independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > The Official Michael Jackson in Court Thread II
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 11 of 11 « First<234567891011
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #300 posted 03/02/05 11:14am

Marrk

avatar

Cloudbuster said:

SpcMs said:

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:



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


Yeah pretty disgusting. I hope Mike reads that, maybe he can fill his bathtub with blood and get his voodoo witchdoctor to put a curse on her or something. rolleyes
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #301 posted 03/02/05 12:18pm

Luv4oneanotha

The right to freedom of speech was the greatest blessing and Curse, still i think it was one of the best written in the constituition...

Though that was the biggest peice of yellow journalism i've ever heard,
Its works like this one that give journalist bad raps.

But hey what do you expect from Tabloids... mmm ...


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 .


lol
hehe

I can't even discredit you..., you did that yourself
you must be one of those preverbial tablooid junkies,
What are you...
12?, 13?

C'mon kid get off the org and go to school,

This is grown folx biziness

I swear the org has to put age limits,
we get some really wacked out responses lol

Carry on with the normal conversation lol
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #302 posted 03/02/05 12:33pm

Annastesia22

Oh did i hurt your feelings ,did i say something that was true biggrin did i hit a raw nerve ,i hope he likes prison food lol prince anyone that can believe this 46 year old (who bleached his skin changed his whole face to look like a white woman) has been hanging around little boys for 20+years ,not girls ,is not guilty you are all nuts ,how the hell did Jordon Chandler know what his penis looked like ,oh but he shut him up and paid him off


you may be his fans ,but you have to face what he is ,no point in replying to me with your stupid insults ,like go to school and all that shit ,,doesn't bother me guys .....free speech .....i have it i will use it

your hero did this to himself eek
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #303 posted 03/02/05 12:57pm

Luv4oneanotha

Annastesia22 said:

Oh did i hurt your feelings ,did i say something that was true biggrin did i hit a raw nerve ,i hope he likes prison food lol prince anyone that can believe this 46 year old (who bleached his skin changed his whole face to look like a white woman) has been hanging around little boys for 20+years ,not girls ,is not guilty you are all nuts ,how the hell did Jordon Chandler know what his penis looked like ,oh but he shut him up and paid him off


you may be his fans ,but you have to face what he is ,no point in replying to me with your stupid insults ,like go to school and all that shit ,,doesn't bother me guys .....free speech .....i have it i will use it

your hero did this to himself eek


I wouldn't dare waste my words on a dreaded newbie lol
May your water spill in the sands lol


lol
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #304 posted 03/02/05 1:21pm

Marrk

avatar

Annastesia22 said:

the usual crap


heard it all before, unfortunately (for you) it has to be proven he's guilty. By the time Janet 'Jackson' and her spawn hit the stand, Mezereau will in all likelihood have shot their stories to pieces.

Mike won't even need to take the stand IMO (though i'd like him to), I'm going to predict this trial will collapse spectacularly (or if Sneddon can't produce a little more by way of evidence or credble witnesses that actually saw something tangible, it'll get thrown out), and if there is any justice, it'll be damn soon.

sham.

These court transcripts are proving an interesting read. amazing what the press are omitting from their 'coverage'.

Enjoy.

http://www.mjjforum.com/m...tcat&cat=4
[Edited 3/2/05 13:55pm]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #305 posted 03/02/05 2:14pm

Annastesia22

Yeah
yeah
yeah poor MJ what will he do in prison ,he is Peter pan lol


even if he gets away with this his career is OVER


Newbie and proud of it yes rainbow
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #306 posted 03/02/05 3:50pm

SpcMs

avatar

So, a summary of the day by CNN (only one witness basically). Apparently Meseareau is making a habit of turning prosecution witnesses into defense witnesses wink

http://www.cnn.com/2005/L...index.html

Jackson PR expert says she was fired after voicing concern
Brother Jermaine 'in denial' about scope of crisis, woman says
Wednesday, March 2, 2005 Posted: 5:46 PM EST (2246 GMT)

Ann Kite, a public relations expert, testified for the prosecution Wednesday.

SANTA MARIA, California (CNN) -- A public relations expert hired by a lawyer for Michael Jackson to control damage -- after a 2003 TV documentary -- testified Wednesday that she was fired after she questioned the way the family of a boy, who appeared in the movie, was being treated.

Ann Kite also told jurors in Jackson's child molestation trial that she believed people around the pop superstar were putting their own interests ahead of his as they dealt with the controversy. She said she expressed those concerns to Jackson's brother, Jermaine, during a six-hour meeting, to no avail.

"Jermaine was in a complete state of denial," she said.

But during cross-examination, Kite's self-description as a crisis management expert was challenged. And she acknowledged that the singer never participated in the damage control efforts.

In the documentary, Jackson is shown holding hands with the 13-year-old boy who later accused him of child molestation.

Kite, who also goes by the professional name Ann Gabriel, told jurors in Jackson's trial that she was hired by his Las Vegas-based lawyer, David LeGrand, less than a week after the documentary, "Living With Michael Jackson," aired on Britain's ITV on February 3, 2003.

A different version, based on the same material, later aired in the United States on ABC.

Kite described the program as "an absolute disaster" for the pop star and that, on a damage scale from one to 10, she would put it at "a 25."

In addition to holding hands with the boy, Jackson also defended his practice of allowing children to sleep in his bedroom at Neverland ranch, where the alleged molestation took place.

On February 13, 2003, Kite said she had a telephone conversation with Fredric Marc Schaffel, a Jackson associate, who expressed concern that the accuser's mother, who had been staying at Neverland with the boy and two of her other children, took the children and left the ranch late at night.

Several hours later, Kite said she received another phone call from Schaffel in which he told her that "the situation had been contained" -- a statement she said made her "very uncomfortable." She was later told that the family was back at the ranch.

Kite said LeGrand refused to answer when she asked him how the situation had been contained. She testified that she told him, "Don't make me believe these people were hunted down like dogs and brought back to the ranch."

Kite told jurors that she also had a conversation that day with Jackson associate Ronald Konitzer, in which she told him she was "very concerned" that Jackson was being exposed to even more negative publicity by what was going on with the boy's family.

Two days later, she said, she was pulled off the set of the syndicated television show "Access Hollywood," where she was preparing to make a statement on Jackson's behalf. She said that Mark Geragos, a criminal defense attorney who then represented Jackson, had called the producers and told them she had been fired and no longer spoke for Jackson.

Kite said she was later asked to sign a confidentiality agreement, which she believed was "designed to shut me up," but refused.

She also testified that several days after her termination, she had a phone conversation with LeGrand in which he told her that the family no longer presented a problem for Jackson because his camp had the boy's mother on tape and planned to portray her as "a crack @#$#%."

Kite's testimony is an effort by the prosecution to support its contention that after the documentary backfired on Jackson, he and his associates tried to isolate the boy and his family and intimidate them into participating in a rebuttal video -- a campaign that included holding them captive at Neverland.

One of the 10 counts in the indictment against Jackson alleges that he and five associates, who were not indicted, conspired to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion. Schaffel and Konitzer were among those named as unindicted co-conspirators.

Kite testified that during her efforts to control the damage, she worked closely with Konitzer, Schaffel and Geragos, who was later replaced as Jackson's criminal attorney. But she told jurors that Jackson's associates, particularly Schaffel, disagreed with her about what to do. She said their ideas included trying to enlist help from Jackson's ex-wife, Debbie Rowe, who is the mother of two of his children.

Kite said she advised against using Rowe because "I didn't think she was the strongest candidate." But she said Schaffel told her Rowe would say whatever Jackson asked her to say.

Kite said her crisis plan involved trying to get the media focus back on Jackson's music, rather than his actions, and she recommended that he make a "strong on-camera rebuttal" to the documentary.

Under cross-examination, Kite conceded that Jackson himself was never part of the damage control efforts. She also said that during the six days she worked for the Jackson camp, her only face-to-face meeting was with LeGrand. She never met Jackson, and all of the contact with his other associates was by phone, she said.

She said that Jackson signed her paychecks, but she never met him and dealt only with his associates.

Kite also revealed during cross-examination that she had a personal relationship with LeGrand that began in the fall of 2002 and ended shortly before he hired her.

In his cross-examination, defense attorney Thomas Mesereau challenged Kite's description of herself as a crisis management expert, getting her to admit her only other celebrity client was Marshall Sylver, a Las Vegas hypnotist.

"You really weren't very experienced in the area of celebrity crisis management," Mesereau said, asking Kite why she described herself that way.

"I've seen a lot," she replied.

Mesereau also suggested that Kite had a conflict of interest because in late 1990s, she was involved in an effort to put music on the Internet -- a move opposed by Jackson and his record company, Sony. But Kite said she did not believe it was a conflict because LeGrand, who had hired her, was involved in the same effort.

[...]

(my bolds, and i left out the things we knew before)
[Edited 3/2/05 15:52pm]
"It's better 2 B hated 4 what U R than 2 B loved 4 what U R not."

My IQ is 139, what's yours?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #307 posted 03/02/05 3:58pm

SpcMs

avatar

And since we will be going to a new thread quickly (moderators, please), I take the liberty to post one more article, MSNBC's Dan Rather's take on the whole case so far:


Why Michael Jackson will not be convicted (Dan Abrams)

If both the prosecution and the defense deliver what they promised in the opening statements, I find it hard to believe that the jury is going to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Jackson is guilty.

The prosecution claims Jackson (1) molested the child, (2) gave him alcohol in an effort to molest him, (3)and/or engaged in a conspiracy.

Maybe it's just the lawyering, but based on the opening statement, what the prosecutors are going to present are the accuser and his family's accounts of being holed up by Jackson and his team (in hotels and at the Neverland Ranch).

The boys will recount experiencing or witnessing abuse by Jackson. They'll have some corroboration, like evidence from other witnesses about Jackson putting liquor into Coke cans. It's at least clear that he had some porn in his Peter Pan-inspired getaway. But he's charged with plying the boy with liquor so that he could molest him. Without proving the intent to molest, the alcohol charge means nothing.

The success of the conspiracy charge is going to depend largely on the testimony of the mother, but she's a huge problem. Even prosecutors concede she's been a scammer in the past. She's made allegations about false imprisonment and sexual abuse. It looks like the defense may be able to show that at least some of those allegations were false.

But more importantly, the timeline laid out by Jackson's attorneys will be an insurmountable problem for prosecutors. The family repeatedly told investigators, social workers, and the media that Jackson is a great guy until February 21, 2003. The prosecutors say the abuse happened between February 20 and March 12.

Prosecutors want jurors to believe that after this negative documentary about Jackson aired, Jackson and his team frantically tried to make sure that the family said nice things about Jackson on a rebuttal tape. They want jurors to believe that at this point, Jackson's world is crashing down on him because he said in the documentary that “likes to have children sleep in his bed.” And right then is supposedly when Jackson suddenly decides to molest the boy for the first time— a boy he's trying to imprison to make sure he says there was no molestation.

Why didn't any of them report any of this to the Department of Family Services?

Even the boy's own account is troubling. At the grand jury, he says he was definitely molested by Jackson twice, but he has dreamlike recollections of Jackson molesting him at other times as well.

The bottom line? In the same way prosecutors will be able to prove Jackson is weird, inappropriate, and at times maybe downright frightening, the defense will be able to show this family can't be trusted enough to take away Jackson's freedom.

I predict, and we'll see, that Jackson will be found not guilty.

E-mail Dan at Sidebar@MSNBC.com

[Edited 3/2/05 16:00pm]
"It's better 2 B hated 4 what U R than 2 B loved 4 what U R not."

My IQ is 139, what's yours?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #308 posted 03/02/05 4:02pm

superspaceboy

avatar

quick question.

Did anyone see this trial happening or any of these events to play out the moment you saw the Martin Bashir documentory?

I did. I remember saying out loud "What is he doing? He's just asking for a lawsuit nod "

I also predict the boy is gay.

Christian Zombie Vampires

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #309 posted 03/02/05 4:18pm

krayzie

avatar

Here another evidence of child molestation...

Look how this little white kid touches the face of Michael and look his face, he didn't seem to agree with.... eek


[Edited 3/2/05 16:22pm]
[Edited 3/2/05 16:23pm]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #310 posted 03/02/05 6:27pm

June7

Moderator

avatar

moderator

Well... as you know, this is taking it's time loading up now that the posts are over three hundred. Locking this up and starting part three. mr.green
[PRINCE 4EVER!]

[June7, "ModGod"]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 11 of 11 « First<234567891011
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > The Official Michael Jackson in Court Thread II