Official Jan 12 2005 Hearing

The"official" threads posted during the trial

Moderator: Global Moderator

InspirationMoonwalks
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 4450
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 1:00 pm
Contact:

Official Jan 12 2005 Hearing

Post by InspirationMoonwalks » Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:16 pm

Blah.. :bs But I'm not too terribly worried, to be honest. After all, the man is ON THE RECORD saying that he NEVER was witness to any inappropriate behavior on Michael's behalf in regards to the accuser or any other kid. Therefore, any remarks he may make of a different nature shouldn't hold much weight...
[align=center]\\\"It's all for love. L.O.V.E\\\" ♥--Michael Jackson [/align] [align=center]We miss you... [/align]

[align=center]proud.to.be.an.american.mj.fan[/align]

~Vicky~

Official Jan 12 2005 Hearing

Post by ~Vicky~ » Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:40 pm

Idiot Jim Thomas is saying that the judge does not want to tain tht jury pool so they will not argue the arguments they were gonna argue today. And that it will be discussed AFTER the jury is seated then THEY will hear arguments on whether 93 should be let in. BULL SHIT.

?????

User avatar
whisper
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9130
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 1:00 pm
Contact:

Official Jan 12 2005 Hearing

Post by whisper » Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:44 pm

About today's hearing:

The judge ruled NOT to rule yet. Let me explain from what Dimond said:
It was kind of convoluted what she said. Something about the judge making Sneddon put on this current "case" in its entirety and then having a hearing to decide on whether this 1108 information will come in. And yea DImond did say that the judge needed to actually hear what these people would say and he couldn't just take the prosecution's word for it (although she said "attorneys" instead of just saying prosecutors b/c they are the ones alleging this mess).

Either way, she seemed to be trying to find a ray of light for prosecutors, so it must not have gone too well for them.

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

Official Jan 12 2005 Hearing

Post by HeavenSent » Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:44 pm

EDIT
[align=center]Image[/align]

~Vicky~

Official Jan 12 2005 Hearing

Post by ~Vicky~ » Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:50 pm

Im lost...:laugh

User avatar
whisper
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9130
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 1:00 pm
Contact:

Official Jan 12 2005 Hearing

Post by whisper » Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:52 pm

Man, something really must be up if he didn't just say 'yes' to the prosecution. I believe he may be trying to protect Sneddon from something around 1993 that he doesn't even want to get into if he doesn't have to. I just think it's astonishing that he just didn't say 'yeah, Snuffy you can have what you want'.

~Vicky~

Official Jan 12 2005 Hearing

Post by ~Vicky~ » Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:03 pm

Yea, very interesting...

So does that mean this hearing was pointless...what else was there to discuss?

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

Official Jan 12 2005 Hearing

Post by dangerous » Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:04 pm

the judge has ruled not to rule? could the railroading going on be anymore obvious. jeez. Why does Melville need to hear waht they say, its either he allows past allegations or he doesnt. and Martin Bashir being payed to testify? I thought he called MJs union with children magical and spiritual, lol. ahh, whatever.
[align=center]Image[/align]

User avatar
whisper
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9130
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 1:00 pm
Contact:

Official Jan 12 2005 Hearing

Post by whisper » Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:05 pm

We don't know anything else yet. All we have is Dimond running out to the camera to talk about a specific ruling. I don't know what else is going on or what else has gone on. None of the other reporters from the other networks have come on to give an update just yet.

User avatar
whisper
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9130
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 1:00 pm
Contact:

Official Jan 12 2005 Hearing

Post by whisper » Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:10 pm

Originally posted by dangerous
the judge has ruled not to rule? could the railroading going on be anymore obvious. jeez. Why does Melville need to hear waht they say, its either he allows past allegations or he doesnt. and Martin Bashir being payed to testify? I thought he called MJs union with children magical and spiritual, lol. ahh, whatever.
Well one person at MJJF suggested that Melville may be trying to protect Sneddon by screening these people's testimony: If they come across as believable,then he'll let it in. If they don't come across as unbelievable, he won't let it in.

So that may be what he's trying to do. Or he could be spooked by what the defense dug up on these 1993 fools and want to give the prosecution further time to look for alleged accusers.

~Vicky~

Official Jan 12 2005 Hearing

Post by ~Vicky~ » Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:20 pm

Originally posted by whisper
Well one person at MJJF suggested that Melville may be trying to protect Sneddon by screening these people's testimony: If they come across as believable,then he'll let it in. If they don't come across as unbelievable, he won't let it in.

So that may be what he's trying to do. Or he could be spooked by what the defense dug up on these 1993 fools and want to give the prosecution further time to look for alleged accusers.

:nonono:

It's one of them, you know he's not really worried about tainting the jury pool. That doesn't make sense

So he'll decide after the trial starts? That's bullshit. IMO, it makes it harder on the defense. If he said no, then they wouldn't have to worry about working in depth on that 'case'. If he said yes, then they could get all the information they needed and begin to work on deciding who to call and such.

Fool.

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

Official Jan 12 2005 Hearing

Post by danaluvsmj » Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:37 pm

Did the defense happen to bring up the info that was leaked on the smoking gun? Because that went against the gag order and I think that should be accounted for.
Image

1958-2009

Gone Too Soon

~Vicky~

Official Jan 12 2005 Hearing

Post by ~Vicky~ » Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:38 pm

Originally posted by danaluvsmj
Did the defense happen to bring up the info that was leaked on the smoking gun? Because that went against the gag order and I think that should be accounted for.

It is not known who leaked it. Thought it most likely was the prosecution...it can't be proven. So there is no one to put the blame on.

User avatar
whisper
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9130
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 1:00 pm
Contact:

Official Jan 12 2005 Hearing

Post by whisper » Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:40 pm

MsTenda Tody, 02:34 PM

I have two on site reports from MJJF Investigates and The Justice System:

1. Melville stated that the prosecution must put on the entire case without any past incidents. Once that is done, he will consider the 1108. Basically, as I am told, the is a PUT UP, or SHUT UP against the prosecution. They MUST put on the current case.

2. Court is over - next date, Jan 21. 2005

3. Jury voidere (don't know if I spelled that right) will be in OPEN COURT.

4. The Justicesystem.net will have a FULL report, which includes an interview with the media attorney.

5. This has been a great day for the defense.

Source: MJJF I-Unit/The Justice System.

User avatar
whisper
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9130
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 1:00 pm
Contact:

Official Jan 12 2005 Hearing

Post by whisper » Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:38 pm

Judge Wants Prosecutors to Stick to the Current Case


Wednesday, 12 January 2005

SANTA MARIA, CA — Today, Santa Maria Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville decided not to rule on the Prosecution's motion to bring in alleged ‘prior acts' of abuse, at this time.

Prosecutors are attempting to present evidence of similar alleged "prior acts," even though Michael Jackson has never actually been tried in a court on those issues.

The defense attorneys petitioned Judge Melville to bar this 'flimsy' evidence. Previous to this case, Michael Jackson has never been arrested or actually charged with a sexual offense.

Exercising caution, the judge cited a case early in his career where the prosecution first presented 'prior acts' of alleged abuse in a similar case. Consequently, the primary case that the prosecution then presented was so weak that the defendant was convicted on the alleged ‘past acts.’ Judge Melville called this a "miscarriage of justice" and stated that he would not allow something like that to happen in this case.

Judge Rodney Melville went on to inform the prosecution that he needs to see their main case first, effectively barring them from bringing in any past accusers or allegations, at this point.

After they have presented their main case and witnesses pertaining to the current case, Judge Melville stated that he may entertain an evidentiary hearing and then possibly consider allowing the motion.

Additionally, in court filings, the defense argued that media coverage of the hearing could prejudice potential jurors. Judge Melville said that under California law, he did not believe he could conduct the hearings behind closed doors.

The judge has scheduled hearings on Jan. 21 and Jan. 27.

Judge Rodney Melville also stated that Michael Jackson will be required to appear in court beginning January 31, 2005.

Source: http://mjjsource.com/main/index.php?opt ... &Itemid=32

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests