Official June 1 2005 Thread

The"official" threads posted during the trial

Moderator: Global Moderator

MystiqueX2004
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 195
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 12:41 pm

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by MystiqueX2004 » Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:31 pm

Originally posted by got2makeitright





The judge said he had decided to tell the jury to consider previous allegations of abuse only if they believe that the singer intended to molest Arvizo.

Judge Melville said he would tell the jurors they could consider the alleged past acts if they showed a pattern of "intent" on Jackson's part.

But they will first have to decide whether the allegations of past acts, many made by former Neverland staff, were true.

"Evidence has been introduced for the purpose of showing the defendant committed crimes other than those for which he is on trial," the jury will be told.

"This evidence, if believed, may be considered by you only for the limited purpose of deciding if it tends to show a characteristic plan or scheme to commit acts."


http://www.thisislondon.com/til/jsp/mod ... d=19000439

this is what i have a problem with. How can the jury take these people's word of alleged abuse, when not one of them reported it, and the defense brought these people to the stand and those alleged "victims" denied any abuse?

got2makeitright
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 583
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 1:00 pm

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by got2makeitright » Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:34 pm

i dont know!! ugh!

nowayout11
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 8:03 am

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by nowayout11 » Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:14 pm

Originally posted by dangerous
They can appeal as well.
Just a quick correction. It's not the Arvizo's case, it's the county's case. So the Arvizo's have no means to appeal.

All they can do is file a civil case and hope it sticks.

sistahlamb
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:00 pm

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by sistahlamb » Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:20 pm

That was a bullshit article that was just posted!!!!

I thought that charge wasn't added--just changed????

And is there any proof that Michael gave G alchahol????

Hell NO!!!!!!

I think that article should be deleted.

dangerous
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 2098
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 8:00 am

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by dangerous » Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:23 pm

Originally posted by nowayout11
Just a quick correction. It's not the Arvizo's case, it's the county's case. So the Arvizo's have no means to appeal.

All they can do is file a civil case and hope it sticks.
the state (on their behalf) can appeal
[align=center]Image[/align]

sistahlamb
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:00 pm

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by sistahlamb » Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:28 pm

So let me get this straight:

Even if Michael is aquitted on all of the charges, the State can apeal thier case and go after him agian???

I thought that if Michael was totally aquitted, the state and/or the Arvizos can never try that case ever agian.

dangerous
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 2098
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 8:00 am

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by dangerous » Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:31 pm

everyone can appeal their case an unlimited amount of time, unless the court says no more, i think its to the federal court ur only allowed to appeal once. I dont think they would win an appeal though, but also if MJ is convicted (perish the thought) i dont think appeals court will give a shit about him either. Maybe he has a chance with the federal court but defintely not the same court that denied the indictment being thrown out

someone please correct me if im wrong, LOL.
[align=center]Image[/align]

sistahlamb
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:00 pm

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by sistahlamb » Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:35 pm

The federal court probably would'nt even look at that sham of a case.

Frenchy
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 335
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:31 pm

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by Frenchy » Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:41 pm

Originally posted by sistahlamb
And is there any proof that Michael gave G alchahol???? Hell NO!!!!!!
Problem is that the persecution does not have to actually PROVE anything. They just need to make the jury believe that there's a good chance MJ did it. A good chance meaning beyond reasonable doubt. That's what is sick.

danaluvsmj
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 3259
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 8:00 am
Contact:

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by danaluvsmj » Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:48 pm

so even if he is acquitted of molestation, he could still spend a year in jail for giving alcohol to minors? That really scares me :cryptic
Image

1958-2009

Gone Too Soon

KittyCA
Trial Period
Trial Period
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:04 pm

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by KittyCA » Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:48 pm

Something interesting I just read...

Question in my mind, as a bright sunny day dawns on Santa Maria, is whether or not Defense Attorney Thomas "Hurricane" Mesereau, Jr., will tell the Jury in his closing arguments, that THIS prosecutor's Office, and Tom Sneddon in particular is guilty of prosecuting other men for molestation of their step-daughters, who later were exonerated in a retrial, but not until AFTER the men had spent collectively about 25 years in California State Prisons for a crime the did NOT commit. If Mr. Mesereau does, at least some of the Jurors will recall the news story about it carried locally by CBS local Ch-12. (continued....Mr. Waneger asked for a copy of this story, apparently to replay on his own show and was refused, even if they were threatened with a subpoenae, which he never threatened to get.)

nowayout11
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 8:03 am

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by nowayout11 » Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:55 pm

Originally posted by sistahlamb
So let me get this straight:

Even if Michael is aquitted on all of the charges, the State can apeal thier case and go after him agian???

I thought that if Michael was totally aquitted, the state and/or the Arvizos can never try that case ever agian.
The appeal process isn't about "is he innocent or guilty" like this case is. The prosecution would have to prove that the judge made serious, reversable errors, or that bias was somehow demonstrated, resulting in the unfavorable decision.

This is a tough cookie to crack. The appeals court may not even decide to hear it. However, IF they do hear it, and the errors or bias are proven, then they would then have a retrial. We don't know what prosecution evidence was omitted, but but I doubt there's a smoking gun anywhere here for an appeal to stick.

got2makeitright
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 583
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 1:00 pm

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by got2makeitright » Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:56 pm

*Delete*

Thriller2005
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 3:52 pm

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by Thriller2005 » Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:03 pm

If Michael wins, and the prosecution tries to appeal, they won't win. The judge in this case have award every motion the prosecution has filed, the prosecution threw everything including the kitchen sink at the jury to convince them of Michael's guilt. Trust me, they won't get a second chance.

dangerous
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 2098
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 8:00 am

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by dangerous » Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:13 pm

Originally posted by KittyCA
Something interesting I just read...

Question in my mind, as a bright sunny day dawns on Santa Maria, is whether or not Defense Attorney Thomas "Hurricane" Mesereau, Jr., will tell the Jury in his closing arguments, that THIS prosecutor's Office, and Tom Sneddon in particular is guilty of prosecuting other men for molestation of their step-daughters, who later were exonerated in a retrial, but not until AFTER the men had spent collectively about 25 years in California State Prisons for a crime the did NOT commit. If Mr. Mesereau does, at least some of the Jurors will recall the news story about it carried locally by CBS local Ch-12. (continued....Mr. Waneger asked for a copy of this story, apparently to replay on his own show and was refused, even if they were threatened with a subpoenae, which he never threatened to get.)
THe judge has to permit that. Melville wont have any of the vendetta evidence in, hes not having it. Mez doesnt seem to be going that route. IT would be nice though
[align=center]Image[/align]

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests