adoreme said:

This should explain...

dailytelegraph.news.com.a...id=1795988

Jackson setback
By Glenn Chapman
August 18, 2004

SANTA MARIA, California: Michael Jackson's lawyers failed today in their bid to have all evidence seized in a police raid on his Neverland ranch thrown out ahead of his child molestation trial.

The setback came a day after Jackson made a Hollywood-style court appearance to stare down his arch-nemesis, prosecutor Thomas Sneddon, as his legal team chiselled away at evidence that prosecutors plan to use against him.

His lawyers had asked Judge Rodney Melville to throw out evidence seized at Neverland on November 18 last year, saying the search warrant was executed on the basis of a detective's affidavit that contained malicious inaccuracies and omissions.


Included in the affidavit was a claim that Jackson's aides had deliberately spilled a urine sample taken from the child he is accused of molesting to disguise the fact the boy had been drinking, the defence claimed.


Jackson's lawyers also claimed the document excluded a comment by a psychologist who said Jackson did not fit the profile of a child molester.


The singer is charged with abusing a 12-year-old cancer patient at Neverland last year after plying him with alcohol.


Jackson's lawyers had also claimed that the affidavit exaggerated the harm that could be caused by alcohol to the young cancer patient, who prosecutors said had had one kidney, his gall bladder and his lymph nodes removed.


But the judge ruled that the scores of items seized – including photographs, computer discs, videos and greeting cards – qualified as evidence for the trial, set to start January 30.


"I am not persuaded there was any deliberate misrepresentation in the drafting of the first search warrant," Melville said.


"Some of the information could have been more balanced, but it was not enough to change the outcome. There was probable cause to believe that Michael Jackson committed crimes, based on statements by the minors involved."


But the defence still wants some of the items disqualified, claiming that investigators overstepped the limits of the search warrant.


The judge gave the defence until Thursday to compile a list of any items seized at Neverland that they thought should be excluded from evidence.


Jackson has pleaded innocent to a 10-count indictment that includes charges of child molestation, kidnapping, false imprisonment and extortion plots. He is free on $US3 million ($A4.2 million) bail.


He has claimed that the alleged victim's family is falsely accusing him as part of a plan to extort him.


Jackson was not in court in the California town of Santa Maria on today for the second in a five-day series of pre-trial hearings aimed at tossing out evidence seized in three search warrants executed the day before his arrest.


Jackson's lawyers grilled psychologist Stan Katz, who counselled the young accuser.


It was Katz who alerted police to the child abuse allegations around May last year after the boy and his brother were referred to him by the family's lawyer, Larry Feldman.


Yesterday, Jackson and his famous siblings made a show business-like court appearance for a dramatic showdown with Sneddon, who he has accused of waging a vendetta against him.


Jackson, dressed in a dazzling white suit and dark glasses, arrived at court in a customised tour bus along with his parents, Joe and Katherine Jackson, his singing sisters LaToya and Janet and his brothers Jermaine, Randy and Jackie.


The Jackson siblings, all wearing white in a sign of solidarity with their famous brother, sat behind 45-year-old Michael.


Sneddon, 61, is an old foe of Jackson. In 1993, the Santa Barbara district attorney tried but failed to prosecute Jackson on allegations that he sexually molested a 13-year-old boy.


The case fell apart when Jackson reached an out of court settlement with the youngster.

AFP

----

There still has been no decision on the omission of evidence on the raid of Bradley Millers office. Yesterday was a good day for the defence with Sneddon squirming and losing his temper on the stand.

Thanks Wildstyle - but this is the article I read this morning which I read

Michael Jackson in legal setback


Michael Jackson denies the charges against him
Superstar Michael Jackson's lawyers have failed in their attempt to have all evidence seized in a raid on his ranch thrown out ahead of his trial.
Mr Jackson's lawyers argued that the evidence had been obtained improperly and was therefore inadmissible.

But a judge ruled that police had "probable cause" to believe Mr Jackson had committed a crime when they searched his Neverland ranch last year.

Mr Jackson has pleaded not guilty to 10 child abuse charges.

His trial is scheduled to start on 30 January.

While dismissing the blanket challenge by the Jackson team, Judge Rodney Melville said he would still allow the lawyers to argue against individual items of evidence taken away by police.

Loyal support

The judge gave the defence until Thursday to come up with a list of any items seized last November that they think should be excluded from evidence.

The evidence in question has not been made public.

The legal setback for Mr Jackson - who is free on $3m (£1.6m) bail - came a day after he appeared in court, accompanied by his parents and famous siblings, sisters LaToya and Janet, and brothers Jermaine and Tito.

Fans screamed as the 45-year-old star, dressed in a white suit, arrived by double-decker bus at the Santa Maria court in California.

About 150 fans gathered behind crash barriers to scream their support for the singer.

The pre-trial hearing could last a week, but Mr Jackson was only expected to attend the first day.

The crowd was much smaller than during his previous appearances, when thousands of fans and journalists turned up, probably resulting from Mr Jackson's last-minute decision to attend the pre-trial hearing.

LINK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/h...575182.stm

This suggests that the defence planned to rule out all of this evidence.

I must admit, I haven't been Michael's biggest fan for a while but seeing the whole white suit show left a really bad taste in my mouth. I know he's a star (King of Pop etc etc etc) but this is serious stuff. I think a more restrained and less "showbizzy" entrance would have served him much better. He would also have fared better in the media's eyes if he hadn't announced that he would be attending thus securing his usual legion of baying fans outside the court house.

I think the reason the family showed up in white is to symbolise Michael's innocense. As they can't really do too much verbally because of the gag order. I think more focus should have been put on the fact that the DA in the case was forced to testify (highly unusual) for misconduct, rather then what Michael was wearing.

At the end of the day who cares really? He is wearing white. Big deal.

WildStyle said:

You make a good point about the DA being forced to testify. This is a very messy case. But just to clarify the fact that they were dressed in white did not offend me. They could have been wearing bright orange as far as I'm concerned. I just find it a little offensive that Michael insists on turning what is an extremely serious business into some sort of performance.

Whilst I understand that fans will follow him inevitably, he blatantly encouraged it by announcing his attendance in advance. Even I knew he was gonna be there! I felt the same about his behaviour at the last showing when he was up on the car singing and dancing. It just doesn't seem appropriate to me.

Mmm, it's a tough situation. I think he knows the fans want to be there, and he wants them to be there. It was the media who first reported on the possibility of Mike being there. There were camera crews setting up camp days before the hearing. It was actually leaked by the media that he would be there before he officialy anounced it.

All micheal has is his family and fans. Friends don't seem to be present in his life, where is Liz Taylor, aren't they like bestest friends?

Anyways whether Michael did it or didn't do it he should be taking this trial more seriously than he is, even if he knows his innocence. It doesn't give a good impression on the judge and jury for one thing.
I understand where he's coming from though and realize he wants to be there for his fans as well. I feel Michael is truly devoted to his fans, i really admire that.

If Michael is convicted his fans will not believe it, they will think it was an error. I don't want to be mean but his fans seem to gain the same psychological damage he has. For one thing most of his die hard fans believe what he believes, like he had 2 plastic surgerys and he is sane. He is a smart man in a business and musical sense but he is not altogether up there. Hell Einstein wasn't sane either so i don't see why his fans have to make him seem like he's picture perfect.

I hope in the end he comes out innocent for the sake of Michael and the boy.

minneapolisgenius said:

jayaredee said:

if he is convicted due to sufficient evidence, i will believe he did it. i do have faith in the court system for the most part. i don't have faith in the media or the majority of the sheepish public who just seem to buy everything the media hands out as news. like i've said before, the majority of people here (and otherwise) that believe michael is guilty have been judging that based in sensationalistic media reports, michael's fame, and his strange personality. none of these factors pertain to the merits of the case.

if one person here can offer me evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that michael is guilty i will change my mind. if the courts can offer me that i will change my mind. until then, i refuse to get suckered by our profit and ratings hungry "news" media.

jayaredee said:

you got a wrong impression of mj fans. yeah he has that kind of fans but who doesnt?
Prince does have extremely obssesed fans. so does madonna
damn, I've seen a thread about worshiping prince named 'Prince is a religion' in Music:Prince yesterday or so

so the point is, every artist has some kind of fans


typo edit*
[This message was edited Wed Aug 18 9:07:07 2004 by LightOfArt]

LightOfArt said:

Absolutely true.

Although I think as a general rule MJ fans do tend to be a little more blinkered than others. (Not talking about your good self here, LightOfArt - your head is screwed on). Going on the people that post here and the MJ forums I have visited (to lurk! not to heckle!) the number of "nutters" you get over there far outnumbers the number we have round this place. Criticism of Prince amongst his fans is rife whereas some groups of MJ fans see him as an almost saint-like figure.

That's why I see the circus surrounding these court appearances as intrinsically damaging to Michael's image at the moment. Screaming, fainting fans do not have a place outside a court of law where justice is supposed to be served.

Having your family show up all dressed in white
may be symbolic of innocence & unity in MJ's mind
but it won't have any effect on the outcome of this case.
Can't wait for January 30th when the big show begins.
I wonder what he will be wearing?

Supernova said:

LMAO!!!!!

I liked the idea that they all came in white. It was as if they brought hope with them or something, I liked it. But I don´t understand what MJ did wrong again that it looked to some people as him putting on show and disrespecting the court. I mean what´s so disrespectfull about a white suit???

BTW quys, do you think that Prince would wear something less excentric?

Supernova said:

ah, you got that!

apologies to LightOfFart, but you never know!

as for the wearing of white, so what? how should he be, head down, looking sombre? no thanks. that'd come off as looking defeatist, guilty even in the eyes of some. I think he has every right to appear confident.

besides, performing has always been his life. He doesn't know any damn different.

jayaredee said:

lizz is old...my god id be surpised if she is even able to get out of bed nowadays.....her health hasnt been the best but im sure she still supports her michael...

Marrk said:

LightOfArt said:

honest mistake. im in stoner mode. sorry.

Marrk said:

yeah yeah

adoreme said:

Light of Art...maybe this will cheer you up.

taken from KOP board.

dag said:

MJ fans can surely photoshop better than that.

sooooorry.....

dag said:

it helped thnx

but that's still my favourite:

Y'all as crazy as the Jacksons up in hea

we know....