Official May 25 2005 thread

HeavenSent

New member
Originally posted by sistahlamb
What's happend in the prosecution's rebuttal????? For gods sake!!!
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.
 
Has the judge ruled on the tape yet????

I don't mean to be rude, but could you please wait untill a member of the forum posts information about the ruling. If they're isn't anything on the forum at this point then it means that we still haven't recieved any information regarding that specific ruling.
 
Witness's which the prosecution thus far have put forwards during their rebuttal

Orginally posted by TSColdMan @ MJJF

1.) Vic Alvarez
2.) Shane Meredith
3.) Jesus Salas
4.) Tim Rooney

#1 - Said he interviewed Julio Avila and got him to say that he may have mistaken the Arvizos with the Cascios. Said he also tried to interview Chris Tucker.

#2 - Said he never heard of the two boys trying to drive golf carts / vehicles off the ranch

#3 - Said he never heard of the two boys trying to drive golf carts / vehicles off the ranch. Said no money was stolen from his office. Said he saw Jackson drunk around his kids up to 4-5 times a week. Said Gavin stayed in Jackson's room 90% of the time but wasn't sure where.

#4 - Said he looked in the filing cabinet and didn't see the activity logs or security information when they raided Neverland.
 

sistahlamb

New member
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....

Thanx alot for that info but what's that about that private eye report??????
 
Michael leaving court

52980183.jpg


2005-05-25T213442Z_01_SAM09D_RTRIDSP_2_CRIME-JACKSON.jpg
 

alfredo

New member
Originally posted by sistahlamb
Thanx alot for that info but what's that about that private eye report??????


It shoud be available on the home page. Whisper posted it! There were two documents in her post. One was the sign affadavit and the other was a statement given to some detective. I can't find it now but the crux of the affadavit was that the accuser and his brother were found with porn on them and had written upscene messages on some walls of NL. Now this cop wants to point the finger at some other kids. Why doesn't Sneddon call those kids if that what he believes? They also tried throw doubt on MJ cousin, Rio. The problem is the jury like him and couldn't stand to look at the kid/his brother/ or his sister.


-alfredo
 

whisperAdmin

Administrator
Staff member
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
 

minnie michael

New member
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


:thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup

i love the summary that Michael is NOT those silly kids' parents..he has no duty to keep an eye on them and check out their every single behavior..that's very important.. :thumbsup those kids are crazy and rude that's NOT Mike's faults..they drank and watched adult book that's NOT Mike's faults..actually..that kid is NOT an innocent, timid lil kid..he is a big kid with strong power..he knows everything about dirty things..that's NOT come from Mike..that's from himself..remember..he was 12..NOT 5 years old..he can read everything dirty by himself and do everything dirty by himself without someone's guide.. :thumbsup :thumbsup

:sneddoncrybaby Sneddonn your life is coming to an end..i hate you guts..you are cheaper than pig's shit..and that crazy Janut with your dirty kids..i with someone can send your whole family to hell.. :extremely :screaming when Mike is free i will let pig kiss your Sneddon's fat ass :thumbsup
 

Cristine87

New member
Originally posted by whisper
MSNBC: Keith Watters May 25 2005 A
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?
 

-MyAngelMJ-

New member
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?


Exactly. I don't understand this compromise he is talking about. Everything in this case is linked. If one thing didn't happen, so does the rest.
 

whisperAdmin

Administrator
Staff member
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
 

Cristine87

New member
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

"Something isn't right!" That's the phrase that we've been hearing alot in this trial when pertaining to this family. Something about these people is off! It's very obvious from the testimony that's been heard that this family is manipulative & cunning & I hope the jury remembers that because that could really make or break this case because they could be saying "Well, maybe the accuser was telling the truth but then again he is very manipulative & so is his mother & brother". The conspiracy charge is dead. The alcohol charges don't hold up because they were not able to prove that Michael served these kids alcohol, they were capable of getting it themselves. The molestation charges is what they'll be debating to the death, especially since most of these jurors are parents, but the closing argument by Mez can put it in Michael's hands. Remember, he made a phenomenal opening statement & if he does it again on closing, Michael can possibly win this!
 
Top