Official May 12 2005 thread

[Eboni]

Originally posted by alfredo
I'm sure that will backfire like everything else!

Yeah that's true :thumbsup

-Even if they found someone who has even a hint of credibility, the way the other 'witnesses' carried on, who'd ever believe him/her???

-It would be like after shifting through a barrel of bad worm infested apples you find a good one but don't want to eat it because it has appears tainted from the stench and debree of all the bad ones!! :yuk

 

[HotMJ!]

:crystalball:


I've nominated myself to be a JURY WATCHER! :thumbsup

So I found this news transcript at MJJForum,

(per TSColdMan):

Dimond: Right. That was sort of a backup copy of what was going on when the Bashir documentary was being filmed.

....He [Michael] said, you know, I was thrust into this role as a superstar and everyone would think I was so excited and happy to be so surrounded but I was really so intensely lonely. And at that point, Annika, I should tell you the court personnel report, one of the jurors in the front row, a 30 something Asian woman, began to weep openly and dab at her eyes. :thumbsup

:sneddoncr SnedDUMB Shamed

 

[got2makeitright]

I wish Michael Jackson videos Earth Song or Heal the world would be played to the jury, i bet would make them cry and would show Michael cares for the world and kids.

 

[mjgirl1745]

Originally posted by got2makeitright
I wish Michael Jackson videos Earth Song or Heal the world would be played to the jury, i bet would make them cry and would show Michael cares for the world and kids.

i agree

 

[got2makeitright]

Originally posted by mjgirl1745
i agree

Now back on topic:
Fox News just reported that the prosecution filed a motion to bring in more alleged victims :cryptic WTF

 

[MJISHOT]

Originally posted by HotMJ!
:crystalball:


I've nominated myself to be a JURY WATCHER! :thumbsup

So I found this news transcript at MJJForum,

(per TSColdMan):




:sneddoncr SnedDUMB Shamed

awww poor mike!

 

[got2makeitright]

This may be referring to the motion just released yesterday about wanting to use the balconey incident & the zoo incident to counter the testimony of the character witnesses.

In that motion Sneddon also wants to use Jordan Chandler's 93 affadavitand a statement that Latoya made about seeing a check for $1 million dollars written to Jimmy Safechuck to keep him quiet. Also mentioned was information about another alleged victim "Jonathan (forgot last name).

Jimmy and Jonathan were brought up before by Sneddon and could/would have been a part of the 1108 witnesses if Melville had not limited that to what we ended up hearing. The reason he let it out is because there was eyewitness testimony involved with Wade, Brett, and Mac, but not with the other 2.

I presume that this is the motion they are talking about because Sneddon evidently has asked once again for Melville to let that stuff in. So Melville will, unfortunately, have a chance to reverse his prior decision to keep all that out.

 

[Purdy Young Thang]

While several witnesses testified that Jackson would drink wine out of a Diet Coke can, he said in the interview he never took alcohol or drugs.

But when Bashir told him he did not like drinking alcohol on airplane flights, Jackson asked him: "You don't like a little bit of Jesus juice, a little bit of wine?" The pop star's young accuser has said Jackson had told him, at a time when he was recovering from cancer, that it was okay to drink wine, because it was "Jesus juice."

WTF is this? Can someone clarify this thing?!

 

[Aaliyah]

 

[alfredo]

Originally posted by Purdy Young Thang
WTF is this? Can someone clarify this thing?!

I read this as well. But what I took from it was liquor not wine. I don't think he lied because in the second part of that he talked about wine. There are some people that when you mention drinking they think of mixed drinks and such. (I don't drink, but occasionally my wife will pick out a very gentle wine for me for social occasions that we have with friends). There is no way I could ever have any type of hard liquor. 1) I don't like it 2) I do have the endoctrination that my devout(southern methodist) mother put in my head :lol: So even the idea of drinking liquor puts me on edge. :lol: If you were to ask me if I drink, I would tell you that I don't.

Sounds convoluted but I think there are alot of people who think the same way. Especially, people of devout parents and upbringing

-hope that helps

 

[whisperAdmin]

[No message]

 

[got2makeitright]

Anyupdates?

 

[Cristine87]

Originally posted by got2makeitright
This may be referring to the motion just released yesterday about wanting to use the balconey incident & the zoo incident to counter the testimony of the character witnesses.

In that motion Sneddon also wants to use Jordan Chandler's 93 affadavitand a statement that Latoya made about seeing a check for $1 million dollars written to Jimmy Safechuck to keep him quiet. Also mentioned was information about another alleged victim "Jonathan (forgot last name).

Jimmy and Jonathan were brought up before by Sneddon and could/would have been a part of the 1108 witnesses if Melville had not limited that to what we ended up hearing. The reason he let it out is because there was eyewitness testimony involved with Wade, Brett, and Mac, but not with the other 2.

I presume that this is the motion they are talking about because Sneddon evidently has asked once again for Melville to let that stuff in. So Melville will, unfortunately, have a chance to reverse his prior decision to keep all that out.

Is that true? Does anybody else no anything about this? I think it would be stupid to do that. If these supposed two other boys have no evidence or eyewitness accounts or anything else other then the words coming out of their mouths then I find that to be very unfair. So Sneddon is just gonna be allowed to put anybody on the stand to make allegations without any evidence?

 

[Cristine87]

Originally posted by sistahlamb
No, I don't think so.

Why do you think they decided to show the Bashir outakes yesterday??? It was a genius move on the defence's part. In that interview, he explianed everything that he would have said had he taken the witness stand. Those tapes were like a subtitute for his testimony--without cross-examination.

Meserau said in his opening statements that the jury "will be hearing from Mr. Jackson". Maybe those tapes were what he meant.

Was that not genius? I think that was great. Mez, I feel, wouldn't have to put Michael on the stand at this point. He pretty much said everything he had to say without anybody to twist his words around because that's Michael's problem, whenever he says something, somebody has to put it in to a bad context. I think that was the most important key in this whole trial to getting Michael vindicated. The jury now has a better understanding of who he is & what his beliefs are. So now, they must be thinking "Hmmm, this guy doesn't seem like he would hurt a fly" & they now understand why he loves to hang around children & the reason for the kind of lifestyle he has. They understand how he's been effected by how people have taken advantage of him & used him. It's not because he's a predator, it's because he missed out!

 

[Frenchy]

Why would these kids testify in another case? Don't you think they'd want to have their own case? If they can't, that's probably due to lack of evidence. So I don't understand why it would be allowed in this case. Doesn't make sense to me...

I think Sneddon tried to add more charges to the case in the hope that MJ would be convicted for at least one them, and I think he's using the same technique again: trying to add more witnesses in the hope that at least some of his stuff will be allowed. What I don't get is that Melville said that the prosecution would be allowed to reopen its case after it has rested it... So isn't that endless?? Supposedly they can only reopen it IF there's something new. So I think that if there is nothing new, Judge Melville will not allow it because he is not someone that you can BS into doing something. Your thoughts?

 

[MystiqueX2004]

Originally posted by Frenchy
Why would these kids testify in another case? Don't you think they'd want to have their own case? If they can't, that's probably due to lack of evidence. So I don't understand why it would be allowed in this case. Doesn't make sense to me...

I think Sneddon tried to add more charges to the case in the hope that MJ would be convicted for at least one them, and I think he's using the same technique again: trying to add more witnesses in the hope that at least some of his stuff will be allowed. I think that if there is nothing new, Judge Melville will not allow it because he is not someone that you can BS into doing something. Your thoughts?

What I don't get is that Melville said that the prosecution would be allowed to reopen its case after it has rested it... So isn't that endless??

What I don't understand, is why if any of these "additional victims" are supposedly credible, don't they have their own cases? Why haven't they come foward then? Why hadn't the DA prosecuted Michael based on these charges? Michael is only accused of molesting this victim, and those are the only charges against him, not anyother kid. So what relevance does Sneddon bringing in more kids have to do with this current case? Already we see that Michael does not fit the profile of a serial molestor, or even a "typical" molestor, so it would be unfair for Melville to allow said evidence..... :cryptic

 

[Frenchy]

Originally posted by MystiqueX2004
What I don't understand, is why if any of these "additional victims" are supposedly credible, don't they have their own cases?

Exactly. That does not make sense. That's what I was saying. Melville already prevented them from testifying because there was not enough evidence. And if there had been, then there would have been an indictment.

Again, my guess is that Sneddon is trying to have Melville allow as much "evidence" as possible -- his philosophy is "can't hurt to try"!

Originally posted by MystiqueX2004
So what relevance does Sneddon bringing in more kids have to do with this current case?

Well, why were the 1108 witnesses allowed? Because Sneddon wants to prove a pattern. He's still trying to prove it, despite the outtakes and Wade, Brett and Mac's testimonies.

 

[Tamiele]

Originally posted by sistahlamb
No, I don't think so.

Why do you think they decided to show the Bashir outakes yesterday??? It was a genius move on the defence's part. In that interview, he explianed everything that he would have said had he taken the witness stand. Those tapes were like a subtitute for his testimony--without cross-examination.

Meserau said in his opening statements that the jury "will be hearing from Mr. Jackson". Maybe those tapes were what he meant.

Yes, sistahlamb, that is what I think too. What a brilliant move on Mez's part. :thumbsup

 

[MystiqueX2004]

Originally posted by Frenchy




Well, why were the 1108 witnesses allowed? Because Sneddon wants to prove a pattern. He's still trying to prove it, despite the outtakes and Wade, Brett and Mac's testimonies.

True, but there is no logical pattern. He stated these people were molested, but never tried to contact them to hear their side. This case is seriously giving me a massive migraine because this is a gross violation of Michael's constitutional right of a fair trial.....

 

[Cristine87]

I find it ridiclous how they'll just let anybody go up there & testify that Michael did something when they have absolutely nothing to back it up with.