InvincibleMjKid
New member
I can't wait for the Defense to start. Hope the prosecution will rest today.
official May 3 2005 thread
- Thread starter whisperAdmin
- Start date
koprulestheworld
New member
How many hours till court day is done?
sistahlamb
New member
Wow...I'm just getting caught up with all the updates sinece I haven't been able to get to a computer since noon today and I'm pretty shoked to find out what's come out in court about Michael's financial issue.
OK, he's 200-and-something dollars in debt but that does not mean he's broke. He owns half of the beatles catolog which is half is worth around $500 million plus the money he's made in his music career which must total hundreds of millions of dollars--so I do not really think that he's dirt broke.
As for Robel's re-direct today, he's full of s**t in my opinion. He's saying what the prosecution wants him to say the the defence will prove him a liar when they present thier case.
Don't worry about it.
OK, he's 200-and-something dollars in debt but that does not mean he's broke. He owns half of the beatles catolog which is half is worth around $500 million plus the money he's made in his music career which must total hundreds of millions of dollars--so I do not really think that he's dirt broke.
As for Robel's re-direct today, he's full of s**t in my opinion. He's saying what the prosecution wants him to say the the defence will prove him a liar when they present thier case.
Don't worry about it.
Tiger Lilly
New member
TSColdMan:
According to Jennifer London (MSNBC):
- Prosecution attempting to provide motive for conspiracy by bringing in financial expert
- One court watcher says, "There are still some outstanding questions. If I were a jury, I would have a lot of questions about the prosecution's case in that it has come in many ways very scattered and disjointed..."
- It is not clear if the prosecution will rest their case today
- Still waiting to hear from Rudy Provencio
- Prosecution says Rudy can link Michael directly up with conspiracy charge. (Me: by showing he knows Michael's hand-writing?!)
According to Jennifer London (MSNBC):
- Prosecution attempting to provide motive for conspiracy by bringing in financial expert
- One court watcher says, "There are still some outstanding questions. If I were a jury, I would have a lot of questions about the prosecution's case in that it has come in many ways very scattered and disjointed..."
- It is not clear if the prosecution will rest their case today
- Still waiting to hear from Rudy Provencio
- Prosecution says Rudy can link Michael directly up with conspiracy charge. (Me: by showing he knows Michael's hand-writing?!)
koprulestheworld
New member
Prosecution says Rudy can link Michael directly up with conspiracy charge. WTF?
Cristine87
New member
This is so ridiculous! If Michael was in debt then why the hell did he buy this family all this expensive shit? This conspiracy charge is crap.
sistahlamb
New member
-
How the hell so??? Has she read "Inside Rudy Proviensio's secret Diary?" on this forum??
here check it out: http://forums.mjeol.com/showthread.php?t=5939
How the hell so??? Has she read "Inside Rudy Proviensio's secret Diary?" on this forum??
here check it out: http://forums.mjeol.com/showthread.php?t=5939
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050503/ap_en_...2VrBHNlYwNlbg--
Here's an update.
Back to Story - Help
Witness Says Jackson in Financial Trouble By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent
11 minutes ago
A forensic accountant testified in Michael Jackson's child molestation trial Tuesday that the pop star was spending $20 million to $30 million more every year than he earns, a deep financial problem that the prosecution contends underlies conspiracy allegations in the case.
The prosecution also tried to undermine earlier testimony from one of their own witnesses – Jackson's ex-wife Deborah Rowe – by calling an investigator who said the former wife told him last year that the singer was a "sociopath."
The testimony came as the prosecution neared the end of its case.
The detailed analysis of Jackson's multimillion-dollar empire was brought into the trial over vehement objections from defense attorneys who said it was irrelevant to the case and was based on hearsay statements contained in memos from various financial advisers.
Judge Rodney S. Melville instructed jurors that they were not to consider the accounting figures "for the truth of the matter" but merely to show how the expert reached his conclusions.
Under questioning by Deputy District Attorney Gordon Auchincloss, forensic accountant John Duross O'Bryan traced Jackson's assets and liabilities from 1999 to 2004.
The witness said he obtained only one balance sheet, from June 30, 2002, and it showed Jackson with a net worth of negative $285 million. He said this included assets of $130 million and liabilities of $415 million.
He said the balance sheet was prepared on a tax basis and assets listed might actually have higher values.
"There was an ongoing cash crisis, not enough cash to pay bills," Duross O'Bryan testified.
He said he formed his opinions by reading through boxes of memos exchanged by Jackson's financial managers over the years, and he told of a warning to Jackson that if his overspending continued he might be forced to sell off his two greatest assets, the catalogue of his own songs and the Sony-ATV catalogue which contains rights to the works of numerous other artists including the Beatles.
But the witness said that even selling the catalogues would be problematic because that would incur a huge tax liability.
On cross-examination, defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. clashed with the accountant, suggesting in several questions that he underestimated the value of Jackson's stake in the Sony-ATV catalogue and had not considered lucrative offers available to Jackson as an entertainer.
"Wouldn't it be relevant if you knew Mr. Jackson could accept one opportunity and solve (his liquidity problem) in a day," Mesereau asked.
"If it could be solved, why wasn't it?" the accountant replied.
Duross O'Bryan testified that as of February 2003, the month that a damaging documentary about Jackson aired on television, Jackson had $10.5 million in unpaid vendor invoices and only $38,000 in cash in bank accounts.
He also said Jackson owes Bank of America at least $235 million on a loan and a line of credit.
The testimony was offered to show that Jackson was in deep financial trouble when the documentary was aired and brought down a storm of criticism on the star for a statement in which he said he allowed children to sleep in his bed, although he insisted it was non-sexual.
Prosecutors are trying to show that Jackson had banked on the documentary as a way to re-energize his career and that it exploded in his face.
They say he then was frantic and organized efforts at damage control, including recording videos for a program in which his reputation could be salvaged. They maintain he tried to do this by holding captive the family of the boy he allegedly molested and forcing them to participate in the so-called rebuttal video.
Before the financial testimony, District Attorney Tom Sneddon called sheriff's Sgt. Steve Robel to the stand to undermine Rowe.
Jackson's ex-wife, the mother of two of his children, had unexpectedly praised Jackson as a good father and a generous and caring friend and denied prosecution contentions that her statements in another rebuttal video were scripted by the Jackson camp.
Asked what Rowe said to him in their year-ago interview, Robel said, "She referred to Michael as a sociopath and his children as being possessions."
Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting a 13-year-old boy at his Neverland ranch in February or March 2003, giving him alcohol and conspiring to hold the accuser's family captive to get them to rebut the documentary.
My notes:So What?! To Whisper's question, I think the cop was paraphrasing.
Here's an update.
Back to Story - Help
Witness Says Jackson in Financial Trouble By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent
11 minutes ago
A forensic accountant testified in Michael Jackson's child molestation trial Tuesday that the pop star was spending $20 million to $30 million more every year than he earns, a deep financial problem that the prosecution contends underlies conspiracy allegations in the case.
The prosecution also tried to undermine earlier testimony from one of their own witnesses – Jackson's ex-wife Deborah Rowe – by calling an investigator who said the former wife told him last year that the singer was a "sociopath."
The testimony came as the prosecution neared the end of its case.
The detailed analysis of Jackson's multimillion-dollar empire was brought into the trial over vehement objections from defense attorneys who said it was irrelevant to the case and was based on hearsay statements contained in memos from various financial advisers.
Judge Rodney S. Melville instructed jurors that they were not to consider the accounting figures "for the truth of the matter" but merely to show how the expert reached his conclusions.
Under questioning by Deputy District Attorney Gordon Auchincloss, forensic accountant John Duross O'Bryan traced Jackson's assets and liabilities from 1999 to 2004.
The witness said he obtained only one balance sheet, from June 30, 2002, and it showed Jackson with a net worth of negative $285 million. He said this included assets of $130 million and liabilities of $415 million.
He said the balance sheet was prepared on a tax basis and assets listed might actually have higher values.
"There was an ongoing cash crisis, not enough cash to pay bills," Duross O'Bryan testified.
He said he formed his opinions by reading through boxes of memos exchanged by Jackson's financial managers over the years, and he told of a warning to Jackson that if his overspending continued he might be forced to sell off his two greatest assets, the catalogue of his own songs and the Sony-ATV catalogue which contains rights to the works of numerous other artists including the Beatles.
But the witness said that even selling the catalogues would be problematic because that would incur a huge tax liability.
On cross-examination, defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. clashed with the accountant, suggesting in several questions that he underestimated the value of Jackson's stake in the Sony-ATV catalogue and had not considered lucrative offers available to Jackson as an entertainer.
"Wouldn't it be relevant if you knew Mr. Jackson could accept one opportunity and solve (his liquidity problem) in a day," Mesereau asked.
"If it could be solved, why wasn't it?" the accountant replied.
Duross O'Bryan testified that as of February 2003, the month that a damaging documentary about Jackson aired on television, Jackson had $10.5 million in unpaid vendor invoices and only $38,000 in cash in bank accounts.
He also said Jackson owes Bank of America at least $235 million on a loan and a line of credit.
The testimony was offered to show that Jackson was in deep financial trouble when the documentary was aired and brought down a storm of criticism on the star for a statement in which he said he allowed children to sleep in his bed, although he insisted it was non-sexual.
Prosecutors are trying to show that Jackson had banked on the documentary as a way to re-energize his career and that it exploded in his face.
They say he then was frantic and organized efforts at damage control, including recording videos for a program in which his reputation could be salvaged. They maintain he tried to do this by holding captive the family of the boy he allegedly molested and forcing them to participate in the so-called rebuttal video.
Before the financial testimony, District Attorney Tom Sneddon called sheriff's Sgt. Steve Robel to the stand to undermine Rowe.
Jackson's ex-wife, the mother of two of his children, had unexpectedly praised Jackson as a good father and a generous and caring friend and denied prosecution contentions that her statements in another rebuttal video were scripted by the Jackson camp.
Asked what Rowe said to him in their year-ago interview, Robel said, "She referred to Michael as a sociopath and his children as being possessions."
Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting a 13-year-old boy at his Neverland ranch in February or March 2003, giving him alcohol and conspiring to hold the accuser's family captive to get them to rebut the documentary.
My notes:So What?! To Whisper's question, I think the cop was paraphrasing.
justathought
New member
note to all. This is all interesting, but anyone who is rich as Michael is, usually stack up a lot of depts. I'm sure if you look into other rich people financial houses you'll also see the same thing.
koprulestheworld
New member
maybe MJ might be in a bit of dep right?
forevercametoday
New member
As interesting as this may or may not be, how do all these final witnesses prove Michael molested anyone or conspired to hold anyone hostage?:bs
sistahlamb
New member
Let's get one thing straight: Michael does not handle his money himself. He has someone or a few people to do that for him. I doubt he even knows how much money he makes.
This is something that has been made by the prosecution to cover up thier pretty much laughable case. Just look at the rest of thier case!!!! It's ridiculus.
This is something that has been made by the prosecution to cover up thier pretty much laughable case. Just look at the rest of thier case!!!! It's ridiculus.
justathought
New member
It doesn't, and that is exactly the same question the jury will be asking, in any case, nice try by the prosecution but i think this case was lost when the mother came on the stand.
MystiqueX2004
New member
Who cares if he is in debt? If this is true and he has been in debt since 1999, then what does that have to do with this case? Obviously, financial problems don't just spring up over night, and again i say, that if Michael truly had these problems, then he would not have spent all this money, on a family that he supposedly hired people to watch. That is purely illogical....And, if Michael was truly in debt, then he could have easily done a few performances and paid them off. That is why I don't believe that Michael is truly in debt. He is obviously a savvy businessman, and knows what he is doing. He has three children. Do you really think, that Michael Jackson, would willingly put himself in so much debt? Especially now that he has three kids to take care of? Michael is not stupid.
And, these findings are basically as T-Mez said, based on hearsay. Not hard-core evidence. And this so-called expert drew his own conclusions, meaning, that these findings of Michael being in debt are his opinions drawn from memos and one tax sheet, not enough evidence to be cons idered fact....
Tiger Lilly
New member
All Rudy is gonna do is show Michael actually has contact with his business associates. Wow, he can identify Michael's hand-writing. Wow... such a "conspiracy"... *ahem*
As for Debbie, I think it'll mean more to the jury to see her on the stand defending Michael herself. Why take the word of some other guy? She already praised him in front of everyone. This is merely damage-control for the pros and a chance to play away with the media.
And everyone knows the way to solve all your money problems is to "molest" a kid and hold them "hostage".
*sarcasm*
As for Debbie, I think it'll mean more to the jury to see her on the stand defending Michael herself. Why take the word of some other guy? She already praised him in front of everyone. This is merely damage-control for the pros and a chance to play away with the media.
And everyone knows the way to solve all your money problems is to "molest" a kid and hold them "hostage".
*sarcasm*AJ&MJACKSON
New member
nancy disgrace live at 5:00 in the chat room i'll be there how about you
What? This is none of our business and none of their business and is not relevant. Even the judge told the jury not to evaluate this as fact but only how it was obtained and calulated. The Wiz-Kid had to admit that all othe assets are probably worth more.
But more importantly, this is none of our business.
sistahlamb
New member
Today from my point of view has just been ridiculus!!! The defence will be able to address all of this bulls**t when they present thier case. Thank god.
No, all of this does not prove at all that he molested anyone or conspired to hold anyone captive.
Today was not the best day for the defence but the prosecution's case is all over the place so how could they just be relaxed and taking all of this in stride???
The defence will kick ass when they present thier case. I garuntee it.
No, all of this does not prove at all that he molested anyone or conspired to hold anyone captive.
Today was not the best day for the defence but the prosecution's case is all over the place so how could they just be relaxed and taking all of this in stride???
The defence will kick ass when they present thier case. I garuntee it.
koprulestheworld
New member
Some fans dont want to think about it that all.