Official May 26 2005 Thread

The"official" threads posted during the trial

Moderator: Global Moderator

HeavenSent
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 10007
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 1:00 pm
Contact:

Official May 26 2005 Thread

Post by HeavenSent » Thu May 26, 2005 6:51 pm

Originally posted by BillieJeanLover
Some on this website seem a little too high-strung and impatient and for little reasonable reason. If there are no updates, we should wait until there are. It really is that simple. What is that old saying? Patience is a virtue. MJ's life is the one at stake here, and not ours.

Thank you. I wish we could post that as a sticky.


The majority on this website have been very supportive and fine, but then there are those few that like the Osmonds sung, "Almost Spoiled The Whole Bunch", with their silly comments and questions.

Oh yes. AGREED! :lol:


Whisper and Carla, you all are the real deals, and you two have provided a great service to us believers with all the updates, as it pertains to the MJ fake case. I appreciate it, and I wish you all love, health, wealth and SOUL.

Aw thanks! I hardly think that I contribute ENOUGH. Ive been feeling left out for not posting much lately because my days have been crazy. We could use more posters like you. :) I too would like to thank whisper and everyone else who have contributed their theories and opinions...keep it up. :thumbsup Some of you are just don't know how much easier you've made it to tolerate this hot garbage!
[align=center]Image[/align]

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

Official May 26 2005 Thread

Post by got2makeitright » Thu May 26, 2005 7:17 pm

From KOP site:::



know this is long, but if the defense and prosecutors can't see eye to eye on cutting the video down to 30 minutes the entire thng will be played - according to this article from the LA Times.

3:20 PM PDT, May 26, 2005 latimes.com

Jackson Jury Can Hear From Accuser Again
By Sally Connell and Michael Muskal, Special to The Times


SANTA MARIA, Calif. -- Jurors in the Michael Jackson molestation trial will get to see a July 2003 videotape of the accuser telling investigators the details of how he was allegedly molested by the pop star, but will not be allowed to see pictures of the singer's genitalia, Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville ruled this morning.

The judge also decided that the defense can call the boy, his mother, the lawyer who represented the family, and a psychologist as part of its rebuttal case.

If the boy and his mother are recalled, it would be a rerun of two of the more dramatic confrontations in the trial that began with opening statements in February.

Melville's rulings, one for the prosecution and one for the defense, mean that the rebuttal phase of the trial will last several more days than expected. The jury would have otherwise received the case early next week.

After Melville's rulings, the prosecution called eight witnesses today, bringing to 12 the number who have testified since the defense rested Wednesday. It was the kind of painstaking day of challenging details that draw few headlines but are potentially important for jurors.

On Wednesday, Santa Barbara County Dist. Atty. Thomas Sneddon said the videotaped interview was necessary to present to jurors because it showed the accuser's account in July 2003, just months after the molestations are alleged to have occurred. It was the first time the boy, now 15, had talked to a law enforcement official.

The interview with investigators from the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department came after the accuser told a psychologist, Stan Katz, of the alleged abuse. Katz was brought in by Larry Feldman, an attorney who was contacted because he was involved in another molestation case involving Jackson in the 1990s.

The earlier incident did not result in criminal charges, but did lead to a more than $20-million settlement paid by Jackson to the family of a young boy.

Both Katz and Feldman briefly testified for the prosecution. Under Melville's ruling, they could return to the stand.

The prosecution is hoping to use the tape to counter the defense's theory that the accuser had been extensively coached by his mother.

"They have said there were fabricated issues and scripted issues," Sneddon said Wednesday. "They created this issue through their own witnesses."

Defense attorney Robert Sanger argued that the prosecution was simply trying to get in the video to "leave the bell ringing in the jury's ears."

Sanger told the judge that if he allows the boy's videotape, then the defense will likely call the boy back to the stand. The accuser, a cancer survivor, testified in the opening days of March.

The tape is slightly longer than one hour, although Sneddon agreed with Melville that parts could be cut. Melville asked the prosecution and the defense to meet and decide which parts to eliminate.

Melville, however, noted that the contenders do not have a good record negotiating agreements, so the whole tape may be played.

The judge also rejected a prosecution request to allow documents from the early 1990s case to be introduced. The documents are a Los Angeles Police Department report that include the boy's description and drawings of Jackson's private anatomy and photographs taken of Jackson's body to locate unusual marks that could be used to confirm the boy's allegation.

