Cloudbuster said:

Uh, no, where did I say that? Staying at the house of a trusted friend is perfectly fine, but certainly not in the same bed.

"Hey, mommy, (insert adult male friend/stranger/acquaintance/relative) just asked if I could go for a sleepover and stay in his bed."

The answer to THAT is NO. Is that so difficult to understand?

VoicesCarry said:

Yeah, and that fact is based on what? There are enough balanced reports out there, just read them. "all I know is that he actively finds boys he can have sleepovers with"

BlueNote

double post
[Edited 3/1/05 11:56am]

Okay, back to the ethical questions later. But as for the 1st day of the trial:

I saw the CNN segment during my workout this morning.

Jeffrey Toobin, whose opinion I greatly respect, said Sneddon's opening was one of the worst he'd ever heard. Apparently, his timeline was very choppy, and Mesereau used a good opening statement to expose potentially gaping holes in the case, such as, a) the boy couldn't have been abused during the times alleged, and b) the family couldn't have been held hostage during the time alleged.

Wow. This thing could be over before it starts.
[Edited 3/1/05 11:51am]

Can we PLEASE have a new thread? This one is excruciatingly long.

VoicesCarry said:

that'd be nice. sort it mods.

namepeace said:

Toobin has always been a great legal mind on public cases, He predicted how the peterson defense went into tatters, which lead to a conviction. And how Kobe bryants case was rediculous from start to finish.
And if Toobin says that prosecution made an extremely poor opening statement i agree with you name, this might be over very very soon.
Its usually the opening statements which predict how the case ends up...
If you make a poor opening statement it could cost you the trial.
So things arent looking too well for the prosecution...

In my own personal opinion Sneddon's attitude throughout the whole investigation has been a little weird...
The laughing at the conference where he announced the charges...
The extremely mysterious Charges change after the grand jury...
Its as if he's done a sloppy investigation,
And it might come back to haunt him if Meseraeu puts him on the stand to testify...
Sneddon is a hott head and will no doubt cause a ruckus...
but that might be his downfall, because he's so passionate about what he's saying its as if he's hiding the tidbits of mistakes he's made

Luv4oneanotha said:

If the evidence correlates with what was said in the openings, I can't see how they could convict, unless:

1. The accuser and his brother give powerful and detailed testimony and withstand cross-examination.

2. The mother can withstand cross-examination.

3. The prosecutor turns in significant evidence of prior conduct in conformity with the crime (i.e. other witnesses).



I didn't find that tasteful at all.

Which is why I am so mad at Michael. He didn't have to do a thing to give Sneddon an opening. We wouldn't even be here had he . . . well, never mind.

What's going on now?

As far as i can tell they showed Living With Michael Jackson (the Bashir thing) in its entirety (some fans reportedly cried, some reports claim MJ cried at one point and that his mother left the courtroom when MJ told about his dad's abuse). After that both the prosecution and the defence got to question Bashir, who was apperently very reluctant to answer any questions.

Btw, i'm pretty annoyed by the partial and contradicting info leaking from that courtroom. Why cant they stream or release full transcripts of what is being said?

SpcMs said:

It's a logistics thing. In civil court, the court reporter must first process the info through a stenograph, then transcribe it from stenograph to word processor, then certify it as the official transcript. Some court reporters have better technology than others. So it may take a while to get the official transcript back. That's the record that would go up on appeal. Every other summary, recital, etc. is unofficial and each has varying degrees of accuracy.

I'm unable to read the post, but for some reason I can reply. can someone orgnote me what was written after my last post.

Apparently court's over for today and MJ left. It is reported that Sneddon made over 20 objections when the defense questioned Bashir, and that Bashir will have to return tomorrow (apparently MJ was very displeased so far with how the questioning of Bashir played out). I read somewhere judge Melvill is considering to hold Bashir in contempt of court, but i'm not sure about that.

Some comments by CNN's Jeffrey Toobin:

Toobin: Watching the documentary made me see that it was actually more sympathetic towards Michael Jackson than I remembered it. It shows that Michael is a very isolated man. Although Michael admitted repeadedly that he thinks there is nothing wrong to share your bed with children, he always stated that NOthing sexual went on.

Again, he said how the jury laughed during funny parts and seemed very touched when Michael talked about how he was beaten as a child. He said Jackie was nodding his head in agreement when Michael talked about it.
[Edited 3/1/05 15:21pm]

SpcMs said:

Toobin is the guy to listen to on these things.

There are gonna be good days and bad days for MJ. Sounds like this one's a good one.

namepeace said:

From what i just heard this was def, a good day.
The Documentery was def a bad move for prosecution...
Cause no matter how damaging it was, it did show MJ as well... an emotionally injured person.
which will give MJ some cred to the jury...

I tell ya one Thing i really hope Prosecution has something good up their sleeves because. it looks very hard to convict him now

can someone orgnote me the comments made since my last post, I can't read the thread, I can only reply. Thank you.

Luv4oneanotha said:

Well, the documentary is the reason the case was brought. No doc, no grounds for search warrant, no grounds for indictment. The state HAS to show it. But again, one never knows what a jury will latch onto. Nor does one know how it'll turn from day to day. If they could look past the unsettling footage in that doc, and find some sympathy for Jackson (which is apparently what Toobin perceived) then that's a definite positive for MJ



Again, I trust Toobin. If he says the beginning hasn't been good for the state, I can give him the benefit of the doubt.

Sorry guys, I think that we just discussing too much, get misunderstood and than there isn´t much difference between us in the end anyway.




´With the last sentence you kinda put him in a category of pedoes and that freaks me out.
It´s just that your comments (adoreme, voices and others) seem to me to be too paranoid! I mean Light of art was right when she said that otherwise you wouldn´tbe able to leave your kids anywere with anyone, cause kids get molested at camps - anywhere. Of course one has to be cautios, but you also can´t let your cautiousness not make you live. It´s like with cars. if you sit into a car thinking you could get killed in an accident, you won´t travel much and miss out a lot of your life. That´s all.

Here´s an interesting article. Long but interesting.
OPENING STATEMENTS: The jury will find Michael Jackson not guilty of all charges, Mesereau says

On Monday and Tuesday, February 28th and 29th, 2005, opening statements by both the Prosecution and Defense were delivered in Michael Jackson’s trial. All twenty members of the jury were present, the 12 main jurors and well as the 8 alternates. Michael Jackson's mother, Mrs. Katherine Jackson, as well as his brother, Jermaine Jackson, were present to support Michael.
Judge Melville began by reading the detailed grand jury indictment, unsealing its contents officially for the first time and then proceeded to give the jury specific instructions as to how they are to behave and handle the events and information given in the trial that was about to unfold.


Before the prosecution began, the Judge addressed two outstanding motions.

In a motion requested and agreed to by both parties, Judge Melville made the decision to allow the real names of the ‘complaining witness’ and his family, to be used due to the physical impossibility, on both sides, of redacting all appearances and utterances of their names from the thousands of documents and audio/visual evidence involved in this case.



Secondly, the Judge granted the motion to exclude witnesses from the proceedings, consequently he ordered all witnesses that may be present to leave the courtroom as they will not be allowed to be present unless they are testifying. There were not any witnesses present at the time.


District Attorney Tom Sneddon began his opening statements at 9:10 am, by stating that “the world was ‘rocked’ on February 3, 2003 by the airing of the ‘Living With Michael Jackson’ documentary made by Martin Bashir” that aired in the UK, and three days later in the US, which included an interview with Michael Jackson and his accuser discussing their friendship and Mr. Jacksonl’s statements regarding their times together of innocent fun. The DA alleged that it was anything but, by suggesting an interpretation of these statement for the members of the jury, to be a cover for something much more heinous. He implied that Michael’s lifelong love and very public personal crusade to help millions of the world’s children, at his own expense, was suddenly abandoned at this time so that he could pursue a ‘sexual’ relationship with this boy.

When Sneddon attempted to delve into the issue of Mr. Jackson’s finances at the time of the airing of the documentary, Mr. Mesereau objected and the judge sustained the defense’s objection, affirming the fact that a decision regarding the relevance of Mr. Jackson’s financial status was as yet, undetermined and Sneddon was not permitted to proceed with the issue. Obviously annoyed, Sneddon continued.

The District Attorney went on to paint a convoluted picture of the events that followed the airing of this documentary, calling it a “crisis raging uncontrollable”. He alleged that Mr. Jackson’s team was in such a state of panic over the fallout from this documentary that a complicated conspiracy to hold the accusers, the Arvizo family, against their will was constructed to ensure that they would take part in a “rebuttal video” to ‘save’ Mr. Jackson’s career and reputation. He also alleged that during this time of heavy business negotiations and planning to produce this video response in a “desperate attempt to revive his career’, Mr. Jackson found the time and inclination to molest Gavin Arvizo twice and both times Gavin Arvizo’s younger brother, Star Arvizo, walked in to find them in bed. Alegedly, Star Arvizo says that he was unseen by Mr. Jackson or his brother, Gavin and he promptly left the room.

The DA described Mr. Jackson’s home, Neverland Valley Ranch, as a “No Restrictions, No Rules, No Wants” playground that has a almost a strangely supernatural effect of turning well-mannered, obedient children into unaccountable, uncontrollable menaces.

Sneddon also admitted that the mother of Gavin Arvizo, Janet Arvizo, had made some mistakes in her life, and that she will admit some welfare fraud, but that is “wasn’t for a lot of money,” Sneddon added casually. Later, defense attorney, Mr. Mesereau, described detailed evidence of the mother’s history of welfare fraud that was stunningly extensive and continual over a long period of time.

At 12:40 pm, defense attorney, Tom Mesereau began his opening statements. He began by affirming that the DA has made some very serious allegations, by accusing his client, Mr. Jackson of “imprisoning a family, abducting a family, extorting a family and molesting a child.”

Mr. Mesereau addressed the riveted jurors in earnest, saying to them, “An opening statement is a contract between me and you.” He asserted that he was going to make promises in his opening statements, promises that he would fulfill and that he would completely disprove these false charges against Michael Jackson.

He began to outline for the jurors some issues that he urged them to keep in mind throughout the duration of the trial.

Mr. Mesereau described many other well-known people that have had experiences with this particular mother capitalizing on her son’s unfortunate illness to illicit money. Mr. Mesereau cited late-night talk show host, Jay Leno; Comedian, George Lopez; Actress, Renee Watson; Comedienne, Louise Palanca (sp?); Boxer, Mike Tyson; Actor, Adam Sandler; and Actor, Jim Carey; Los Angeles Weatherman, Fritz Coleman; among others as those who had all been contacted by this family. Many described instances where they had given the mother large sums of money and then found that instead of the money being used for the boy’s medical expenses, as was promised, that the money was used to buy TV’s and DVD players, etc.

Prior to meeting Michael Jackson, the Arvizo family contacted Jay Leno looking for support for Gavin’s “medical expenses.” After receiving a call from Gavin and hearing the mother, Janet Arvizo, in the background, Jay Leno immediately called authorities and informed them that “something was wrong” that this family was “definitely looking for a mark.” Jay Leno, Mr. Mesereau reminded the court, is not a friend of Michael Jackson or in anyway associated with him.

Mr. Mesereau made it definitively clear that the boy’s medical expenses were entirely covered by the father’s employer the entire time, as he has full Von’s (Grocery Chain) Teamster’s coverage. Mr. Mesereau stated, “I will prove to you in this case that (this family) has a pattern of ensnaring people for money.”

Mr. Mesereau briefly educated the jury as to who Michael Jackson really is, as opposed to the man they have seen performing or portrayed by the media. He described to them a person who had worked very hard, since the age of 5, essentially a very private person who, “when not on stage, is very shy and shuns the limelight.” He is also a varacious reader, whose library contains almost a million books.

Michael Jackson’s career is a combination of “genius and very hard work,” he said. He explained to the jurors that Mr. Jackson really didn’t have much of a childhood. In 1988, Mr. Jackson purchased Neverland and informed the jurors that they will see in video taken of the ranch that in contrast to the ‘lure and lair for child molestation that the prosecutor describes Neverland Valley Ranch to be, it is instead a ‘Disneyland-like’ environment that is an ‘invitation to be childlike’ to all those who visit, young and old alike. Mr. Jackson, he said, created a place for children to have fun, to be free, spontaneous and innocent. And he has done that, opening his home on countless occasions for thousands of children, many of them ill or from inner-cities.

Mr. Mesereau stated that, unfortunately, when Michael Jackson agreed to meet the cancer-striken accuser, Gavin Arvizo, and his family, unlike the other celebrities that had been contacted… “he couldn’t smell the ruse.” Mr. Mesereau stated unequivocally that he will “prove that the mother was trying to find a celebrity to latch on to.”

Michael Jackson wanted to help Gavin Arvizo. Mr. Jackson, an avid reader and ‘perpetual student of life’ had studied proven visualization techniques to beat disease that he taught and shared with Gavin, encouraging him to visualize the bad cells being eaten up by the good cells, like the ‘PacMan’ video game. Mr. Jackson took substantial time away from his career to help Gavin get well and see that his family was provided for.

He recounted an incident where the mother, Janet Arvizo, had previously lied under oath in a suit against J.C. Penney where the family, even after amending their story much later to suddenly include sexual assault charges, was awarded $152,500.00. Janet’s ex-husband confirmed that Janet coached her children to lie in this case. Later Janet actually admitted that she lied under oath in this case.

Janet Arvizo claimed in the J.C. Penney case, under oath, that her husband never beat her. Soon after being awarded $152,500 from J.C. Penney, she filed for divorce and now claimed that she had been beaten throughout the entire seventeen years of her marriage. In this divorce application, she also claimed false imprisonment, terrorist threats and that her husband has harmed her children.

One month after filing for divorce, Janet Arvizo applied for welfare. Subsequently, and as became her pattern, Janet Arvizo never reported the $152,500 from J.C. Penney on her welfare application that she signed “under penalty of perjury.” She also never reported any disability she received or any gifts on her welfare application, under penalty of perjury. Instead she perpetually hid the money in the bank accounts of her mother or fiancé.

Recently, a paralegal that worked on the J.C. Penney case came forward to say that she knew that Janet Arvizo had lied on the J.C. Penney case but that she had never come forward because Janet had threatened her, saying that her husband’s brother was in the Mexican mafia.

For Janet Arvizo, Mr. Mesereau noted, Michael Jackson is her third claim of false imprisonment and her fourth claim of sexual assault.

Mr. Mesereau explained that Janet and her children primarily lived with her mother or her then fiancé, who is currently her husband. But oddly, she always kept a very sparsely decorated and barely furnished studio apartment in a run-down area of East Los Angeles. The family was almost never there yet, Mr. Mesereau explained that this is the apartment where she would take celebrities in order to appear as they were destitute.

He stated to the jury that “Janet Arvizo put into effect a program to use her son’s illness to make money.” He explained that when she was given money, she refused, repeatedly, to use Gavin’s social security number on a beneficiary bank account. She would hide the money in her mother’s bank account or her fiance’s in order to avoid taxes and so as not to interfere with her welfare benefits.

In one of many instances of welfare fraud, Mr. Mesereau told the jury that Janet Arivizo also bought a car for $23,000, which she did not report, under penalty of perjury, only 6 days before applying for welfare.

Mesereau shared that there were many Fund Raiser’s held for the benefit of Gavin’s medical bills (that had been actually covered by insurance). Many of them were arranged by ‘Laugh Factory’ founder, Jamie Masada. Jamie Masada says the money that was fund-raised was given to the hospital. The hospital asserts that it never received a dime, says Mr. Mesereau.

Mr. Mesereau revealed that the mother had always wanted her kids to become actors so she had enrolled them in acting classes. They had met Jamie Masada at a ‘kid’s comedy camp’ sponsored by the Laugh Factory.

Janet Arvizo has claimed that she was falsely imprisoned. Mr. Mesereau described the guest cottage at Neverland where Janet says this took place, “This cottage was requested and used by Elizabeth Taylor and Marlon Brando many times.” Additionally, Janet Arvizo returned to Neverland, of her own free will, during this time she claims she was ‘falsely imprisoned.’ Further, Janet spent $3312.05 during her shopping trips, on body waxing, spa products and services, lingerie, clothing and cosmetics from Robinson’s May, Anchor Blue, The Gap, The Jockey Store, and other merchants during her ‘false imprisonment’ in various luxury hotels.

Mr. Mesereau told the jury that Janet claims she was prevented from knowing the time of day at Neverland. Mr. Mesereau informed to the jury that there are 2 massive and highly visible clocks, built into the hillsides of Neverland, that are also lit at night.

Mr. Mesereau informed the jury that the Arvizo’s met Michael Jackson in July 2000. In August 2000, they first visited Neverland. In October of 2000, Janey Arvizo told Gavin to tell Michael that they have no means of transportation. Mr. Jackson subsequently gave them an SUV, however, Mr. Mesereau added that Janet did not want the registration of the vehicle in her name. Clearly, Mr. Mesereau explained, she did not want to disclose this on her welfare application either.

Mr. Mesereau told the court that Janet Arvizo made continuous requests of Michael Jackson, but always used her son Gavin to deliver the requests. The requests were always granted and they received whatever they needed or wanted.

In the next segment of the defense opening statements, Mr. Mesereau encouraged the jury to put prosecutor’s description of the reaction to Martin Bashir’s documentary, ‘Living with Michael Jackson’ in perspective.

Mr. Mesereau informed the jury that Michael Jackson was indeed aware that the Santa Barbara Police Dept. was investigating him after the airing of the documentary, the exact time the prosecutor claims that the molestation occurred. He stated that, “We will prove that it (the child molestation) never happened.”

Mr. Mesereau painted a picture of the days following the airing of the documentary. He agreed with the mother’s claim that at that time, the media was everywhere and the networks were all anxiously bidding on the ‘rebuttal’ video from Michael Jackson. There was a lot of money to be made and many meetings concerning this were taking place. “There was great dislike for what Bashir had done to Michael Jackson, but there was elation for the business opportunity that doing a rebuttal film presented. Many people around Mr. Jackson stood to make a lot of money.” Mr. Mesereau articulated.

But contrary to the DA’s portrayal of a mother desperate to keep her children out of the spotlight, Mr. Mesereau told the jury that the mother wanted distribution rights to the video, when she learned how much money would be made on it and that her fiancé, Jay Jackson, wanted a house and a college education paid for the children. When the answer from Mr. Jackson’s team to these requests was ‘no’ and the money stopped, the molestation accusations suddenly began. Mr. Mesereau stated, “When the party ended, did they go to the police with their allegations? No. They went to a lawyer and then to another lawyer to work out all their legal rights and opportunities BEFORE going to the police.”

“How did the documentary ‘Living with Michael Jackson’ happen?” Mr. Mesereau explained to the jury that Martin Bashir wanted to “get rich off of a scandalous interview,” as he had in the past with Princess Diana. (Martin Bashir had previously done an interview with Princess Diana which he obtained through deceiving her about threats made against her life and representing himself as someone who wanted to help her and which ultimately had extremely destructive consequences.)

Martin Bashir, used flattery and deceit to obtain his interview with Michael Jackson as he had used with Princess Diana. Michael Jackson, Mr. Mesereau explained, shared a close friendship with Princess Diana, they had formed a comraderie throughout their similar lives, their passion to help the less fortunate and the scrutiny they both lived under. Martin Bashir used this connection as well as a list of ‘promises’ he never kept to obtain this much sought-after interview.

Mr. Mesereau stated to the jury that Martin Bashir used “deception par excellance” to lure Michael into doing the documentary. He outlined the list of Bashir’s promises and statements to Michael, made via mutual acquaintance, British Mystic, Uri Geller, in order to secure the interview:


1) Bashir promised to show the world who Michael Jackson really is… and all that he has done and wants to do to help the suffering children in the world.

2) Bashir promised to arrange a meeting with UN Secretary General Mr. Kofi Hannan to bring Michael to Africa to help children with AIDS.

3) Bashir says, “Michael, you are so misunderstood…”

4) Bashir shows Michael a letter from Princess Diana that praises Bashir. This was written by Diana when she was under the mistaken impression that Bashir was being truthful with her and was trying to help her.

5) Bashir says that the first day they would film Michael greeting about 50 children at his Neverland Ranch, so that “for one day their lives could be enriched.”

6) The second day would be an interview with Macauley Caulkin, a long-time friend of Michael’s.

7) The third day would be Michael recording a song to benefit the world’s children.

8) The fourth day would be Bashir and Michael driving through some of Los Angeles’ poorer neighborhoods to portray how Michael connects with the inner-city people.

9) At the end of his letter he promised that the UN visit was in its early planning stages, but that he will “keep him informed.”


Mr. Mesereau quoted Martin Bashir as complimenting Michael, “Your relationship with your children is spectacular. I’ve got three children of my own, and watching you was a bit of an education for me.” He continued, “Michael, you have sung the melodies of most of our lives. Why are people so quick to criticize you?”


Mr. Mesereau concluded, Martin Bashir was “flattering Michael Jackson to lead him to his destruction.” He stated that Michael Jackson’s idealistic views of children and his hopes for a better world were left out of the commentary.


“I invite you to watch the ‘rebuttal program’. If the prosecution doesn’t show it to you, we will.” The prosecution had stated that this program was highly scriped and rehearsed. Mr. Mesereau continued, “I invite you to watch the spontaneous answers, how long they go on for, what Janet (Arvizo) does when she doesn’t think she is on tape. Janet Arvizo even did her makeup and hair, with a single curl over her eye, to look like Michael’s famous sister, Janet Jackson. Christian Robinson (a witness) will testify that she (Janet Arvizo) was happy and delayed filming while she was on the phone trying to see how much money she could make.” Mr. Mesereau also reminded the jury that even months after the airing of the documentary and the ‘alleged molestation,’ Gavin Arvizo stated that, “Michael saved my family and he saved me from cancer.”



The media did follow the family begging for interviews, this is true, Mr. Mesereau explained. Janet’s fiancé, Jay Jackson asked for $15,000.00 for an article and picture. When Janet Arvizo asked for security from the intruding media, she received it, at her insistence.

Mr. Mesereau reveals that at least three separate times Gavin and his family stated, and were recorded as saying, that “nothing bad ever happened with Michael Jackson,” including in an interview with the Department of Children and Family Services shortly after the airing of Martin Bashir’s documentary. As a result, Mr. Mesereau showed the jurors, the prosecution was forced to change the dates of the alleged molestation, from the original date which was before the airing of the documentary to dates following its airing.

Mr. Mesereau added that during this entire time of the accusations, they were living with Janet Arvizo’s then fiancé, now husband, Jay Jackson. Jay Jackson is a high ranking official in the US Army, yet the family never went to him for help, nor did they go to the police. Not until the money stopped.

Mr. Mesereau stated that “Mr. Jackson will freely admit that he does read girly magazines from time to time. Mr. Jackson kept (these) locked in a briefcase. But he absolutely does not show them to children.” Mr. Mesereau said that the children were sometimes “out of control” at Neverland and read Jackson’s magazines and broke into his alcohol without his permission and said that authorities found no DNA evidence in the entertainer’s bedroom to support the charges.


Mr. Mesereau reiterated the very evident thread throughout his statements, “the mother (Janet Arvizo) was using the criminal charges to build a civil case in order to get a payoff.”


In conclusion, Mr. Mesereau stated to the jury that Michael Jackson knew nothing about what all these other people around him were doing in response to Bashir’s documentary.


Mr. Mesereau ended opening statements with, “I am extremely confident that the jury will find Michael Jackson not guilty of all charges.”

QUESTION!! What are girlie magazines? Playboy and stuff?

BTW nice MJ picture
And let´s start another thread PLZ

TheOrgerFormerlyKnownAs said:

VoicesCarry said:

Calm down will ya! I was only making sure.

Paedophiles don't need a bed in which to molest children. There seems to be an assumption that child molesters only abuse children in their beds. Is that why everyone is so against a minor "sleeping" in the same bed as an adult?

