Official May 5 2005 Thread

I

InspirationMoonwalks

New member
Originally posted by Tiger Lilly
Wow! It's Michael and the technicolour waitcoat! :laugh So cool! That man knows how to go to court lol! :laugh

I love you Michael! :inlove
Click to expand...

Well said!!! :lol: :thumbsup He looks STUNNING :tooexcite as always..:inlove

Let's go, defense, LET'S GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :popcorn
 
T

Tiger Lilly

New member
For example, there is a question that the check that Schaffel cashed is authentic. If the judge says there is not enough evidence to admit it, the DA can re-open his case to prove the check is valid.
Click to expand...
Again, all about Schaffel, Schaffel, Schaffel. If anyone should be here it's him, not Michael. :extremely
 
A

alfredo

New member
Originally posted by NevaehDreamz
Okay, open before the defense starts...or? This is rediculous.
Click to expand...


No. The DA could temporarily re-open his case even during the defense presentation to validate infomation. Providing that they make that stipulation when they closed their case. They simply reserved the right to re-open their case if the evidence is rule inadmissible for lack of foundation or validity based on the judges ruling. But they will only be able to argue the evidence that is in question like the address book and check, etc. They cannot bring up new sh*t except related to these items.

They will get to rebut the defese evidence later in the case. But this can only be used to rebut evidence that the defense brings in. There can be no new evidence from the DA in this case otherwise.


Hope that helps :D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Originally posted by koprulestheworld
Can the DA still call more witness on the stand in the defense stage?
Click to expand...

No. They can during rebuttal.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Originally posted by alfredo
No. The DA could temporarily re-open his case even during the defense presentation to validate infomation. Providing that they make that stipulation when they closed their case. They simply reserved the right to re-open their case if the evidence is rule inadmissible for lack of foundation or validity based on the judges ruling. But they will only be able to argue the evidence that is in question like the address book and check, etc. They cannot bring up new sh*t except related to these items.

They will get to rebut the defese evidence later in the case. But this can only be used to rebut evidence that the defense brings in. There can be no new evidence from the DA in this case otherwise.


Hope that helps :D
Click to expand...
:thumbsup Thanks.
 
E

Eboni

New member
I don't think that the defense is going to put any one on the stand who'd want to change their story.

-They (defense) are not desperate like the pros...er...'persecution'

-The only thing they have to prove is the truth and anyone they put up there, I am sure they've taken time and did their homework with their witnesses,....something the.....'others' failed to do.

-TMez is not an idiot, he's a man incharge, a man on a mission and that mission is to prove what we here and many others know: MICHAEL IS AN INNOCENT MAN!!!!!
 
M

mjwifey3

New member
Originally posted by Eboni
I don't think that the defense is going to put any one on the stand who'd want to change their story.

-They (defense) are not desperate like the pros...er...'persecution'

-The only thing they have to prove is the truth and anyone they put up there, I am sure they've taken time and did their homework with their witnesses,....something the.....'others' failed to do.

-TMez is not an idiot, he's a man incharge, a man on a mission and that mission is to prove what we here and many others know: MICHAEL IS AN INNOCENT MAN!!!!!
Click to expand...
Go on sista girl preach! :popcorn
 
K

koprulestheworld

New member
I think Sneddon was desperate to try and explain away why this family, and specifically why Gavin, denied repeatedly that any molestation had occurred. He needed to explain why the family appeared on tape praising Michael, he needed to explain why this family never picked up the phone and dialed 911 while they allege a crime was being committed against them or how it was they were free to come and go as they pleased, but still maintained they were held against their will.
He needed to explain why this family signed affidavits saying nothing occurred and why it took several months after they last left Neverland for them to reveal the alleged kidnapping, extortion and coersion.
IMO that's why this conspiracy charge was created.
Problem is that it makes no sense. According to the prosecution, Michael's world was "rocked" after LWMJ and he was desperate to manage the damage and that was his motive for forced the Arvizo to do things against their will...and kidnapped them, extorted them and coerced them. But if you believe that motive for the conspiracy (that Michael was desperate to rehabilitate his career and boost his sagging financial situation) then you logically CANNOT believe Michael molested Gavin. It makes no sense that Michael thought molesting Gavin would help his career or rejuvinate his bank account. Michael knew Gavin for about three years at that point and we are supposed to believe he picked that timeframe to molest him?
It just doesn't fit because it didn't happen. And no matter how Sneddon tries to twist and distort the facts of this case, it will never fit his absurd theory of what he wants the jury to believe happened.
 
K

koprulestheworld

New member
No updates yet but since day is slow right now you should go to the Jimmy kimmel web site where there are free video clips on the MJ trial that are funny you should go there.
 
A

Aaliyah

New member
may5_3.jpg


may5_4.jpg


may5_5.jpg
 
E

Eboni

New member
Originally posted by koprulestheworld
I think Sneddon was desperate to try and explain away why this family, and specifically why Gavin, denied repeatedly that any molestation had occurred. He needed to explain why the family appeared on tape praising Michael, he needed to explain why this family never picked up the phone and dialed 911 while they allege a crime was being committed against them or how it was they were free to come and go as they pleased, but still maintained they were held against their will.
He needed to explain why this family signed affidavits saying nothing occurred and why it took several months after they last left Neverland for them to reveal the alleged kidnapping, extortion and coersion.
IMO that's why this conspiracy charge was created.
Problem is that it makes no sense. According to the prosecution, Michael's world was "rocked" after LWMJ and he was desperate to manage the damage and that was his motive for forced the Arvizo to do things against their will...and kidnapped them, extorted them and coerced them. But if you believe that motive for the conspiracy (that Michael was desperate to rehabilitate his career and boost his sagging financial situation) then you logically CANNOT believe Michael molested Gavin. It makes no sense that Michael thought molesting Gavin would help his career or rejuvinate his bank account. Michael knew Gavin for about three years at that point and we are supposed to believe he picked that timeframe to molest him?
It just doesn't fit because it didn't happen. And no matter how Sneddon tries to twist and distort the facts of this case, it will never fit his absurd theory of what he wants the jury to believe happened.
Click to expand...


Oh you forgot one...

-They also have to explain why he'd steal the family's tacky ass furniture?? :lol:

That's true because if (and we all know better) that Michael Jackson was this dangerous pedophile we are supposed to believe he is, then why the heck would he go on national T.V and hold hands with this child saying what he supposedly said huh???

Would he not know that something like that would cause many speculations???

The DA has greatly underestimated Michael Jackson and that's a huge mistake.

Michael might talk soft and enjoy child stuff but behind all that he's a very intelligent person.

I'm glad he's the way he is because when you're humble it's then you'll see who's gonna try and undermind you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top