official May 10 2005 thread
- Thread starter whisperAdmin
- Start date
got2makeitright
New member
Tiger Lilly said:
BillieJeanLover
New member
I didn't call anyone's name. Believe it or not. Believe what you want to believe.
I am here because I don't need to speculate on what looks bad for Michael. I am here because I knew Whisper believed in Michael's total innocence. Otherwise, I wouldn't be here.
I could never see myself stating out loud to anyone in person or on a message board what looks bad for Michael. I am not in the mood for it. To me, it takes up too much negative energy. By the time I got to that point, I would bow my head and pray to God about my feelings on the issue or situation.
Again and in my opinion, and at this stage, what looks bad for Michael is over. The prosecution already tried to do their damage. They failed. What is left is for the defense to put on their case. And there is no way on God's green earth am I going to speculate on what Mez has up his sleeve and as it pertains to whether he proved this or that point, and especially to state whether I think it looked bad what he did, said and/or attempted to do or prove. Again, I'll just pray.
It would be truly sad if from now until the end of the defense case, some would be trying to look for what looks bad for Michael, and that is what I meant about speculating. You will never see me type what I feel looks good for Michael either. It gets downright ridiculous for one to cover all the negatives that are being spun out here in the universe concerning Michael. I would rather accenuate the positives, and could care less if I ever heard any negatives. But that's just me, and I understand that some of it can't be helped. But for the ones that claim they believe, it's not just about Michael's innocence, but about whether the procecution proved what they set out to. NOT!
I am of the mind to keep a positive outlook that whatever happens next, will flow the way it is supposed to. God is in charge.
I don't see where Mac can make or break this case, so it wouldn't phase me one bit if he testified or not. Michael didn't molest him. He didn't see Michael molest anyone. It doesn't matter to me if he calls Michael a friend or not. So in that case, and for me, case closed on what he says. If he says the one or two of the things I mentioned, then he is a liar. I doubt he'll say that, so in the scheme of things and to me, his testimony matters little. Has Michael ever been accused of molesting him? NO!
Again, what a sad state of affairs it would be for us true believers if we had to be bombarded with all the negative rap about Michael when we know good and darn well that the Prosecution did NOT prove their case. Questioning and speculating on everything the media and pundits spin and report on this case is sorry. How many times have some been requested not to bring DD and CTV's comments to the forefront of this website, and report on what they've said as if they know what the 'ell they speak of? I never watch them. They can't teach me nothing, but negative and evil energy.
I think I've made my points. They will not be communicated again. I'm content with the way I see things, and I thank Whisper very much for this website. I especially like the main MJEOL.com page and all the links. Thanks Whisper. I also love your take on "Why we love the brotha."
I am here because I don't need to speculate on what looks bad for Michael. I am here because I knew Whisper believed in Michael's total innocence. Otherwise, I wouldn't be here.
I could never see myself stating out loud to anyone in person or on a message board what looks bad for Michael. I am not in the mood for it. To me, it takes up too much negative energy. By the time I got to that point, I would bow my head and pray to God about my feelings on the issue or situation.
Again and in my opinion, and at this stage, what looks bad for Michael is over. The prosecution already tried to do their damage. They failed. What is left is for the defense to put on their case. And there is no way on God's green earth am I going to speculate on what Mez has up his sleeve and as it pertains to whether he proved this or that point, and especially to state whether I think it looked bad what he did, said and/or attempted to do or prove. Again, I'll just pray.
It would be truly sad if from now until the end of the defense case, some would be trying to look for what looks bad for Michael, and that is what I meant about speculating. You will never see me type what I feel looks good for Michael either. It gets downright ridiculous for one to cover all the negatives that are being spun out here in the universe concerning Michael. I would rather accenuate the positives, and could care less if I ever heard any negatives. But that's just me, and I understand that some of it can't be helped. But for the ones that claim they believe, it's not just about Michael's innocence, but about whether the procecution proved what they set out to. NOT!
I am of the mind to keep a positive outlook that whatever happens next, will flow the way it is supposed to. God is in charge.
I don't see where Mac can make or break this case, so it wouldn't phase me one bit if he testified or not. Michael didn't molest him. He didn't see Michael molest anyone. It doesn't matter to me if he calls Michael a friend or not. So in that case, and for me, case closed on what he says. If he says the one or two of the things I mentioned, then he is a liar. I doubt he'll say that, so in the scheme of things and to me, his testimony matters little. Has Michael ever been accused of molesting him? NO!
Again, what a sad state of affairs it would be for us true believers if we had to be bombarded with all the negative rap about Michael when we know good and darn well that the Prosecution did NOT prove their case. Questioning and speculating on everything the media and pundits spin and report on this case is sorry. How many times have some been requested not to bring DD and CTV's comments to the forefront of this website, and report on what they've said as if they know what the 'ell they speak of? I never watch them. They can't teach me nothing, but negative and evil energy.
I think I've made my points. They will not be communicated again. I'm content with the way I see things, and I thank Whisper very much for this website. I especially like the main MJEOL.com page and all the links. Thanks Whisper. I also love your take on "Why we love the brotha."
Tiger Lilly
New member
And you need evidence to say he "molested" the kid. Do you see that? No. Just his lifestyle with him spending time with children. WTF does that prove??? :careless
A
Anonymous
Guest
You guys see the smile? Yay!
A
Anonymous
Guest
Court is over..just so everyone knows. 
Tiger Lilly
New member
Stay strong Michael. :inlove Love you! :inlove
A
Anonymous
Guest
The jury is going to go into deliberations and think everything through. Even the parts that sound like bullshit to us. So to discuss it here is very helpful because you bet that they will discuss it as well. If you think they are just going to say 'Oh well, nope. This is stupid.' And hand down the verdit, you are wrong. They HAVE to discuss it, that's the whole reason they've been called.
IMO, to just say 'Oh well God will take care of it' is unrealistic. It's up the the jury, hopefully they are smart people. Innocent people are convicted all the time...because of stupid juries. You aren't going to say that God is somehow punishing innocent people are you? If the jury was made up of people like Tom Sneddon do you think that something magical will overcome them and make them not do what they want? No. We all hope for the best, I have faith that these jurors are watching the case and just taking it for what it is.
YOU may not want to say 'Oh well, this is going to be the toughest part of the case' but it's helpful to others to have it explained and discussed. There are tougher parts of this case whether you want to accept that or not. That doesn't make them true, it just makes them harder to get around. If they were all so easy, the defense would have been finished presenting their case in 5 minutes.
You don't have to call anyone out by name, as far as I've seen TODAY, no one in this thread gave me any reason to doubt they believe in Michael's innocence. So saying that people are not 'believers' is crap.
You bet that when Michael and his lawyers gather for discussion they raise issues like this.
BillieJeanLover
New member
I can't believe that you are intentionally missing the points.
Point one: The procecution did not prove their case.
Point two: The defense doesn't have to prove Michael is innocent, they just have to prove a reasonable doubt.
Point three: Michael is innocent.
And so how are you going to help Michael not get convicted, and although he is innocent? You must be of the mind that up until now, the procecution has proven their case, so the defense has an uphill battle to prove theirs. I disagree. The prosecution did not prove their case, so the defense has that fact and others to prove a reasonable doubt.
Lastly, most of us do see the above, so we have faith that Micahel will be proven not guilty. This is based on the fact that the prosecution did not prove theirs. Talk about going on home.
And in my opinion, God is in charge.
Point one: The procecution did not prove their case.
Point two: The defense doesn't have to prove Michael is innocent, they just have to prove a reasonable doubt.
Point three: Michael is innocent.
And so how are you going to help Michael not get convicted, and although he is innocent? You must be of the mind that up until now, the procecution has proven their case, so the defense has an uphill battle to prove theirs. I disagree. The prosecution did not prove their case, so the defense has that fact and others to prove a reasonable doubt.
Lastly, most of us do see the above, so we have faith that Micahel will be proven not guilty. This is based on the fact that the prosecution did not prove theirs. Talk about going on home.
And in my opinion, God is in charge.
[No message]
Neverland manager denies accuser's family was held captive
Joe Marcus comes under heated cross-examination by prosecutor, who suggests that the witness was tailoring his testimony to help Jackson.
By The Associated Press
SANTA MARIA - Michael Jackson's property manager at his Neverland estate testified Tuesday he never instructed anyone to hold Jackson's accuser and the boy's family against their will, and he suggested no such captivity ever happened.
Joe Marcus also told jurors in Jackson's child molestation trial that the accuser's family never objected when there were discussions about them going to Brazil. He said the only thing they wanted to know was where to go to have passport pictures taken.
The captivity claim and the Brazil trip are part of the conspiracy portion of the case against the pop star, who is alleged to have molested a 13-year-old boy in 2003.
Prosecutors allege the singer conspired to hold the family to get them to rebut a TV documentary in which the boy appeared with Jackson, who said he let children sleep in his bed but it was non-sexual. They also claim Jackson associates planned to send the family on a one-way trip to Brazil.
Marcus came under heated cross-examination by Deputy District Attorney Gordon Auchincloss, who suggested that the witness was tailoring his testimony to help Jackson.
"Why do you keep looking at Mr. Jackson?" Auchincloss asked at one point.
The witness appeared startled and didn't answer, and a defense objection was sustained.
"Do you consider yourself a loyal employee of Mr. Jackson?" the prosecutor asked.
"Yes," said Marcus.
He was then asked if he took orders from anyone else at the ranch, such as Jackson associate Dieter Wiesner.
"I would take requests from Dieter Wiesner and address them as needed," he said.
"Dieter Wiesner didn't tell you what to do?" asked Auchincloss.
"True," said the witness.
"Mr. Jackson is the only person that can tell you to handle policies and practices at Neverland?" the prosecutor asked.
"True," said Marcus.
The prosecution was seeking to show that if there was a conspiracy to hold the family captive the property manager would have been given his orders only by Jackson, not the group of associates including Wiesner who have been named as unindicted co-conspirators in the case.
But Marcus continued to insist that there were no such orders and the only time he told security guards to keep the family on the grounds was after the accuser and his brother, who were then 13 and 10, had jumped in a full-size ranch vehicle and driven it around the property.
He said he was concerned for their safety and that of others they might encounter.
Auchincloss took the witness back to Nov. 18, 2003, when sheriff's deputies raided the ranch and interviewed many employees including Marcus, who at first told them he had no knowledge of children sleeping in Jackson's room.
"Do you have any knowledge of children sleeping in Mr. Jackson's room?" asked Auchincloss.
"Yes," said Marcus.
"And at the time of the search warrant you said you had no knowledge of children sleeping in Mr. Jackson's room," said Auchincloss.
"Yes," said Marcus, who later added that events of that day were chaotic and "I was overwhelmed."
The witness also said he never saw Jackson in possession of adult magazines or books.
"Do you know if Mr. Jackson possesses adult erotic materials?" asked the prosecutor.
"I don't know that he does," Marcus said. "I haven't seen them with him."
The prosecutor then showed a picture of Jackson's desk with tiny figurines of women in bondage attire standing upon it.
"Would you consider the figurines I showed you adult materials?" the prosecutor asked.
"A type of artwork of an adult nature," said Marcus.
"Do you think it's appropriate for children to be exposed to these?" Auchincloss asked.
Marcus paused and quietly said no.
The prosecutor also tried to show that Jackson has more "special friends" who are boys than girls or women.
Marcus said there were also females who were close to the star, but when asked to name them off the top of his head he could only come up with Elizabeth Taylor, Liza Minnelli, a grandchild of Marlon Brando, and Karlee Barnes, the sister of a boy who spent time at Neverland.
