Official Jan 12 2005 Hearing

HeavenSent · Post by **HeavenSent** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 5:28 pm

At last, a ruling I can smile about. Put up or shut up. I like that. Thats how it should be.

SpecialJanet25 · Post by **SpecialJanet25** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 5:45 pm

For once, this damn judge is opening his eyes. I like too PUT UP or SHUT UP. AMEN. IT BEEN GOOD DAY FOR DEFENSE.

dangerous · Post by **dangerous** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 5:50 pm

yea hooray for melville who talks the talk, but never walks the walk.

Mimonde · Post by **Mimonde** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 5:56 pm

I'm sorry guys- but I don't like to talk about this case in good day , bad day terms- I have yet to see any indication of this being a fair trial for Michael. All of this is just..........

HeavenSent · Post by **HeavenSent** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 5:59 pm

Originally posted by Mimonde
I'm sorry guys- but I don't like to talk about this case in good day , bad day terms-

I wouldn't categorize it that way. For your own sanity. It's been a proven fact that things aren't always as they seem.

I smiled at the ruling because it's what I wanted. But the drunkard judge's motivations have never been pure. Hmm, wait and see, right?

Cristine87 · Post by **Cristine87** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 5:59 pm

It's about damn time! How were they gonna prove these past acts anyway?

dangerous · Post by **dangerous** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 6:02 pm

how can you perpare accordingly if you dont know what will be allowed in untill AFTER the pros case? how are you suppose to plan effectively? It makes no sense. If he wants to see if there is a case, you take it to a prelim, you dont test to see if there is a case during the trial, make a rulling, and then be like, "Ok defense, plan your case accordingly with these new 65465465 peices of added evidence, by the way ur up next week" what a crock

~Vicky~ · Post by **~Vicky~** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 7:12 pm

Originally posted by dangerous
how can you perpare accordingly if you dont know what will be allowed in untill AFTER the pros case? how are you suppose to plan effectively? It makes no sense. If he wants to see if there is a case, you take it to a prelim, you dont test to see if there is a case during the trial, make a rulling, and then be like, "Ok defense, plan your case accordingly with these new 65465465 peices of added evidence, by the way ur up next week" what a crock

Exactly!

Post by **whisper** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 7:36 pm

>> Court TV: Leo Terrell Blasts Prosecution Jan 12 2005

Version: .wmv
Submitted Date: 2005/1/12
Edit This DownloadDescription:
Air date: Jan 12 2005

(the other crap has been cut out)
Leo Terrell says Jackson has a right to confrontation
-says it'll be unbelievable if this judge allows this to be 7 little mini trials
-says prosecutor's latest actions indicate that they have a problem
-says Jackson DOES NOT fit the so-called "pedophile profile"
-made the point that there hasn't been 1 single conviction in anything in 46 years
(my note: this is the first criminal case against Jackson for anything)
-says the $20M is peanuts to Mike
…and more

9.35 MB

SpecialJanet25 · Post by **SpecialJanet25** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 7:59 pm

What does Mr. Terrell mean when he said $20M is peanuts to Michael?

~Vicky~ · Post by **~Vicky~** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 8:29 pm

Originally posted by SpecialJanet25
What does Mr. Terrell mean when he said $20M is peanuts to Michael?

It means $20 million to him is = to $2 for us.

Tiger Lilly · Post by **Tiger Lilly** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:35 pm

Well Melville surprised me.

sexymichael · Post by **sexymichael** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:43 pm

He's probably realised that hes making it too obvious that hes backing the prosecution...hes just buttering us up..IMO

~Vicky~ · Post by **~Vicky~** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:34 pm

Originally posted by sexymichael
He's probably realised that hes making it too obvious that hes backing the prosecution...hes just buttering us up..IMO

No, the ruling is unfair.

MJEOL