Originally posted by got2makeitright
Its dumb because iam dumb.
Are you trying to make me feel bad??
Originally posted by got2makeitright
Its dumb because iam dumb.
I'm sitting here wondering the SAME thing. C'mon as painful as it is to read, I want to know what the pros. is up to.Originally posted by sistahlamb
What's happend in the prosecution's rebuttal????? For gods sake!!!
Has the judge ruled on the tape yet????
Originally posted by *Ã
Thanks Dreamy....
This is just tit-for-tat bullsh!t. The DA does not want to bring up any real witnesses. The ranch security chief was a much better witness that Salas or Meridth. It was their responsibility to gaurd the ranch. Also, the conspiracy charge is dead. Salas sounds confused and I'm sure the jury has to be thinking the same thing. Why didn't he say this earlier? Why bring up the 90% and the drunk allegations at this point? Please. And the Cop who got that one person to change their story...too late he's on record with a private eye report and his own signed and certified statement. And if you really want to talk to Chris Tucker, try a supeana (sp). I hear they work wonders....
Originally posted by sistahlamb
Thanx alot for that info but what's that about that private eye report??????
Originally posted by *Ã
Originally posted by whisper
MSNBC: Keith Watters May 25 2005 A
Air date: May 25 2005
Keith Watters and G. Casimir
Watters says defense case is excellent
-says defense clearly discredited family
-says defense showed that his accuser and brother would go around acting like terrible house guests; sneaking alcohol, etc
-makes the point that Jackson was NOT the parent of these children
-says prosecutors put Jackson's entire life on trial
-says this case should have been done in 1 week
-says prosecutors brought in 1108, but he's not on trial for that
-says this is just a shakedown and Mike deserves to be acquitted
Compromise? Michael will get convicted of at least one of these charges as a compromise? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Either he did all he was accused of or he didn't, simple as that. How are you, the jury, gonna convict him on molestation but not everything else? Everything else is connected, if they don't believe one charge then why should they believe any of it?
Originally posted by Cristine87
Compromise? Michael will get convicted of at least one of these charges as a compromise? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Either he did all he was accused of or he didn't, simple as that. How are you, the jury, gonna convict him on molestation but not everything else? Everything else is connected, if they don't believe one charge then why should they believe any of it?
Originally posted by whisper
Court TV: Guthrie Re: Chris Tucker 1 May 25 2005 A
Air date: May 25 2005
Guthrie
-scoring major points for the defense
-talks about Tucker warning Jackson
-Tucker says woman made him uncomfortable
-Tucker says the woman kept interrupting
-Tucker says the trip to Miami was the accuser and his family's idea
-Tucker says the family asked him (Tucker) to help them find Jackson in Florida
-it was his private jet that the family rode in to get to Miami
-says Tucker has been a strong witness for the defense
-says Tucker said some devastating things
-Tucker described the accuser and his brother as "cunning" and manipulative
-says it was devastating testimony for the defense
Steven Skurka
-says this creates the link between a manipulative mother and a manipulative son
-says prosecutors can't attack the motives of the Tucker b/c everything indicates that Tucker and the family were friends