Official May 26 2005 Thread

classicaldj

New member
Judge allows tape of Jackson accuser at trial
By Dan Whitcomb 22 minutes ago

A videotape of police interviewing the boy accusing Michael Jackson of sexual abuse can be played in court, the trial judge ruled on Thursday as both sides scrambled to present their final evidence before turning the case over to jurors.

Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville, however, ruled that prosecutors could not show jurors pictures of Jackson's penis taken during a 1993 investigation of sex abuse claims that were settled without charges being brought.

Since Jackson and his lawyers have said that his long-held practice of sharing his bed with children is innocent and nonsexual, prosecutors had hoped to rebut that claim with evidence that the boy in the 1993 case provided a detailed description of Jackson's genitals, including a distinguishing blemish one prosecutor described as a "spot."

"I'm going to deny the request to bring in evidence of the blemished penis," said Melville. "The prejudicial effect would far outweigh the probative value."

The 1993 case was settled after Jackson agreed to pay $23 million to the boy and his family. In December 1993, Jackson proclaimed his innocence on television and said he had been humiliated by the police who photographed his genitals as part of their investigation.

TAPE ALLOWED

Prosecutors had asked to play the tape of the boy at the center of the current case speaking to police investigators to counter defense claims that he had been coached by his mother.

They said the tape would demonstrate that the boy, then 13, had told a consistent story about abuse by the 46-year-old entertainer since his first interview with police in 2003.

Melville asked both sides to edit down the tape of Jackson's accuser speaking to police before playing it for jurors.

In response, Jackson's lawyers said they may call the boy and his mother as well as Stan Katz, a psychologist who first interviewed the boy, and Larry Feldman, a family lawyer, back to the witness stand.

All four had testified earlier in the case in which Jackson is charged with molesting the boy during a stay at his Neverland estate in 2003.

Jackson also faces charges of plying the boy with alcohol and conspiring to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion.

The pop star, who has pleaded innocent, faces more than 20 years in prison if convicted on all counts.

The legal motions on Thursday came before the jury of eight women and four men was brought into court.

The defense rested on Wednesday after calling 50 witnesses, including comedians Jay Leno and Chris Tucker, in a bid to cast doubt on the motives and background of the family of Jackson's accuser.

Closing arguments are expected to begin next week with jury deliberations in the four-month long trial to follow.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050526/...on_dc&printer=1
 

Eboni

New member
Hey guys ....any immediate news as yet....I 'm afraid to watch court tv....I learned my lesson yesterday.

-....it's like watching the enquirer on tv :yuk
 

MystiqueX2004

New member
eboni i feel ur pain, today was the first day that i ever watched court tv, don't ask me why, but they are making it seem as though Michael was these kids's parents. Michael is a grown man, and children are not the only people who stay there. Court Tv is saying that Neverland is not the type of environment for children. If that is so, then it is the parent's job to take care of that. It is the parent's job to determine whether or not they want their kids exposed to that type of environment, not Michael. Michael simply opens the doors and welcomes them to his home. I ask you all this, if these kids are supposed to be so innocent, why were they watching porn on tv and not Michael's cousin? Michael's cousins had enough discretion not to drink, not to watch these programs, so why not the Arviso children? Why do they have porn mags in their bookbags? Why would they demand alcohol from the cook? Why is it so convenient that these are the ONLY kids that have this allegation? And it is not consistent with other children or other molestation allegations? These kids have lied before UNDER OATH about sexual abuse. They KNOW what sexual abuse is. It is not something new to them. The accuser has claimed abuse before quite easily, so why was he reluctant before? They are making it seem like these things are available to each and every kid, but if that is so, then why aren't Michael's cousins involved in this? Why didn't little Rio masturbate with the Arvisos? Where was the mother in all this? If the kids had such ready access, you mean to tell me that all this was going on and she knew NOTHING of it to determine, OK I don't want my kids around this mess. Why is it that out of all the families that have been to Neverland, none of them have come back and said, "Man, Neverland is not a place for kids. It is so easy to get booze and sexual images there?" Are they forgetting the testimony of Azja Pryor when she said, "It's Neverland. Who would want to leave?" Are they forgetting the prior testimony of the house manager Jesus Salas, when he said that he was asked to bring sodas for the kids and wine for the adults? If he saw Michael drunk with these kids, then why didn't he do anything? Where were the security officers who's job is to protect these kids? Especially at this time of the Bashir documentary where the world was watching Michael Jackson? These kids are not your typical average goody-two shoes. These kids are experienced liars who were good enough to get a rather large settlement for their mother. CourtTV is saying, "yeah yea yea, she committed welfare fraud, this has nothing to do with that." But let me say this, if the mother has enough guts to lie to the government for more money, lie and get her kids to lie to get a settlement from JCPenny, then what else is she capable of???? I can guarantee you that today was the first and last day that I will ever watch that channel... :nonono:
 

Eboni

New member
Originally posted by MystiqueX2004
eboni i feel ur pain, today was the first day ...


Here, Here!!!!

-That court tv is the pits!!....I especially dislike that whore Nasty Disgrace...

I know I say that all the time but I do dislike that woman and her accomplice Diane Dumba$$!! :yuk
 

Cristine87

New member
Originally posted by MystiqueX2004
eboni i feel ur pain, today was the first day ...

Exactly, they're saying that the JC Penny incident has nothing to do with this but the 93' allegations are not related to this either. I cannot believe some people. I also made the mistake of watching MSNBC, The Abrhams report & they all keep saying it will be a hung jury on the molestation. Some other prosecutor also said that if Gavin takes the stand, it can be good for the prosecution basically because Gavin can make himself more convincing this time around. People want to see him go to jail for the hell of it, not because they think he's guilty, but because they want to see him fall from grace!
 

sistahlamb

New member
This is something that someone said on MJNO that I found quite interesting.

No, It was not just you who noticed this! The T,V, Is talking over and over about being guilty because of alcohol,pron, and Micheal,s habits!

Noone mentions "This is MICHEAL JACKSON'S home"! He can do whatever he wants in his own home! He is an adult!

I have booze in my house and I do not have it locked up! My son is the same age as the accuser! My son does not get into it because I am gone!

Also, I have a computer and he knows better than get on Porn! Although at his age I would not be surprised if he looked at Playboy.Which is also in my home!

Having these things in your own home is not against the law! Having children in your own home with booze,pron,ect.. is still not against the law!

Why, Do they keep saying it is for kids only and forget to memtion This is his home!

I can bet a thousand,everyone of those reporter have or had the same things in their own home .If MJ is quilty over the things he keeps in his own home then we are all in trouble!

These kids are unruly and believing their story is way to much!
 

MystiqueX2004

New member
That is what I have been saying all along. These are not your average kids. They knew about these things long before they met Michael. A maid even testified that she saw porn mags in their bags. And how is all this in relation to a pedophilia? A pedophile doesn't get drunk and molest kids! It is the other way around. So you mean to tell me, that because pornography and alcohol is readily accessible, that it immediately points to molestation? That is not the typical profile of a molestor. Not at all.....You find no DNA evidence, no child porn, you have a family that has consistently lied about sex abuse for financial gain, and you want to tell me that Michael Jackson is guilty beyond reasonable doubt? In my opinion, at the end of the day, it all boils down to evidence. There is evidence that he lied about his drinking, about not ever masturbating, about seeing the porn magazines because he was not at Neverland to see them, and a number of other things. The stories are inconsistent and the fact that these people are saying that the accuser if called to the stand may now be more credible, what else would one expect from someone who has been in these situations before and has had four months to prepare for a possible return? One way or another, he has contradicted himself under oath several times.

Edit: Oh and one more thing that I forgot to mention: CourtTV was saying that the wine cellar and cabinets were not locked, but indeed they were. The kids broke into the cellar and Michael was nowhere to be found, therefore how can he be responsible if he was not there?--> Security guard's testimony. Remember, these kids stole wine--> Simone Jackson's testimony. So tell me how in the world, do these kids know to steal wine and then come on the stand and say, "We never drank wine out of Michael's presence."?
 

Cristine87

New member
Originally posted by MystiqueX2004
That is what I have been saying all along. These are not your average kids. They knew about these things long before they met Michael. A maid even testified that she saw porn mags in their bags. And how is all this in relation to a pedophilia? A pedophile doesn't get drunk and molest kids! It is the other way around. So you mean to tell me, that because pornography and alcohol is readily accessible, that it immediately points to molestation? That is not the typical profile of a molestor. Not at all.....You find no DNA evidence, no child porn, you have a family that has consistently lied about sex abuse for financial gain, and you want to tell me that Michael Jackson is guilty beyond reasonable doubt? In my opinion, at the end of the day, it all boils down to evidence. There is evidence that he lied about his drinking, about not ever masturbating, about seeing the porn magazines because he was not at Neverland to see them, and a number of other things. The stories are inconsistent and the fact that these people are saying that the accuser if called to the stand may now be more credible, what else would one expect from someone who has been in these situations before and has had four months to prepare for a possible return? One way or another, he has contradicted himself under oath several times.

Edit: Oh and one more thing that I forgot to mention: CourtTV was saying that the wine cellar and cabinets were not locked, but indeed they were. The kids broke into the cellar and Michael was nowhere to be found, therefore how can he be responsible if he was not there?--> Security guard's testimony. Remember, these kids stole wine--> Simone Jackson's testimony. So tell me how in the world, do these kids know to steal wine and then come on the stand and say, "We never drank wine out of Michael's presence."?
Yeah, these children have lied about many things & for whatever reason, these little pundits on t.v. don't seem to point that out. This kid specifically stated that he never spoke to Jay Leno & what happens? Jay Leno went on the stand & testified to talking to him & his suspicions about the boy! Yet these people want to make it seem as if the accuser is so great & untarnished.
 

MJPowerOfLove

New member
Originally posted by MJISHOT
hope u have a shit birthday sneddface!
banana4.gif
moon.gif
the same wishes from me :laugh
 

whisperAdmin

Administrator
Staff member
Originally posted by Cristine87
There haven't been anymore updates? Damn!
Calm down. The updates we normally get from the likes of Dimond and her desperate crew are only the prosecution's direct testimony.
 

MystiqueX2004

New member
i heard that they called the CJ reporter on the stand and she said that the mother never declined a turkey for Thanksgiving and the 5 dollar bill that was given. Also, they had a hospital person and the grandmother on who said that the husband could not have abused the mother because they were both in jail and after being released, the mother was taken to the hospital for her injuries. My questions are: If the mother never wanted money, then why bring a 5 dollar bill? And out of all the money that one can give to a supposedly needy family, why five dollars? why not 20? or 50? she's a celebrity justice reporter, i am sure she can come up with a bit more than 5 dollars. And, why would the editor of that article lie? what would be the motive for the editor to lie? And, regardless of whether or not the mother was not beaten by her husband does not erase the fact that the woman lied and got her kids to back her up. why in the world, would this family who just got a sizable settlement need a turkey and 5 dollars anyway???? That again is deceit at work....
 
Top