Tabloid Junkie
New member
Lol!
Originally posted by Tiger Lilly
Did any of the family say anything to the police about being molested? Not as soon as they "escaped" Neverland, no.
Originally posted by MystiqueX2004
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?
Originally posted by Cristine87
Oh my goodness, so does Michael have to put all his sex partners on the stand to prove something? I don't like where this is going. That's an invasion of his privacy!
Originally posted by mjfannn
Hay this is mjfannn. I just want to tuch base with you all on somthing I said last night regarding the way the media has twisted the information they'v been showing the public (1.) remember that for the first time in history the D.A's office is useing the help of a pr firm , so that explains why we are hearing about somthing this witness has said in a police intrview long ago and the media makeing it look like this is testimony that helps the prosecution. just some food for thought. :ratingsho
Originally posted by Frenchy
And anyway, if (I'm saying "IF" so don't make me say what I did not say! :lol: ) he were gay, it would mean he's a pedophile or is more likely to be? That is clearly where it is going and it is completely outrageous. :screaming
Originally posted by floacist
This case makes my hair hurt ... but seriously what can Michael do give a list of his booty calls, this is retarded.
Originally posted by Tabloid Junkie
Prosecutors showed jurors a doll on Mike's desk of a naked barbie with a strap on her head to make her look like a slave. That's what someone reported. Maybe I'm confused too.
Originally posted by sistahlamb
No.
The only thing I've heard is the dolls that were on his desk were little female figureines dressed in S&M outfitts.
I didn't hear anything about naked barbies.
What you probably heard is sensationalism.
Originally posted by Tabloid Junkie
That makes me sick. How do people possibly operate like that?
Originally posted by floacist
I dont know, I wouldnt even want to think about it but what I wanna know is how can Oprah sit down beside him and shake his hand like a respectable human being yet she is the first one to laugh at Michael who is INNOCENT till proven guilty. I am grumpy so I am just gonna stop before I ramble on about nothing. :writing:
Originally posted by maintenant
During his "Bad" era, Michael, himself wore what could be considered S&M outfits--all leather and buckles and straps and stuff. It's part of his costuming and role playing, etc. Geez, he certainly can't be incriminated on the basis of THAT!
Sneddum: "Your honor, we now enter into evidence one SEQUINED GLOVE!"
Judge: "What is that evidence of?"
Sneddum: "Your honor, the defendant had his HAND in it, he MUST have used this glove to molest his special friends!"
Judge: "Oh yeah, good point, I'll allow it." :buttkiss:
Originally posted by NevaehDreamz
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.
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.
Working backwards, I see the question about what the jury thinks is in doubt.Originally posted by NevaehDreamz
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.
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.
Originally posted by maintenant
If the prosecution dared to go down THAT false path ("being gay makes you more likely to be a pedophile"), you can be sure that T-Mez will bring in some expert witness to shoot that lie down in a blaze of Sneddon-blasting explosions, further embarrassing and discrediting the prosecution's case almost beyond all recognition.
Originally posted by HotMJ!
The battle is in the public relations area, NOT in the jury box. That has already been won, IMO. I have posted my reasons for thinking this in many previous posts.
I am quite weary of hearing about the jury. The jury is NOT the problem. The problem is the media and the public it propagandizes to its own biases.