Tabloid Junkie
New member
This is definetlynot a way to end a case. :laugh
Official May 2 2005 thread
- Thread starter whisperAdmin
- Start date
This is definetlynot a way to end a case. :laugh
Tiger Lilly
New member
It's definately not! A jury should be ready to convict by now, instead Sneddumb's boring them to sleep! :lol:
All you lurkers down there, post your comments guys! :thumbsup
Tabloid Junkie
New member
I know! No one is posting yet there are 35 people in this thread.
Tiger Lilly
New member
Witness: Jackson Associate Cashed Checks By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent
7 minutes ago
SANTA MARIA, Calif. - During the weeks surrounding the broadcast of a damaging documentary about Michael Jackson, his associates apparently made dozens of phone calls to each other, prosecutors showed Monday in the pop star's child molestation and conspiracy trial. The phone records and unexplained testimony about one associate cashing two huge checks on an account shared with Jackson were offered as the prosecution neared the end of its case.
ADVERTISEMENT
The jury was not told how the calls support the case, but prosecutors are expected to say in final arguments that they show frantic activity in an effort to stem the damage caused by the "Living With Michael Jackson" documentary.
None of the calls were traceable to Jackson, 46, who is accused of molesting a 13-year-old boy at his Neverland ranch, giving him alcohol and conspiring to hold the boy's family captive to rebut the documentary, in which the singer said he shared his bed with children.
Prosecutor Mag Nicola spent hours showing jurors charts of calls, primarily between the phones of three men named as unindicted co-conspirators, the mother of the boy who was allegedly molested, and an assortment of Jackson employees and lawyers.
The first series of calls occurred during a trip to Miami by Jackson, his entourage, the accuser and the boy's family. Prosecutors showed calls to and from the presidential suite at the Miami resort where Jackson stayed.
During cross-examination, defense attorney Robert Sanger asked sheriff's Detective Robert Bonner whether there was any way to determine if Jackson took part in the calls. Bonner said there was not.
In other testimony, a bank manager testified that in April 2003, Marc Schaffel, who has been identified as an unindicted co-conspirator, cashed checks for $1 million and $500,000 on an account for which he and Jackson were the only signatories.
Schaffel's name has surfaced repeatedly in connection with efforts to contain damage from the documentary. But Schaffel has claimed that he had extensive financial dealings with Jackson and that the pop star owes him more than $3 million in loans and producing fees.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050502/ap_en_...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
7 minutes ago
SANTA MARIA, Calif. - During the weeks surrounding the broadcast of a damaging documentary about Michael Jackson, his associates apparently made dozens of phone calls to each other, prosecutors showed Monday in the pop star's child molestation and conspiracy trial. The phone records and unexplained testimony about one associate cashing two huge checks on an account shared with Jackson were offered as the prosecution neared the end of its case.
ADVERTISEMENT
The jury was not told how the calls support the case, but prosecutors are expected to say in final arguments that they show frantic activity in an effort to stem the damage caused by the "Living With Michael Jackson" documentary.
None of the calls were traceable to Jackson, 46, who is accused of molesting a 13-year-old boy at his Neverland ranch, giving him alcohol and conspiring to hold the boy's family captive to rebut the documentary, in which the singer said he shared his bed with children.
Prosecutor Mag Nicola spent hours showing jurors charts of calls, primarily between the phones of three men named as unindicted co-conspirators, the mother of the boy who was allegedly molested, and an assortment of Jackson employees and lawyers.
The first series of calls occurred during a trip to Miami by Jackson, his entourage, the accuser and the boy's family. Prosecutors showed calls to and from the presidential suite at the Miami resort where Jackson stayed.
During cross-examination, defense attorney Robert Sanger asked sheriff's Detective Robert Bonner whether there was any way to determine if Jackson took part in the calls. Bonner said there was not.
In other testimony, a bank manager testified that in April 2003, Marc Schaffel, who has been identified as an unindicted co-conspirator, cashed checks for $1 million and $500,000 on an account for which he and Jackson were the only signatories.
Schaffel's name has surfaced repeatedly in connection with efforts to contain damage from the documentary. But Schaffel has claimed that he had extensive financial dealings with Jackson and that the pop star owes him more than $3 million in loans and producing fees.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050502/ap_en_...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
Tabloid Junkie
New member
Thanks Gemma! **reads**
Tabloid Junkie
New member
:laugh
It's called character assasination, and I'm afraid that Mr. Bias Melville can just sit back and not give a worry that this is prejudicial. I'm sure the jury will see through it.
danaluvsmj
New member
Gee, Sneddy must be really desperate, looks like his case is going to end on a bad note.
It definitely looks like Michael will be acquitted.
It definitely looks like Michael will be acquitted.
Tiger Lilly
New member
From TSColdMan:
Eight times?! :lol: Wow she must really have wanted to go back to Neverland!
koprulestheworld
New member
Is it too soon for news reporters to say that?? :idontknow
koprulestheworld
New member
.
...The phone records and unexplained testimony about one associate cashing two huge checks on an account shared with Jackson were offered as the prosecution neared the end of its case....
The jury was not told how the calls support the case...
None of the calls were traceable to Jackson, 46...
It seems the media are as confused about the prosecution's presentation today as we are. It just doesn't make sense. Nothing presented today ties Michael Jackson into any conspiracy. My guess is that if it's confusing to us and to the media, then the jury is probably going:
...The phone records and unexplained testimony about one associate cashing two huge checks on an account shared with Jackson were offered as the prosecution neared the end of its case....
The jury was not told how the calls support the case...
None of the calls were traceable to Jackson, 46...
It seems the media are as confused about the prosecution's presentation today as we are. It just doesn't make sense. Nothing presented today ties Michael Jackson into any conspiracy. My guess is that if it's confusing to us and to the media, then the jury is probably going:
Tiger Lilly
New member
Michael always looks beautiful! :inlove
Never take Sneddon's word! *roll eyes*
koprulestheworld
New member
Until then lets just say we dont know :
I'm Starting With The Man In
The Mirror
(Ooh!)
I'm Asking Him To Change
His Ways
(Ooh!)
And No Message Could Have
Been Any Clearer
If You Wanna Make The World
A Better Place
(If You Wanna Make The
World A Better Place)
Take A Look At Yourself And
Then Make A Change
(Take A Look At Yourself And
Then Make A Change)
I'm Starting With The Man In
The Mirror
(Ooh!)
Tiger Lilly
New member
^^^ Huh?
A.Beautiful.Mind
New member
I don't believe the judge should rule in the favour of the prosecution in this circumstance. Hadn't the Judge already established the limited amount of testimony which would be accpeted regarding this particular nature of the prosecution's case. If the Judge allows the testimony of the financial expert to be heard before a jury then he is contradicting what he previously stated when the prosecution filed for a plea to introduce financial documents.
HeavenSent
New member
My first time in today. Can't say I enjoy all the confusion, I wish things could be more cut and dry.
But noooooo. The prosecution can't make things too easy. It would seem too much like they're aiming for justice.
Basically Sneddon's trying to muddle up and confuse the hell out of the jurors to make his case sound more complicated & credible. I mean wtf is up w/the phone records? None of them could be traced back to Michael? Wait, I thought he was the one who was indicted? I don't know Law101, but I thought your evidence is supposed to tied to the defendant? :idontknow.
Note my sarcasm :lol:
But noooooo. The prosecution can't make things too easy. It would seem too much like they're aiming for justice.
Basically Sneddon's trying to muddle up and confuse the hell out of the jurors to make his case sound more complicated & credible. I mean wtf is up w/the phone records? None of them could be traced back to Michael? Wait, I thought he was the one who was indicted? I don't know Law101, but I thought your evidence is supposed to tied to the defendant? :idontknow.
Note my sarcasm :lol:
