Official May 6 2005 Thread

How do you feel about Michael Jackson? Got any info you want to share?

Moderator: Global Moderator

SexyMJLover
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 861
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 1:00 pm

Official May 6 2005 Thread

Post by SexyMJLover » Sat May 07, 2005 2:08 pm

Originally posted by MJISHOT
^^ ohh

myy

god! :screaming
:lol:

BillieJeanLover
Trial Period
Trial Period
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:24 pm

Official May 6 2005 Thread

Post by BillieJeanLover » Sat May 07, 2005 2:13 pm

I agree with the ones that say we are forced to try to understand this sham of a prosecution case. It has been rammed down our throats. However, we don't have to buy into the lies, propaganda and negative spin.

Most of us know Micahel is innocent, so we don't have to understand jack shoot that the DA brings to this debacle. How can any of us intelligent prople understand the ones that perpetrate such evil? In life we should always, or at least most of the times, be aware that we might have to strive to understand or wonder about another's motive for doing or saying anything. Sad but true. In this case, I'm not buying the DAs motive. The slow pokes can have at it though.

Anyway, for the ones that like the 100% Proof variety, keep the fatih. The truth stands tall all by its lonesome. But it is not Alone with strong minded, intelligent and wise folks understanding it (Truth) from jumpstreet.

I'd rather be wise than clever!

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

Official May 6 2005 Thread

Post by Cristine87 » Sat May 07, 2005 2:25 pm

Originally posted by sunny2005

Sneddon, taking up questioning again, asked whether Robson was jealous of the woman "because she replaced you."

"Absolutely not," said the witness. "... I had no wish to be (her)."

"I asked if you were jealous of her position," Sneddon said acerbically.

"What position would that be?" asked the mother.

"Being close to Michael Jackson," said Sneddon.

"I don't know that she was close to Michael Jackson," the witness answered. "My personal knowledge of that weekend was Michael Jackson trying to elude (her) for that weekend."
I can't get over this one! Was Mama Robson jealous because June replaced her? What, was it a damn love triangle? It's so ridiculous! I see it like this, Sneddon & Co. are trying to make it seem as if these people have motives for praising Michael, but I wouldn't go there if I were him because then the jury would have to look at the motives for the people who testified against him as well & quite frankly, they look less credible!

sunny2005
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:15 am

Official May 6 2005 Thread

Post by sunny2005 » Sat May 07, 2005 2:30 pm

Originally posted by maintenant
:thumbsup Love the summary! Also, I think the prosecution has moved over into "way unethical". It's one thing to genuinely believe that Michael is guilty of heinous actions and to attempt to prove that, but to keep on reaching beyond the threshhold of all rationality to put an obviously innocent man behind bars, for what, a political career, envy, what? In all honestly, at this point, how can the prosecution continue to believe that they actually do have a case? Is that justice? Is this the kind of system they want to put themselves behind? I think if Sneddon were actually worth his salt, he'd stop the whole proceeding and make a little speech, something along the line of "I sincerely apologize...when I started this thing, I honestly believed that Michael Jackson was guilty, but as this trial proceeded, I finally had to realize that I had been wrong, too zealous, and allowed myself to be taken in by professional crooks who used me like they used Mr. Jackson. Your honor, I ask that this case be dismissed and that Michael Jackson be declared innocent of all charges. That's the kind of justice I want to work for." But no, he has to pretend an art book is child porn (not something implicitely beautiful), he has to pretend that several years of Playboy are to "entice" little boys (instead of for the enjoyment of the subscriber), he has to pretend that adult witnesses who claim they were never molested must have been molested when they were asleep and therefore don't remember, and so on and so on. He ought to be ashamed of himself. His role ISN'T the same as the defense attorney's...the defense can do anything it can to get their client off, but the prosecutor can't morally do anything possible to get an innocent man convicted of a crime he didn't commit, and a crime that doesn't even make sense.

In Sneddon's tiny little mind, and it IS a tiny little mind, Michael is "guilty" of two things, (1) being a grown man, (2) sometimes sharing his bed with children. But that is NOT a crime. Now SOME grown men MIGHT have sex with the children they have in their beds. But this one did not, could not, and would not. I don't know why that isn't obvious by now. And even if it isn't obvious, what clearly IS obvious is that such has NOT been proven, and at this point, never will be. There is an absolute reasonable doubt, and no legitimate way to convict. But Sneddon wants a conviction more than he wants truth and justice. And for that, he's beneath contempt.
I couldn't have said it better myself, this is so well said, and you make so many great points. I do hope when this is all over that the legal system in California will have a wake up call and do a full reform. This is one of the worse cases I have ever heard of that consistantly stomps on the rights of an innocent human being. Tom Sneddon is a perfect example of the worse kind of Prosecution misconduct in California state law.
:2mjghetto :icon_afro

koprulestheworld
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:00 pm

Official May 6 2005 Thread

Post by koprulestheworld » Sat May 07, 2005 4:12 pm

Originally posted by sunny2005
I couldn't have said it better myself, this is so well said, and you make so many great points. I do hope when this is all over that the legal system in California will have a wake up call and do a full reform. This is one of the worse cases I have ever heard of that consistantly stomps on the rights of an innocent human being. Tom Sneddon is a perfect example of the worse kind of Prosecution misconduct in California state law.

Ya i know but i hate it too!!! I wish this would end right now!! Makes me feel sad, there are times when i drink and listen to Michael music and i just sit there and cry at times. Last night i put on history vol 2 and boy did i cry, i told myself man times have change.

floacist
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 1908
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 1:00 pm
Contact:

Official May 6 2005 Thread

Post by floacist » Sat May 07, 2005 4:20 pm

Image
^
Look at that confident man!!!That expression and body language Mez is giving out just says it all about the way this case is going. Mez is such a hustla :)

koprulestheworld
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:00 pm

Official May 6 2005 Thread

Post by koprulestheworld » Sat May 07, 2005 4:24 pm

Originally posted by floacist
Image
^
Look at that confident man!!!That expression and body language Mez is giving out just says it all about the way this case is going. Mez is such a hustla :)
lol That photo looks like if he just finsh doing his work and now he is kicking back lol. Yes Mez will win this fight! Hey mez cute belly by the way sorry.

HotMJ!
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 716
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 10:47 pm

Official May 6 2005 Thread

Post by HotMJ! » Sun May 08, 2005 5:04 am

Originally posted by sunny2005+-->QUOTE (sunny2005)

<!--QuoteBegin-HotMJ!



Speaking of, this book is recommended by pediatricians, doctors, and the La Leche League. It's a good book!


The Family Bed: An Age Old Concept in Child Rearing
by Tine Thevenin
1st edition, January 1976 (many editions, reprints since)


130 page book. Contents:




... Adults and especially young children, feel more secure when sharing a bed at night, and grow up more secure, more "socialized."

... It is an undeniable fact that only recently in human history have children and adults slept alone.

... Royalty commonly shared their beds with a dozen or more people!



* available @Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... 27-5557516

This is excellent info, thank you for sharing this! It would be great if the defense could use something like this in their case as well.

[/b][/quote]
I'm not sure if it would be helpful in court, but I sent it (email) to the defense a couple of months ago. We'll see.


:cryptic

.

HotMJ!
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 716
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 10:47 pm

Official May 6 2005 Thread

Post by HotMJ! » Sun May 08, 2005 5:37 am

Originally posted by HotMJ!
I'm not sure if it would be helpful in court, but I sent it (email) to the defense a couple of months ago. We'll see.

:cryptic

P.S.

One thing that stuck in my mind after all these years (I read this book when my son was born) was that one king (A French one, I think) had a bed which "slept" over a hundred people, and he was not unique! :popcorn


Hmm... They do call Michael the "King of Pop" - lol!


:D

HotMJ!
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 716
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 10:47 pm

Official May 6 2005 Thread

Post by HotMJ! » Sun May 08, 2005 6:46 am

Originally posted by koprulestheworld


A problematic timeline for the prosecution

Jackson prosecutors allege that the panic over the negative publicity preceeded the molestation

TRANSCRIPT
By Dan Abrams, Host
"The Abrams Report"
Updated: 3:44 p.m. ET May 6, 2005

..........

February 3, 2003: It starts when that damning documentary aired in England. The accuser and Jackson talk about sleeping next to the each other on the bed. The actual accuser in this case on that video.

.........

WHAT?? HOLD EVERYTHING!!!

Since WHEN did Michael "talk about sleeping next to each other [the boy accuser] on the bed????

We know that MICHAEL NEVER SAID THAT in that video!!!!
It's time to SUE the media for all these "slip-ups!" :hitting



:screaming

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests