Official May 6 2005 Thread

cecilia

New member
I don't like those innuendos. I hope in court the reality is different.

Those comments out of context upset me. I'm missing those transcripts, God... please God help, Michael and Mesereau!
 

Tiger Lilly

New member
Witnesses say no improper sexual activity occurred
By Quintin Cushner - Staff Writer

5/6/05 A friend of Michael Jackson testified in Superior Court in Santa Maria today that she had no problem with her young son sharing a bed with the entertainer during the 1990s.

Joy Robson said her son, Wade Robson, first asked to sleep in Jackson's bedroom when he was 7 years old. She immediately agreed.

"My husband and I sort of looked at Michael and said, 'if that's OK with you,'" she testified.

Joy Robson said she was aware Jackson and her son slept in the same bed, and that she once spent a day sitting on Jackson's bed watching cartoons and eating popcorn with her son and the entertainer.

When asked what the woman thought of Jackson's Neverland Valley Ranch near Los Olivos, Robson sounded nostalgic.

"I would have once said it was the happiest place on Earth," she said.

During cross-examination, Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon was skeptical Robson would allow her son to share a bed with a man she barely knew.

"You weren't concerned about it at all?" Sneddon asked.

"No," she replied.

"Someone you just met?" Sneddon continued.

"I think there was a certain trust that developed," Robson said. "Nothing ever crossed my mind that something was wrong."

Sneddon also asked Robson about comments she made during an earlier civil deposition in which she referred to Jackson's "special friends."

Robson said she meant nothing sinister by the term, and that it simply referred to any boy Jackson was spending a lot of time with.

The woman said she refused to allow police to speak with her son alone when a different boy made child-molestation allegations against Jackson in 1993 because she thought they might try to manipulate her son.

Sneddon asked her why she would trust Michael Jackson and not trained law enforcement.

"I don't know them," she said. "I know Michael Jackson."

She later described the singer: "He's not the boy next door. He's Michael Jackson ... He has a very pure love of children."

The woman said she had visited Jackson's ranch four times a year since 1991, but that Jackson was only present a handful of times. She said she never questioned why Jackson wanted to spend so much time with her young son.

"They enjoyed each other...He saw Wade's potential," Robson testified.

Two men who shared a bed with Michael Jackson as children during the 1990s testified on Thursday that nothing improper occurred between them and the entertainer. Both said they consider the singer a close friend.

http://www.lompocrecord.com/articles/2005/...news/news09.txt
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It's good she didn't trust them. They possibly could have done the same thing to them as they did to Francia.
 

whisperAdmin

Administrator
Staff member
News from MJEOL's main page

MAY 6 2005 (2:10 PM ET) -- Joy Robson, the third defense witness and mother of Wade Robson, is on the stand right now.

Robson testified that she once spent a day "sitting on Jackson's bed watching cartoons and eating popcorn with her son and Jackson" (Lompoc Record).

Probably one of the most interesting things to come out of her testimony thus far is that she says her daughter, too, slept in Jackson's bedroom with her brother, Wade. Oops.

As reported yesterday, this testimony begins to completely shoot down prosecution theories they've tried to sell this jury about Jackson.

Now the jury is beginning to get a better understanding of what's going on. The prosecution has tried to paint a picture of "special friends" sleeping alone in bed with Jackson. And through this testimony, those theories are starting to fall apart.

It was one of the first pieces of testimony showing that Jackson wasn't isolating these kids from their families and that it wasn't just "little boys" who slept over in Jackson's bedroom. And that it wasn't just "little boys" who have been on Jackson's bed.

Again, Joy Robson says she was in Jackson's bedroom sometimes when Wade was there with Jackson. She says she wasn't concerned at all.

Reportedly, the mother also says she didn't want law enforcement in 1993 to speak to her son alone basically because she didn't trust them. She testified that she thought they would try to manipulate her son.

Some legal observers say that this testimony could cause some jurors to think about Jason Francia, who the police spoke to alone.

At first, Francia denied Jackson had molested him and it was only after these private police interviews -- where some officers called Jackson a child molester and cursed him -- that Francia started to make allegations.

Wade Robson's testimony yesterday completely destroyed previous testimony from prosecution witnesses. Blanca Francia claimed that she saw/heard Robson and Jackson taking a shower together.

Robson completely slapped down that testimony by saying he never took a shower with Jackson and that Jackson never touched him inappropriately on any part of his body.

Brett Barnes, another one of the kids at the time who these prosecution witnesses inferred were "molested" by Jackson, also testified yesterday. He says that Jackson never molested or touched him inappropriately.

Barnes also seemed very angry that he was even suggest to be someone Jackson allegedly "molested" by the prosecution. Some reports say that Barnes shot the prosecution's table an absolutely dirty look as he was leaving the courtroom for the day yesterday (May 5).

Barnes testified that these people, as probably the prosecution, were dragging his name through the dirt and that he was angry about that. He also testified that he wouldn't stand for anybody molesting him and wouldn't be in court testifying for the defense if he had ever been molested.

Source: http://site2.mjeol.com/modules/news/articl...hp?storyid=1648
 

tannel

New member
Originally posted by NevaehDreamz
It's good she didn't trust them. They possibly could have done the same thing to them as they did to Francia.

This is so true. No Parent in their right might should ever allow their children to be interviewed alone with police officers.
 

Tiger Lilly

New member
Brett Barnes, another one of the kids at the time who these prosecution witnesses inferred were "molested" by Jackson, also testified yesterday. He says that Jackson never molested or touched him inappropriately.

Barnes also seemed very angry that he was even suggest to be someone Jackson allegedly "molested" by the prosecution. Some reports say that Barnes shot the prosecution's table an absolutely dirty look as he was leaving the courtroom for the day yesterday (May 5).

Barnes testified that these people, as probably the prosecution, were dragging his name through the dirt and that he was angry about that. He also testified that he wouldn't stand for anybody molesting him and wouldn't be in court testifying for the defense if he had ever been molested.
Thanks whisper, it's nice to hear more from Brett as the media have been pretty quiet about him. I wonder why... *sarcastic*
 

Tiger Lilly

New member
Sneddumb didn't spend too much time on Chantal. Guess he doesn't want her to say too much since she's a girl who shared Michael's bed.

DD's smoking pot again, she reported some good news:
Originally posted by ChickDing
DD- Brett's mother is on the stand now. Chantal said MJ is like a father or brother to her and he is a good friend and a fine perosn.
 

Aaliyah

New member
52767983.jpg


52767984.jpg
 

Cristine87

New member
Wow, all those Robson's look the same! I know that one girl was his sister as soon as I saw her picture. They have the same eyes & they both look like their mother.

Another thing, if the defense's case keeps going the way it is, the jury is gonna say "Wow, what a difference. In the prosecutions case, most of their witnesses have lied, stolen, slandered, are greedy, have filed civil lawsuits & have a grudge against Michael. They've been inconsistant in their statements, they've admitted to lying on the stand, etc. Now you have the defense's case, the witnesses seemed sincere, they didn't seem to have ulterior finanacial motives, they were clear, they were well-spoken, they didn't contradict themselves on the stand. It was a nice defense with strong witnesses!". So, which side are they more likely to believe?
 
Top