The defense objected to the documents, which it described as an attempt to shock jurors. It also argued that it could not cross-examine the boy, who did not testify at this trial.

Jackson, 46, is accused of child molestation, attempted molestation, giving alcohol to the boy to aid in the molestation, and conspiracy to hold the accuser's family until they participated in a favorable video.

Among the other witnesses today was Gina Villegas, an office manager for Hollywood Ford, who testified that nobody using the name of the mother of the accuser bought a car there from January 2000 to January 2004.

During the defense case, there was evidence that the mother had a $23,000 money order made out to the Ford dealership. Villegas said that Ford did not cash it.

There was also testimony during the defense case that the mother had lied when she said she was beaten by mall guards in 1998. A paralegal testified that the mother told her the bruises, which led to a civil settlement of about $65,000 for the mother and her children, were actually made by the accuser's biological father.

Donna Aggers, records supervisor for the West Covina Police Department, testified today about arrest records of the mother and father on the day of the incident, Aug. 27, 1998. Theresa Marquez, who supervises records for a medical treatment facility used by the mother, also testified.

The prosecution maintains that the records show that there wasn't enough time for the husband to have beaten the mother of the accuser.

Also testifying about the aftermath of the incident was the grandmother of the accuser.

George Erwin, of Dino's Moving and Storage in North Hollywood, then testified that the bill for cleaning out the Los Angeles apartment of the accuser's family was paid by Bradley Miller, a private detective working on behalf of Jackson. The closing of that apartment is one of the 28 overt acts that the prosecution alleges formed the conspiracy to control the family.

William Dickerman, who represented the accuser's family before Feldman, testified about contacts with Mark Geragos, Jackson's former lawyer.

Dickerman said he was trying to recover passports and travel documents. When he testified, Geragos said he did not know the documents were an issue at that time.

Times correspondent Connell reported from Santa Maria; Times staff writer Muskal handled rewrite from Los Angeles.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-05260...-home-headlines

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

Official May 26 2005 Thread

Post by sistahlamb » Thu May 26, 2005 7:39 pm

If they can't agree on anything regarding that tape, maybe the judge will just make them play the whole thing?????

Obviously the prosecution is hiding something if they're requesting that they only show the edited version.

What is it that they don't want the jury to see or hear???

Suspicion.....

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

Official May 26 2005 Thread

Post by got2makeitright » Thu May 26, 2005 7:42 pm

OMG you have a point there too!!

mjfannn
Trial Period
Trial Period
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 2:50 pm

Official May 26 2005 Thread

Post by mjfannn » Thu May 26, 2005 7:57 pm

hi. i was just on the cj website and i looked in the show archives and came across the cj report :[/B]Jackson Accuser's Mom Falsely Solicited Charity For Son. now do any one find it odd that mrs. Jane Velez Mitchel would say that the [/B]MotherF*&cker never declined a turky for Thanksgiving, well my good people you see for your self: Keenan(the editor of Mid Vally News) assigned the story to reporter Christie Causer , who was so moved by what she heard that, on Thanksgiving Day, she brought food to the family--but, according to Keenan, The Mother, instead of being grateful that this woman brought her a complete Thanksgiving dinner, said 'I'd rather have the money. this is nice, but I'd rather have the MONEY. that was taken right out of that report.

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

Official May 26 2005 Thread

Post by sistahlamb » Thu May 26, 2005 8:13 pm

I just heard from someone on another forum that the prosecution wants to bring in witnesses to tetify that Michael's a bad parent.

Is this true????

If so I'll be totally pissed off because Michael's not on trial for what kind of parent he is!!!!!!

maintenant
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:48 am

Official May 26 2005 Thread

Post by maintenant » Thu May 26, 2005 11:46 pm

Originally posted by MJISHOT
hope u have a shit birthday sneddface! Image Image


Hope you have a heart attack blowing out all your candles!

maintenant
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:48 am

Official May 26 2005 Thread

Post by maintenant » Thu May 26, 2005 11:50 pm

Originally posted by got2makeitright
www.thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/010605jackson3.html

this is about there first police interview, it is about him crying that he was given PILLs, to go to sleep to be molested
and alot of other differences too


The jury's going to laugh their asses off at this, if this is truly in there! It wouldn't even be possible, because how would Gavin know? If he were zonked out on pills, he'd have no idea what had happened to him, so obviously this testimony would be made up (and sounds so crazy that the jury would see that it came from Janut).

maintenant
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:48 am

Official May 26 2005 Thread

Post by maintenant » Fri May 27, 2005 12:09 am

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."?