I have a horrible feeling he will be found innocent ,and will go back to his old ways .His lawyers are too good ,the boys mother is the bad one not MJ according to them she wanted money off celebs ,her 12 year old still slept in MJ's bed ,so the mother and Micheal are the bad ones here so as she was looking 4 money that gives him the right to have him in his bed.
It will be interesting to see how it ends ,i know his fans will say he is innocent he is childlike etc ,but its wrong he is 46 he has to wake up and leave 13 year old boys alone ,is Jordon Chandler going to be with the prosecution too ,he will be the best witness to what MJ is like .Its just funny you can be jailed for having child pornography on your computer (rightly so sick bastards) but you can be a 46 year old singer (who is famous worldwide and very rich )if he was just a normal guy working in a factory he would be in jail already ,but because of who he is it takes the law 20+ years to bring him to trial ,it makes me angry ..i know MJ fans will attack me now but he has to stop ,if he gets away with it this time ,he will be this way 4 the rest of his life,also he still has his kids in his custody (who are white and not biologically his ) sorry i cant spell ,if he wasn't a big celebrity those kids would be in care right now .
[Edited 3/2/05 3:59am]

[quote] have a horrible feeling he will be found innocent ,and will go back to his old ways .His lawyers are too good ,the boys mother is the bad one not MJ according to them she wanted money off celebs ,her 12 year old still slept in MJ's bed ,so the mother and Micheal are the bad ones here so as she was looking 4 money that gives him the right to have him in his bed.
It will be interesting to see how it ends ,i know his fans will say he is innocent he is childlike etc ,but its wrong he is 46 he has to wake up and leave 13 year old boys alone ,is Jordon Chandler going to be with the prosecution too ,he will be the best witness to what MJ is like .Its just funny you can be jailed for having child pornography on your computer (rightly so sick bastards) but you can be a 46 year old singer (who is famous worldwide and very rich )if he was just a normal guy working in a factory he would be in jail already ,but because of who he is it takes the law 20+ years to bring him to trial ,it makes me angry ..i know MJ fans will attack me now but he has to stop ,if he gets away with it this time ,he will be this way 4 the rest of his life,also he still has his kids in his custody (who are white and not biologically his ) sorry i cant spell ,if he wasn't a big celebrity those kids would be in care right now .

-
[Edited 3/2/05 5:16am]

dag said:[quote]

let's hope there are no people like him/her on the jury

LightOfArt said:[quote]dag said:[quote][quote] have a horrible feeling he will be found innocent ,and will go back to his old ways .His lawyers are too good ,the boys mother is the bad one not MJ according to them she wanted money off celebs ,her 12 year old still slept in MJ's bed ,so the mother and Micheal are the bad ones here so as she was looking 4 money that gives him the right to have him in his bed.
It will be interesting to see how it ends ,i know his fans will say he is innocent he is childlike etc ,but its wrong he is 46 he has to wake up and leave 13 year old boys alone ,is Jordon Chandler going to be with the prosecution too ,he will be the best witness to what MJ is like .Its just funny you can be jailed for having child pornography on your computer (rightly so sick bastards) but you can be a 46 year old singer (who is famous worldwide and very rich )if he was just a normal guy working in a factory he would be in jail already ,but because of who he is it takes the law 20+ years to bring him to trial ,it makes me angry ..i know MJ fans will attack me now but he has to stop ,if he gets away with it this time ,he will be this way 4 the rest of his life,also he still has his kids in his custody (who are white and not biologically his ) sorry i cant spell ,if he wasn't a big celebrity those kids would be in care right now ,lets hope the Jury do the right thing ,because there is something wromg in MJ's head ,look at him ,his mind reflects what he looks like he has to stop

Annastesia22 said:[quote]LightOfArt said:[quote]dag said:[quote]

He's innocent and won't go to jail

I see that a lot of you guys are talking about the "sleep over" stuff. I don't think its wrong to let your child sleep at a FRIENDS home. I don't see MJ being a FRIEND of the family but just a celebrity. Another thing, I don't want anyone to speak so lovingly about my child sleeping in their bed. I think its Mj's attitude about it. Its just creepy.

Stayin' with my prediction: he will be found getting of something. Maybe not child molestation but maybe child endangerment, serving alcohol to a minor...but they will make sure Mj gets something.

To please the "let's trow everything we got at MJ and hope something sticks"-crow, an opninion peace from today's N.Y.Post:

With this picture of MJ arriving at court today (you think Purple Rain inspired that vest?), I'd like to suggest a new thread also (maybe every 200 posts or something from now on?):

SpcMs said:

What a brilliant, insightful piece of journalism. All tabloid reporting should be as worthy as this. Oh! Wait...