official May 10 2005 thread

[Tabloid Junkie]

Lol!

 

[danaluvsmj]

this is so stupid! It's sooo obvious that Michael really likes women, I mean look at the way he reacts to his female fans, and hello he was married twice!


God what's this have to do with this BS case anyway? :extremely

 

[minnie michael]

yes its very outraged and embarassed that they have been talking about that one topic for more than 20 years..about whether or not Mike like women??? :uh_uh: since i became a fan till right now...faint out..totally more than 10 years...i am 22 years old right now...i remember when i was 11 i read something about whether or not MIke has girlfriends...till right now....i am very very sick and tired of this topic..everybody has their own life..plz.. :sneddoncr is very very

 

[megan23]

Whether Mike likes women or not is totally irrevelant....they are somehow implying that if you are gay than you are a child molestor. If I was gay I would be totally offended, hell I am offended now about that insuation :screaming !And so freakin what if Joe Marcus can't name off a lot Mike's lady friends...guess what I can't name off my boss's either :extremely . Just because he doesn't know a lot of them doesn't mean Mike doesn't have them...I hope the jurors are seeing through the :bs

 

[maintenant]

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.

This is a VERY strong point. The NEVER went to the police...instead, they went to CHANDLER'S lawyer, who sent the kids to psychologist Katz (who had had connections with the bogus McMartin Preschool molestation case) and KATZ called the police (as he is required to do). It seems that the grifters never intended a criminal trial, they just hoped for another Chandler-like settlement. Now they're trapped in this web of lies, perjury, etc. Surely the jury can see this?

 

[maintenant]

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?

All good points, Mystique! And here's another one...if Michael were supposedly this "serial molestor," and the prosecution wanted to bring in all the 1993 witnesses to "show a pattern of grooming the kids for molestation", Michael would then have to be just "all over this kid", working on him, being around him every second, etc. Instead, we find out that Michael was hardly even THERE when they were there, they just ran around loose and unsupervised, driving Michael's car, etc., and Michael probably didn't even KNOW about that, and Gavin HIMSELF testified that he was pissed because Michael was avoiding him! Doesn't look like a heck of a lot of "grooming" to me! If anyone COULD have been "groomed," who Michael spent a LOT of time with, were Brett Barnes, Wade Robson, and Macaulay Culkin, ESPECIALLY Mac, and all three of them say NOTHING happened, and their relatives agree, too. So it is patently obvious, there never WAS a pattern of grooming!

All the prosecution is down to is the concept of "just because everybody accusing him is lying doesn't mean that he DIDN'T molest Gavin, so he MIGHT have." Yeah, but you could use that exact same argument to say that Michael "might" have "molested" Elizabeth Taylor, Marlon Brando, every maid and security guard, the airline flight attendants and the pilots, too, and the gardener and cook for good measure! I mean, there's no evidence, no pattern, no good opportunity...how can the jury POSSIBLY come back with anything but a resounding NOT guilty?

 

[maintenant]

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!

You're right, as always, Cristine. This line of questioning is insane...there have BEEN convicted male child molestors who had relations with adult women, who had families and children of their own (and need we add that most child sex abuse actually HAPPENS in the family?)...so whether Michael had a string of adult female sex partners, or none at all, means absolutely nothing relevant to this case.

I really can't stand these prosecutors, they are so backward and prejudicial and unethical in everything they do and say. Santa Barbara County REALLY needs to get rid of this Dark Ages kind of prosecutorial force and move forward into the 21st century.

 

[maintenant]

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

Very interesting, mjfannn! Having to hire a P.R. firm, for one thing, says they have nothing really substantial backing them up but :bs , and this also proves political aspirations on the part of Sneddon, such as he wants to run for Congress or whatever. Too bad, so sad, he's blown that chance (foolish idiot)! :sneddoncr

 

[maintenant]

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

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. Who knows, maybe Sneddon really is that stupid, in which case, Sneddon's got some more days ahead of sitting there with his shaking head in his hands and wishing he could just wear a mask from now on.

 

[maintenant]

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.

This one made me laugh out loud! And oh yes, it is retarded.

I wonder why Mesereau didn't object to that line of questioning (or did he?). Maybe he's got a surprise up his sleeve...some mystery woman who will testify all about Michael's sexual moves--NOT that it's relevant, but it would make a cool punch in the prosecution's solar plexus. :banana-mu

 

[maintenant]

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.

Which, if anything, was probably another gift from a fan. But yeah, it was a bondage BARBIE doll, not a Ken doll....

 

[maintenant]

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.

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:

 

[maintenant]

Originally posted by Tabloid Junkie
That makes me sick. How do people possibly operate like that?

Well, one thing for sure, they can't be like that and also be the King of Pop!

 

[maintenant]

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:

Oprah was laughing about Michael? I didn't know that....

 

[InspirationMoonwalks]

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:

LMAO! :lol: And damn good points there too, might I add...that's how ridiculous and petty this whole "case" is...I can't believe this MESS has even gone this far.. :yuk

And poor Michael..if the man had any privacy to start with, it's virtually ALL gone now...that's gotta suck for him, to have all his personal shit put out in public like that. Gotta feel sorry for the guy in that sense and all around..this is all so unfair But it's okay...he will still be victorious in the end..because in the end, the TRUTH will prevail..

 

[MJ_FAN_FOR_LIFE733]

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.

Thank you Vickey!

 

[HotMJ!]

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.

I catch hints dropped by the media regarding the jury. There have been quite a few. Also reports back from members on other boards. Tomorrow (Wednesday) someone is going to court and I've asked them to watch the jury carefully. They are smart and have done this all along. I will be interested in hearing their latest update.

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.

The sensationalistic, ratings-oriented media has been Michael's enemy for more than a decade and during this time Michael has been a pin cushion for all the media's unfair barbs and jabs.

So what can be done??



Write to the media :writing:

Complain to the media :screaming



.

 

[HotMJ!]

I really never watch Bloom on Court TV. Just finished the last MJEOL video download (May 9, 2005?). She and Dimond are sooooo awful. The bias, arch remarks and negative spin are palpable! :yuk


Can't we organize a backlash? Aren't there any black activist groups working on this at least? :idontknow


Court TV should be too scared to do this sh*t. Somebody needs to put the fear of God in them regarding all the BS that they spew over that channel and on their message boards! :screaming


Grrrrrrrr...! :extremely


:hitting :throwings

 

[Frenchy]

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.

Bottom line is that they are implying that maybe Mike is gay and therefore he is more likely to be a child molester. That is CLEARLY where they are going. There's no "if"s. That's a fact: remember Wade? They showed him gay porn and asked him if he'd feel comfortable having his kid sleep with Jackson if he knew he had such magazines. Sneddon is not only stupid and racist, he's also a homophobe. Well I suppose it all comes down to ignorance. This case if getting worse and worse by the day. I did not think until now that this case really had a racial motive to it, but now that the persecution look like they're also gay bashers, then they could totally be racist too. F*** bigots.

Now about the dolls, I don't think you can call Barbies a "figurine" or "adult art-work" even if Skipper slave is doing it with Barbie master... :lol: I really don't think they're Barbie dolls...

 

[Frenchy]

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.

Oh my God, sorry but I so disagree. Who do you think it going to say Michael is innocent or guilty? For God's sake, that's up to 12 people. Mike's fate is in their hands. Even the judge doesn't have a say in this. I understand and I agree with you that public opinion is paramount to Michael. BUT that's exactly why Michael needs to be found innocent in a court of law: so that, WHEN he's found innocent, people who still think he's guilty can have their dirty mouth shut up by the verdict...