Marcus remained on the stand at the end of the day's testimony.
Jackson spokeswoman Raymone K. Bain said outside court there was still no decision on when actor Macaulay Culkin would be called to testify.
She said she has received hundreds of calls about his impending appearance and Jackson's lawyers are trying to minimize the "media circus" by not announcing it in advance.
The prosecution claims that Culkin, a Neverland visitor during his childhood, was among boys inappropriately touched by Jackson. The defense says Culkin has repeatedly denied that.
Source: http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/regstate/a...es/1564222.html
Joe Marcus comes under heated cross-examination by prosecutor, who suggests that the witness was tailoring his testimony to help Jackson.
By The Associated Press
SANTA MARIA - Michael Jackson's property manager at his Neverland estate testified Tuesday he never instructed anyone to hold Jackson's accuser and the boy's family against their will, and he suggested no such captivity ever happened.
Joe Marcus also told jurors in Jackson's child molestation trial that the accuser's family never objected when there were discussions about them going to Brazil. He said the only thing they wanted to know was where to go to have passport pictures taken.
The captivity claim and the Brazil trip are part of the conspiracy portion of the case against the pop star, who is alleged to have molested a 13-year-old boy in 2003.
Prosecutors allege the singer conspired to hold the family to get them to rebut a TV documentary in which the boy appeared with Jackson, who said he let children sleep in his bed but it was non-sexual. They also claim Jackson associates planned to send the family on a one-way trip to Brazil.
Marcus came under heated cross-examination by Deputy District Attorney Gordon Auchincloss, who suggested that the witness was tailoring his testimony to help Jackson.
"Why do you keep looking at Mr. Jackson?" Auchincloss asked at one point.
The witness appeared startled and didn't answer, and a defense objection was sustained.
"Do you consider yourself a loyal employee of Mr. Jackson?" the prosecutor asked.
"Yes," said Marcus.
He was then asked if he took orders from anyone else at the ranch, such as Jackson associate Dieter Wiesner.
"I would take requests from Dieter Wiesner and address them as needed," he said.
"Dieter Wiesner didn't tell you what to do?" asked Auchincloss.
"True," said the witness.
"Mr. Jackson is the only person that can tell you to handle policies and practices at Neverland?" the prosecutor asked.
"True," said Marcus.
The prosecution was seeking to show that if there was a conspiracy to hold the family captive the property manager would have been given his orders only by Jackson, not the group of associates including Wiesner who have been named as unindicted co-conspirators in the case.
But Marcus continued to insist that there were no such orders and the only time he told security guards to keep the family on the grounds was after the accuser and his brother, who were then 13 and 10, had jumped in a full-size ranch vehicle and driven it around the property.
He said he was concerned for their safety and that of others they might encounter.
Auchincloss took the witness back to Nov. 18, 2003, when sheriff's deputies raided the ranch and interviewed many employees including Marcus, who at first told them he had no knowledge of children sleeping in Jackson's room.
"Do you have any knowledge of children sleeping in Mr. Jackson's room?" asked Auchincloss.
"Yes," said Marcus.
"And at the time of the search warrant you said you had no knowledge of children sleeping in Mr. Jackson's room," said Auchincloss.
"Yes," said Marcus, who later added that events of that day were chaotic and "I was overwhelmed."
The witness also said he never saw Jackson in possession of adult magazines or books.
"Do you know if Mr. Jackson possesses adult erotic materials?" asked the prosecutor.
"I don't know that he does," Marcus said. "I haven't seen them with him."
The prosecutor then showed a picture of Jackson's desk with tiny figurines of women in bondage attire standing upon it.
"Would you consider the figurines I showed you adult materials?" the prosecutor asked.
"A type of artwork of an adult nature," said Marcus.
"Do you think it's appropriate for children to be exposed to these?" Auchincloss asked.
Marcus paused and quietly said no.
The prosecutor also tried to show that Jackson has more "special friends" who are boys than girls or women.
Marcus said there were also females who were close to the star, but when asked to name them off the top of his head he could only come up with Elizabeth Taylor, Liza Minnelli, a grandchild of Marlon Brando, and Karlee Barnes, the sister of a boy who spent time at Neverland.
Marcus remained on the stand at the end of the day's testimony.
Jackson spokeswoman Raymone K. Bain said outside court there was still no decision on when actor Macaulay Culkin would be called to testify.
She said she has received hundreds of calls about his impending appearance and Jackson's lawyers are trying to minimize the "media circus" by not announcing it in advance.
The prosecution claims that Culkin, a Neverland visitor during his childhood, was among boys inappropriately touched by Jackson. The defense says Culkin has repeatedly denied that.
Source: http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/regstate/a...es/1564222.html
Purdy Young Thang
New member
Y'know...I've actually done that, Vicky.
Just lay there, thinking... okay. if I were Mike, a kid was sleeping next to me... just a kid, no more than 12, and in all their innocent sweetness (as we know Gavin is an exception to THAT ;P).... and me. Michael- where hurting a child is completely foreign in my mind and heart.
As Michael I would glance at the child and smile. Thinking of why I let him sleep next to me. Because I just let him, that's all. We had a long, fun day of doing stuff, going on rides, eating lots of ice cream and candy, and just hung out in my room (because they wanted to come with me), when we felt tired and just went to bed.
And that is truly all.
I agree with what you said about people's perspective of "sleeping with" someone. Let's just face it, people have dirty minds, dirty filthy and NASTY-- and that dirtiness spreading to where it should NOT, like children. And that's where pedophiles arise: they can't stop thinking about and associating things with sex.
That's where these hoes like Nancy Grace and Diane Dimond come in, and Tom Sneddon and especially Janet Arvizo. Michael is different from us in the way he looks at topics like sex, and companionship with kids. His heart is purer and he only associates sex with what it SHOULD- romance, women, art. That kind of thing.
People, especially those against him, CAN NOT STAND IT that he loves these kids as much as they love him when they share a bed with him. So they use that to their advantage, twist it up in their own nasty sexual favor to make him look bad.
It's how the other people think that's WRONG, it's THEIR minds committing the crime of pedophilia-- not Michael.
Does that make any sense?
Purdy Young Thang
New member
Y'know, that's not so much porny as it is artsy-fartsy.
Even if the women were naked, bondage clothes does NOT neccessarily mean sex. Kids could look at it and go "hey, kewl outfits."
As I said, tis only people's minds that link sex with stuff, such as clothes that remind them of bondage (black leather and such).
if you ask me that's BS and the prosecution ain't got NOTHIN on that!
Tiger Lilly
New member
Michael has models of women in bondage.....Yep, that's it, he did it for sure!
................................
whatever....
................................
whatever....Point one: The persecution did not prove anything except that MJ enjoys porn. They certainly did NOT prove their case.
Point two: You are mistaken. The defense does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that MJ is innocent -- that's why an accused is innocent until proven guilty. No one ever should prove they're innocent, it's the prosecution's role to prove they're guilty. Problem is that MJ is world famous and people are prejudiced. However, the jury took an oath and they are supposed to not be prejudiced or at least be able to look past their first impressions.
Point three: EVERYBODY AGREES THAT MJ IS INNOCENT. Please stop telling people who are trying to discuss the facts that they are not true fans. Besides, the jury still needs to believe that MJ is innocent too, for God's sake!!!
Oh and talking about God, let us PLEASE leave our personal religious opinions at the door, thank you very much everybody. We can barely agree on what to think about what's going on in the courtroom, so let's please not drag God into this...
Cristine87
New member
OMG, this is getting really stupid! Tom Sneddon is just taking anything he found in Michael's house & trying to make it of a sexual nature. Figurines of women in bondage? Funny how Michael has such a lust for young boys yet has all these provacative images of women everywhere!