November 4th Hearing Thread

The"official" threads posted during the trial

Moderator: Global Moderator

~Vicky~

November 4th Hearing Thread

Post by ~Vicky~ » Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:55 pm

Well then MJ's only hope is the appeals court I assume.

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

November 4th Hearing Thread

Post by whisper » Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:13 pm

Image

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

November 4th Hearing Thread

Post by dangerous » Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:16 pm

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... ST0052.DTL

Judge refuses to remove Michael Jackson prosecutor from case

LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent


Thursday, November 4, 2004

A judge on Thursday rejected a defense effort to remove the Santa Barbara County district attorney prosecuting Michael Jackson on child molestation charges.

"I believe he has not been excessively zealous and has not threatened the integrity of the case to this point," said Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville, who heard arguments from Jackson's lawyer, the prosecutor's office and the state attorney general's office.

Melville said the law was clear that the only way he could remove District Attorney Tom Sneddon and his office, is "if a conflict existed where the defendant could not receive a fair trial."

If a conflict existed, the judge said, he would have to find that it was "disabling" to the case.

"I find no disabling conflict. I also find there will be controls in this trial while the jury is present. If he (Sneddon) appears excessively zealous during the trial, I will see that it is taken care of."

Jackson's lawyer, Thomas Mesereau Jr., had presented a final exhortation in favor of removing Sneddon, saying that the district attorney and his office had spent more money pursuing Jackson than they had on the cases of serial killers, showing that they had lost perspective.

Mesereau said that Sneddon was so personally invested in pursuing Jackson's case that he misrepresented to grand jurors the potential motivation of a boy's family in accusing Jackson.

Mesereau said that Sneddon brought an attorney, Larry Feldman, before the grand jury and had him tell the panelists that a criminal prosecution of Jackson would diminish the chances for the boy's family to win compensation in a civil suit against the pop singer.

In truth, Mesereau said, a criminal conviction would mean that the family would be more likely to win a financial claim against Jackson.

"It goes without saying that if you obtain a criminal conviction, that will establish liability," Mesereau said. "Every lawyer here knows that if Mr. Jackson was convicted of these allegations, the alleged victims could walk into civil court and get a judgment."

He also cited Sneddon's personal role in investigating the Jackson case as well as his performance at a press conference announcing the singer's arrest.

But he said the entire district attorney's office was too zealous in the grand jury proceedings.

"They are too emotionally invested in getting a case against the celebrity.... They are blinded by zeal, blinded by emotion in deciding how to decide this case."

The judge expressed interest in one point raised by Mesereau that Sneddon might have to be a witness in the trial because of his personal role in investigating Jackson.

Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen, as well as a representative of the state attorney general's office, suggested that Sneddon would not have to testify and that Mesereau's motion was not supported by law.

They said that Sneddon was merely fulfilling his role as a dedicated prosecutor and that he had no particular personal agenda in pursuing the case.

Jackson has pleaded not guilty to child molestation, conspiracy and administering an intoxicating agent, alcohol, to a boy. He is set to stand trial Jan. 31.


-----------

ok i read that 3 times and asides from saying "no" did Melville even raise his reasoning?
[align=center]Image[/align]

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

November 4th Hearing Thread

Post by whisper » Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:18 pm

kinkykate Posted: Nov 4 2004, 01:44 PM

paul fingst was just on msnbc saying that the judge ruled the way he did b/c tom is the head da in the county. he said that if he gets pulled off the case, it'll show that he might have done something inappropriate and the judge wants to be cautious b/c ts is an elected official and this and that....

then he said that ts has a spotless record and this is the only time he's been accused of this. he's just a talking head w/ no connection to ts so maybe he's just ASSuming.

i still can't find a link.
================================================

This was expected. We all knew Melville wouldn't remove Sneddon.

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

November 4th Hearing Thread

Post by dangerous » Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:23 pm

then he said that ts has a spotless record

LMAO. How many lawsuits are against him now? 9? I lost count.
[align=center]Image[/align]

Michael Jackson's Kougra
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:00 pm
Contact:

November 4th Hearing Thread

Post by Michael Jackson's Kougra » Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:29 pm

Melville is so getting on my nerves...I want him to make a desistion and soon.
[align=center].:*Fran*:.[/align][align=center][/align]

[align=center]Thanx for the blend Neicie :)[/align]

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

November 4th Hearing Thread

Post by whisper » Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:42 pm

Image

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

November 4th Hearing Thread

Post by whisper » Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:44 pm

There's been a lot. Fingst just doesn't know Sneddon's record. One of the big ones pending right now in federal court is the Gary Dunlap case. He's suing this DA's office for $10M for conspiracy, prosecutorial misconduct, violation of civil rights, etc.

You can hear Dunlaps extensive interview here:
http://forums.mjeol.com/showthread.php?t=518

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

November 4th Hearing Thread

Post by dangerous » Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:02 pm

Originally posted by whisper
There's been a lot. Fingst just doesn't know Sneddon's record. One of the big ones pending right now in federal court is the Gary Dunlap case. He's suing this DA's office for $10M for conspiracy, prosecutorial misconduct, violation of civil rights, etc.

You can hear Dunlaps extensive interview here:
http://forums.mjeol.com/showthread.php?t=518
well if the defense didnt bring it up how would he know? ITs not like these ppl actually research.
[align=center]Image[/align]

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

November 4th Hearing Thread

Post by whisper » Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:31 pm

Originally posted by dangerous
well if the defense didnt bring it up how would he know? ITs not like these ppl actually research.
Well unless Fingst is actually inside the courtroom, he may not know what the defense brought up or didn't bring up. And again, this info is only as good as the people reporting it. So if their notes are lacking in info, we won't hear about it unless someone else reports it.

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

November 4th Hearing Thread

Post by whisper » Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:31 pm

Image

Tiger Lilly
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 3134
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 1:00 pm

November 4th Hearing Thread

Post by Tiger Lilly » Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:36 pm

Originally posted by mjlovergurl
is this tape good or bad for micheal's sake? im confused! lol
I'm gonna sound completely dumb and ask the same thing cos I can't grasp it. By the sound of it it's not good, right?

And I can't say I'm at all surprised about Melville's ruling. In fact who is? :nonono:

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

November 4th Hearing Thread

Post by dangerous » Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:41 pm

The tape is good, thats why the defense handed it over so carelessly. Its like "Here, you want it, take it, but ur not gonna like it."
Well unless Fingst is actually inside the courtroom, he may not know what the defense brought up or didn't bring up. And again, this info is only as good as the people reporting it. So if their notes are lacking in info, we won't hear about it unless someone else reports it
true, i hope his notes are just crap. Which is more probably the case/
[align=center]Image[/align]

Tiger Lilly
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 3134
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 1:00 pm

November 4th Hearing Thread

Post by Tiger Lilly » Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:50 pm

Originally posted by dangerous
The tape is good, thats why the defense handed it over so carelessly. Its like "Here, you want it, take it, but ur not gonna like it."
Okay I can understand that but you also typed this Ashley...
Originally posted by dangerous+-->QUOTE (dangerous)So the defense, for their own reasons, (they weren’t compelled to or anything) gave them a copy of the tape2 and now the prosecution wants to know where it came from, saying that it could possibly be the omission of one of the UNINDICTED coconspirators admitting to false imprison, extort, bla bla blah[/b]

How is that good?
Then whisper says this...

<!--QuoteBegin-whisper

I suspect this mother was secretly recorded making threats against Michael or talking about committing fraud, lying, threats and/or extortion. And prosecutors are just trying to turn the issue around. [/quote]

Sorry if I sound dumb, don't reply to me if you don't want. I'm confusing myself with my drivvel. :laugh

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

November 4th Hearing Thread

Post by dangerous » Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:55 pm

LOL!
The prosecution are using that reasoning (the second quote) to compel the defense to hand over the information regarding where that tape came from. They really really want to know, mainly because.... (insert whispers quote)
[align=center]Image[/align]

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest