not pointless. It helps people out when you discuss it and try to put it in perspective. That's why we are here.

 

[got2makeitright]

Originally posted by BillieJeanLover
I agree with you HotMJ. Some on this forum are not truly believers, and it is showing. That is why sometimes, I skip over posts from those that are deliberately trying to stir up a hornets nest.

It so clearly shows how clueless some are about the facts of this case, and that some of the jurors already believe that the accusers were perpetrating and lying. No one can convince me that all twelve jurors buy into this non-sense of a shameless case. May haps not all, but some on the jury are thinking that this case was manufactured.

I too think it is pointless to speculate on what looks bad for Michael. The only thing that looks bad for Michael is that this case was brought in the first place, and he is smack dab in the middle of it trying to clear his good name.

If I were some, I would ignore the baiters out here that want to turn this case on its head. Meaning, the ones of us that have witnessed the prosecution's case, and have noted that it was fake, false, foolish, ignorant, et al, know that they didn't make their case, and that is mostly all that matters. They didn't prove it. Their case is already shot. So what is left is the defense putting on witnesses that not only counter what the prosecution witnesses have stated but also gives the jurors further proof of the maufactured charges. And not to mention the timeline, etc.

If some of you keep getting baited, you will be going around in circles and wasting the positive energy you brought here to the table. Don't let anyone make you doubt your own intelligence and wisdom concerning the facts. Don't answer asinine questions.

Just the facts .......

No its that some are indenied that all. We have to keep a openmind that all :thumbsup

 

[Frenchy]

I agree with Got2makeitright and NevaehDreamz -- Mike's innocent, we all believe that. It doesn't mean that the jury or the public opinion believe it. That's why it's very important to fully understand what's going on. I want to be able to tell people who think that MJ did it that they don't know what the hell they're talking about and why they are mistaken. Being a true fan does not mean that we should go "oh please, he's innocent so you all shut the f*** up". Again, that is NOT what MJ wants and that's why he's fighting the allegations. Having this kind of attitude means being the MJ-Team equivalent of a Nancy Grace for the persecution. I wouldn't say that we need to keep an "open mind": such an expression makes it sound like we maybe we should consider that MJ is a child molester. Such an expression applies to the media. I would rather say that we should consider the arguments on both sides. Feel free to spit on the persecution's arguments (I sure do!) but at least, try and understand them just like the jury does.

Anyway... Back to Mac Culkin: Demon says that it's a bad thing if he testifies? PLEASE!!! That is hilarious!!!

OK maybe, just maybe, there's a tiny possibility that he wouldn't want to be there at all because he is concerned with the impact of his testimony on his career. OK, maybe he would rather not have to testify. Fine. But you think the defense is going to call to the stand witnesses that are going to pull a Debbie Rowe on them? You think they are going to take such a risk? You honestly think that a famous actor is going to let someone like Sneddon abuse him on the stand? For God's sake, he is an ACTOR. Even if Sneddon tries to trick him, Mac will save the day...

Get ready to hear that Macaulay Culkin is Michael Jackson's #1 fan! :crystalball:
Oh wait, Debbie is #1... Oh well, maybe Mac is also in love with Michael... Still, doesn't that make him fan #2? :lol:

 

[LeVer2k2]

Originally posted by MystiqueX2004
There was only two boys who made that allegation, and the mere fact that the '93 accuser is not testifying and revelations that the settlement was made against Michael's will, is more ammo for the defense. Remember, Michael is not on trial for '93, but I am sure that all the necessary evidence refuting '93 will come out and make things much clearer. In addition, there is evidence that Chandler's father was very instrumental in concocting that story. Also, there was not enough evidence then to get a grand jury indictment. It's not necessary to prove that Michael was not there, when you have all this other evidence.

I'm anxious to witness the paradigm shift that is going to occur whenever the '93 allegations are proven false in this "case." The only reason this media circus is not giving Michael a fair deal and totally ignoring his right to a presumption of innocence is that they have their brains wrapped around the stupid notion of Michael "buying a kid off" in '93.

 

[Aaliyah]

 

[Tiger Lilly]

There was a report by someone (I forget who) and they said something like, most of what makes Michael look bad is not incriminating. So he shares his bed/bedroom with children (remember on LWMJ Mike and Gav both said Mike slept on the floor), so what? That alone does not prove molestation happened. You need solid evidence in order to put someone in jail as we all know it's possible to share your bed with someone without doing something sexual with them. So far I've heard nothing to make me doubt Michael. I'm not saying this is the way every member of this jury is thinking but you have to have reasonable doubt in your mind with this "case" because it's simply not holding together.

I'm getting a bit tired of the whole "...this looks bad for Michael..." What exactly looks bad??? I believe in Michael, not just because I feel I know him and feel he would never do something like this, but because I haven't been presented with anything to make me think otherwise.

Anyway what's happening today?