Official May 25 2005 thread

whisperAdmin

Administrator
Staff member
Contribute


Court TV: Guthrie Re: Chris Tucker 2 May 25 2005

2
Air date: May 25 2005

Guthrie
-Tucker talked about a trip to Las Vegas where he was filing Rush Hour
-Tucker says the family was only supposed to stay a couple of days and stayed for "weeks"
-Tucker says the boys were terrors on the set
-Tucker says he felt sorry for the accuser so he let some of their behavior go and giving them the benefit of the doubt
-Tucker says people around him were saying the family was taking advantage of him
-Tucker says his brother told him this family way trying to move into his hotel room
-Tucker says, in retrospect, this was one of the things that made him become suspicious of the family
-Tucker says the mother made him uneasy and the whole family was overly effusive
-Tucker says the accuser himself called Tucker repeatedly trying to get that truck
-Tucker decided not to give it to them b/c of his mounting suspicions
-says things fizzled out after Tucker gave Jackson that warning in Miami
-Tucker says he was going through some of his old numbers trying to see who these numbers belonged to about a year ago and ended up calling the accuser
-Tucker says the accuser say "Oh, hi Chris!" and he heard a female voice in the background going "Get off that phone right now!"

Steven Skurka
-says this case isn't a "morality play"; this is a criminal case
-says whatever you think of Jackson as a person it is far different from what the prosecution is alleging in this case
-says lawyers and non-lawyers have a lot of questions about the prosecution's case



Court TV: Guthrie Re: Chris Tucker 3 May 25 2005

3

Air date: May 25 2005

Guthrie
-judge made a joke about Leno's monologue "Has anybody seen my gavel?"
-host says there seems to be a lack of respect for our criminal courts; says this is a molestation "case"


Steven Skurka
-says prosecutors should be cringing if there is a jovial atmosphere in the courtroom and people are laughing
-says that may translate to a acquittal



Fox News Live: David Schwartz May 25 2005 (short)

Air date: May 25 2005

David Schwartz short comments
-says is a celebrity trial, but it's a real trial
-says Mesereau didn't promise he was going to put Jackson on the stand
-says Jackson got to tell his story through that video
 

alfredo

New member
From Post #140 Cristine87
Remember, he made a phenomenal opening statement & if he does it again on closing, Michael can possibly win this!


Ok, I'm not ready to talk about possibly. I know what you saying but we should evaluate this kid. There are tons of points that Mez will bring out in closing. The ones you make are at the top of the list. But here are a few more the pundits would like you to forget.

Jay Leno. It's not what he brought to the table directly but indirectly. Directly he's an a$$hole. Indirectly, he proves that this kid lies just like moma. This kid would have been better off telling the truth about Jay. Instead he flatly denied that he ever talked to Jay. Alot like the mother and the leg/body wax...hmmm

The Wine. This kid could have said he had wine before and after he left NL. Instead he says he never had wine outside MJ presence. Now, almost every witness tells another story. He even joked about going to AA. Everyone has notice that this kid took to wine and booze like a fish to water. These things are aquired tastes. But he claims he started drinking on his last visit to NL. Raise your hand if you believe that!

Molestation. The stories don't add up. They change the dates. He said the clocks were "off". He joked during the grand jury that he and MJ were alone "unless some navy seals dropped in by parachute". He claimed that he knew more about sex than MJ. The wine, porn and masterbation are not tied together. The alarm that doesn't alarm anyone. Idots!!

Masterbation/Porn. Claims he's never done it! Who ya gonna believe little Rio Jackson or this hethen? The magazines and the adult shows they watched. The maid found it in their bookbag.

Conspiracy. Claims there was one. He backs momma 100% on this ridiculous fable. The Brazil trip, the escapes (3), the "killers", etc.


Other Abuse Claims. He claimed his mother abused him. He claimed his father abused him. Yet, he waited to claim abuse with MJ. The D.A says "well little boys don't tell right away". The problem with that is this is a kid that's comfortable talking about masturbation with his sainted (but crazy) grandmother. How many of you catholic boys would discuss this with your grammy? If you are like me, you'd rather talk it over with Sister Mary Agnus at the local convent!! :bustbubbl


Hurt feeling & respect. He claimed his feelings were hurt when he found out MJ was avoiding him and that he lost respect for him. He also lost respect for all of his teachers. (By the way, wasn't Sneddon supposed to tell us he is now an angel? What ever happen to that?) :lol:

The Video. The kid backs up the family's crazy story that the video was rehearsed. That alone should get this bounced. (I'm sure when this is over MJ will give Geraldo first crack at that video.) :D

JCPenneys. Awe what a nice kid. :D He backs up the fact that he and his brother had to but his mother's breasts back in her shirt after the "assult" at JCpenneys. He claimed that his arm was broken by the security guards. He backed his mother's claims that her breast were squeezed 25 times and that she was groped for 7 minutes.

General overall bad feeling. Nothing about this kid makes you want to hug him. You only want to whip his a$$. Cancer or not, this is a bad seed. His knife-wielding brother scares you. Add to that, the fact that the brother witnesses his brother being molested (his facts are all crossed up on this) and goes back downstairs for more food. He's the one making some of these calls (Jay Leno, Chris Tucker, etc.). His cancer made him the front-man of this entire operation.

Family ties. The DA wants to change the time frame to fit his case. But by the time this family had met with lawyers, DCFS, and made the rebuttal video and tapes, they had all "witness" bad behavior of MJ. The mother and little brother claim head licking, the sister claimes weird actions by MJ during the trip back from Miami and at the hotel in Miami. The kids claim offers of wine by MJ. But nothing shows up on the tapes, video, or to the DCFS workers.


Chris. I know what you're saying. But if Mez nails these items on closing and I know he will, both of those hethen children's story will fall to pieces. We have to wait for the closing. Screw the pundits. The truth is right in front of this jury all Mez have to do is bring it home.

The molestation and wine charges will fall with the conspiracy.


-my thoughts
 

Cristine87

New member
Originally posted by alfredo
Remember, he made a phenomenal opening statement & if he does it again on closing, Michael can possibly win this!
I definitely have to agree with you on that! I keep hearing these legal experts talking about how the mother's credibility is shot but the kid's isn't & I'm like WTF? Gavin lied on the stand about talking to Jay Leno, mastubation & drinking(among other things) & he backed up his mother's stories, if they don't believe her, how can they believe him? Because this kid had cancer, the jury is just supposed to believe everything he says? If they believe the mother to be a con-artist, they have to remember she uses her kids for this conning. I can't wait to hear Mez's closing statements!
 

alfredo

New member
Originally posted by whisper
Michael "can possibly win" ? Chile, there is a hell of a lot more than just a "possibility".


I was responding to another post. I didn't make that clear when I copied from post #140. I edited my post. Everyone is getting a little nervous. Some users are forgetting what the defense has already accompblished. I think that has alot to do with the media. They want (need) to keep this close like an election for the ratings (commercials)

Thanks a zillion for keeping us up to date with all the videos and transcripts.


Alfredo
 

alfredo

New member
Originally posted by Cristine87
I definitely have to agree with you on that! I keep hearing these legal experts talking about how the mother's credibility is shot but the kid's isn't & I'm like WTF? Gavin lied on the stand about talking to Jay Leno, mastubation & drinking(among other things) & he backed up his mother's stories, if they don't believe her, how can they believe him? Because this kid had cancer, the jury is just supposed to believe everything he says? If they believe the mother to be a con-artist, they have to remember she uses her kids for this conning. I can't wait to hear Mez's closing statements!

Thanks, Cristine. I knew you would agree. I turned that post into a thread so all the nervous types could read it outside of this thread. You might want to tag on to that as well. Over the next few days we all going to have to help each other to remember what this case is about and what Mez has already proven. The media's dirty hands are at work.

alfredo
 
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

Oh, hell yes!!!!!!!!!!! This just made my evening a while lot better. :thumbsup


THANK YOU, WHISPER!!!!!!!! :thumbsup
 

hot4uMichael

New member
its no crime of drinking ... if it were then he would have been in jail a long time ago ... but I dont think it's right that he drinks infront of the children and I bet he has ever had
 

coco

New member
come on !
I mean, he could have some wine in front of a baby if he wants !
people everyday drink, smoke and have sex just next to their children, with separation as thin as a wall or less... I mean it's no big deal at all !!

the difference is EDUCATION !
if the brothers were educated, they would have stayed on their side, at their place, but they were raised to be assholes... that's just about that !
 

classicaldj

New member
Originally posted by alfredo
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....

:sneddoncrybaby



I think Sneddon had Salas add that part about MJ drinking and drunk because Melville is a recovering alcoholic and is so is very sensitive to drinkers.

There have been hints in all of the press that the timeline will put a nail in the coffin of Sneddon's case.

...
 
Top