Good points, Mystique. We all KNOW that Michael is innocent and that Gavin is a liar and everything he says is made up. Well, the one problem with lies is that you forget what you said (since there are no true facts in your memory), and you can BET that T-Mez will be ON to every single thing Gavin ever said anywhere, and he will notice and point out EVERY single inconsistency. The jury will NEVER believe Gavin, Mez will see to that.

MJ_FAN_FOR_LIFE733
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 454
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 1:00 pm

Official May 26 2005 Thread

Post by MJ_FAN_FOR_LIFE733 » Fri May 27, 2005 12:16 am

Originally posted by whisper


Prosecution wanted to introduce photographs of Jackson's genitals. The judge said NO, it's not coming in.



Oh, hell yes! :D Take that SNEDDON!!!!!! :sneddoncrybaby
Image



The Angel of Innocence :heart2:

privacy
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 3656
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 1:00 pm

Official May 26 2005 Thread

Post by privacy » Fri May 27, 2005 6:26 am

Originally posted by sistahlamb
Maybe I should say this agian:


Jeez girl, what's your problem?

Just cus you don't wanna talk about it, doesn't mean that others aren't allowed to respond to the news. Damn.
[align=center]Image



I knew I'd love you like I do[/align]

HeavenSent
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 10007
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 1:00 pm
Contact:

Official May 26 2005 Thread

Post by HeavenSent » Fri May 27, 2005 7:18 am

Originally posted by mjfannn
hi. i was just on the cj website and i looked in the show archives and came across the cj report :Jackson Accuser's Mom Falsely Solicited Charity For Son. now do any one find it odd that mrs. Jane Velez Mitchel would say that the [/B]MotherF*&cker never declined a turky for Thanksgiving, well my good people you see for your self: Keenan(the editor of Mid Vally News) assigned the story to reporter Christie Causer , who was so moved by what she heard that, on Thanksgiving Day, she brought food to the family--but, according to Keenan, The Mother, instead of being grateful that this woman brought her a complete Thanksgiving dinner, said 'I'd rather have the money. this is nice, but I'd rather have the MONEY. that was taken right out of that report.[/b]

FYI in the future: If you're going to reference articles (non tabloid only) pls provide the source url so people can link it.
[align=center]Image[/align]

SpecialJanet25
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 1058
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 6:30 pm
Contact:

Official May 26 2005 Thread

Post by SpecialJanet25 » Fri May 27, 2005 10:02 am

You know one fan over at mjjforum got me frustrated when he or she claim Mez put on a weak case and went on and on talking all kinds of b.s. especially Jason's crying stunt testimony crap and Ralph Chanson's pathetic testimony. I'm like read the damn transcripts if you don't understand what Mez is doing before you rush to judgment about s**t.
I decide I'll stick with this one for now on to avoid having a nervous breakdown.
For the record, Whisper and HeavenSent know their thing.
Image



Image

Cristine87
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 3864
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 1:00 pm

Official May 26 2005 Thread

Post by Cristine87 » Fri May 27, 2005 11:30 am

Originally posted by SpecialJanet25
You know one fan over at mjjforum got me frustrated when he or she claim Mez put on a weak case and went on and on talking all kinds of b.s. especially Jason's crying stunt testimony crap and Ralph Chanson's pathetic testimony. I'm like read the damn transcripts if you don't understand what Mez is doing before you rush to judgment about s**t.
I decide I'll stick with this one for now on to avoid having a nervous breakdown.
For the record, Whisper and HeavenSent know their thing.

Um, Mez did not put on a weak case & you know what? It was the prosecution who was supposed to put on a strong case. It was their job to prove Michael did these things & they did not do that! The majority of their "evidence" was from the 93' case, not the current case & that shows that they didn't have sufficient evidence for the current allegations.

mjfannn
Trial Period
Trial Period
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 2:50 pm

Official May 26 2005 Thread

Post by mjfannn » Sat May 28, 2005 1:10 pm

Originally posted by HeavenSent
FYI in the future: If you're going to reference articles (non tabloid only) pls provide the source url so people can link it.

if you looked at my referance Idid pravide the source,I put : c j website (Celebrity Justice) and I just want to say it is (non tabloid). My reason for the referance was to show how Jane Velez Mitchel said onething and got on the witness stand and said another.FYI :nopersona

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest