There's no pattern here..the first act starts around 30 years old, from 30 - 34 he goes on a rampage and molests 2 boys. He goes ten years (43) to molest another, all while the shit is supposedly falling in from the bashir interview.

I don't know if Mike touched this other victim, but the pattern is a bit weird if i was a juror, especially since their trying to paint him as a serial molestor.

No child porn, No Dna ???

MJ is a piece of garbage and he's going to rot in jail for what he has done.

crazyhorse said:

We all agree with you, now go away.

Go away? I'm not here to cause any problems. I just think he is guilty and he is going to get what he deserves.

crazyhorse said:

Why do you think he is guilty and why do you think he will rot in jail?

lilgish said:

I just feel inside that he is guilty of what he has been accused of is all.
He's gonna rot in prison because they are going to find him guilty.

crazyhorse said:

What do you mean by inside? I've done some path work and mediation on this and got different results. Do you know all the things he's been accused of, the specific charges?
.


Have you followed the court proceedings? The Prosecution has not done well.



U A Neil Young fan btw?

lilgish said:

I hope he is. He's not a well man. Karma for that video he pulled in the late 80's. twat.

lilgish said:

You can't say that the defence is doing so well either though. I must say, aside from the reports I have read here which are mostly from MJSource and are very one-sided, it's not looking good for Michael.

I understand that the accuser's family aren't the most honest people but I am finding it harder and harder to believe that there can be so much smoke and no fire.
[Edited 4/6/05 4:51am]

Marrk said:

What video? What did I miss?

adoreme said:

Virtually every major witness has been compromised under cross. The Prosecution witnesses have undermined their case.



Most of the stuff of Mjjsource was pulled from other sites. Most of the articles on here are from Fox News and Drudge. Court TV is the only media outlet that has really spun the information pro prosecution.



The prosecution has done a bad job proving their case.

Cloudbuster said:

The This Note's for You vid inwhich he makes fun of advertising and has mike's hair catch on fire.

I like Neil.
[Edited 4/6/05 5:14am]

Neil Young ' This Note For You? It's a great song / video too

lilgish said:

Thanks.

Cloudbuster said:

If you read the Neil bio he has some MJ quips in there....one being that he was the first one to have a pet monkey.

Let's hope neil gets better.
[Edited 4/6/05 5:38am]

adoreme said:

Check the source line from Daq's posts. Mjjsource get's most of it's stuff from AP/Reuters. I doubt they edit the stories. That's the "unbiased" AP/Reuters if you missed it.

I've been on this thing all night. MJ fans hold it down while I go to sleep. Luv
[Edited 4/6/05 5:47am]

maybe, but the truth is also this.



anyways, I always read just those pro- Mj articles and wanna know why? Cause the prosecution side and the negative will get to me even if I didn´t look for it. It´s always on news, so if you feel that I am posting just positive stuff, that´s because I know that the negative is EVERYWHERE anyway and you have already heard it. (except that I am his fan)

the last two reports i posted are not from mj sites, i try not to do that. though i do look for the more positive reports, that much is true.

Marrk said:

i can understand why you and Dag would post up the positive ones anyway, because for one they are harder to find and also they may have more truth in it, as we know the MEDIA love to BASH Michael as much as possible..

its not just Michael the news just find it more fun & interesting to bring up dirty on anyone..

As usual, yesterday's and every other days full daily court transcripts can be found here.


http://www.mjjforum.com/m...tcat&cat=4

adoreme said:

on the contrary its going extremely well for the defense
because the prosecution has yet to prove any of their allegations
their is no fire its all smoke and mirrors

i suggest reading two newspapers that follow the trial negative and a positive one.
Even the negative ones are positive because theirs not much to manipulate in the preceedings

Its a stalemate,
whenever in a trialits a stalement that is great for the defense bad for the prosecution!
Because any little thing could tip in the favor of the defense.

The defense has only one weakness
a conservative Jury,
This is Santa Maria, Not L.A. or New York
the problem with conservative jury's is they usually tip for anything that resembles proof
for example
they can take the past prior acts as proof, even when the defense has discredited all of them
bbecause they will have your mentality
that not everyone could be lying
when in actually, in these huge profile cases
EVERYBODY will be lying
defense and prosecution,
Many have vandetts, many have striked up deals with prosecution...
Conspiracy is a huge part of this case

So it is all Smoke and no fire!
unless the fire is financial gain!

HOLY SHIT!

JACKSON CASE ROCKED: JURORS LAUGH, MOCK PROSECUTION WITNESSES

http://www.drudgereport.com/

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED APRIL 06, 2005 10:05:28 ET XXXXX

JACKSON CASE ROCKED: JURORS LAUGH, MOCK PROSECUTION WITNESSES

Jurors in the Michael Jackson case were overheard during a break in the trial mocking a 24-year old witness who claimed he was molested by Michael Jackson when he was 7 and 9-years old, sources claim.

Specifically, a Juror was overheard by two reporters [one fron UK's SKY TV] saying, "Oh boo-hooo, Michael Jackson tickled me." That statement was followed by laughter from other Jurors.

The comment was also heard by a bailiff.

Court officials are investigating.

The report was first broadcast on Los Angeles's top-rated radio outlet KFI, by reporter Laura Ingle.

Jurors 8 and 9 have been observed laughing during the latest witness testimony, frequently cupping their mouths and talking during testimony.

Developing...
[Edited 4/6/05 11:24am]

Marrk said:

You've got to be shitting me!
This is quite good,
But im afraid the judge might penalize them...
hopefully he won't because they didn't do anything wrong
reporters overheard it,

Marrk said:

That's the Motherfuckin' drudge report.....not mjj source....wake up adoreme the prosecution is not doing good.
and to those jurors stop fucking laughing already and ride this shit out.





wow, two grown ass women....stop already
[Edited 4/6/05 13:31pm]

from courttv.com


Updated April 6, 2005, 10:41 a.m. ET


Housekeeper: Jackson showered with young houseguest

Michael Jackson, outside court Tuesday, claims he is the victim of opportunistic parents.




By Lisa Sweetingham
Court TV
SANTA MARIA, Calif. — A former housekeeper at Neverland Ranch testified Tuesday that she saw Michael Jackson taking a shower with a young boy, one of several sleepover guests who also periodically shared his bed.

"At first, I thought they were playing in the bathtub or the Jacuzzi. And I walked in and they were in the shower," said the witness, whose name is being withheld by Courttv.com because her own adult son testified this week in the singer's trial that he too was molested by Jackson as a child.

"I peeked," she said. "I heard laughing and playing around. He was taking a shower with little Wade."

The woman, an American from El Salvador who worked as Jackson's personal maid from 1986 until 1991, testified that she could not see the two figures distinctly because steam obscured the glass door, but she knew the silhouettes and the voices to be that of Jackson and a boy named Wade Robson.

Story continues

advertisement



The incident occurred around 1989, she said, and Robson was a regular guest who would sometimes stay for weeks at a time as Jackson's guest, sleeping in Jackson's bed.

"What clothes did you see on the floor?" prosecutor Ron Zonen asked.

"Underwear. Two pairs."

"How did you recognize them?" Zonen asked.

"Mr. Jackson's, I knew, they were white. And the little boy's, they were neon green," she replied.

The witness said she considered confronting Jackson, but thought it might upset him, so she left the room and returned later to clean up.

Jackson was never charged, and Robson, now a choreographer for pop stars such as Britney Spears, has publicly denied sexual abuse. He is not expected to testify. But prosecutors say Robson was one of the five young boys, including actor Macaulay Culkin, with whom witnesses are expected to say he engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct when they were under the age of 13.

The housekeeper, who had a key to the private, two-floor bedroom, said it was her sole duty to clean Jackson's room and wash his clothes.

Although Jackson had two beds, she said, commonly after sleepovers only one bed needed making up. Once, she said, she walked in to find Jackson and a boy, both nude from at least the waist up, lying under the covers and watching TV together.

The housekeeper also confirmed that actor Culkin, or "the little kid from the movies," as she described him, also had stayed in Jackson's bed during her employment at Neverland. Culkin, who is not expected to testify, claims that the King of Pop was never more than a friend to him.

Jackson is currently charged with molesting a 13-year-old boy at his Neverland Ranch in 2003, plying him with alcohol in order to commit lewd and lascivious acts on him, and conspiring to imprison the boy and his family.

Judge Rodney Melville ruled that jurors may hear evidence about the alleged prior bad acts as they relate to an alleged pattern of conduct leading to sexual molestation.

Jackson says he is innocent. His defense claims that the singer's childlike nature and generosity has made him an unwitting target of opportunistic parents and their greedy civil attorneys.

'Hush' money

Earlier Tuesday, the housekeeper's 24-year-old son finished his second day of dramatic testimony about three separate alleged incidents when he was between the ages of 7 and 10, in which he claims he was sexually groped by Jackson after being lured into seemingly innocent tickling contests.

The housekeeper did not add many details to her son's testimony about alleged abuse, as both witnesses said they did not discuss the matter with one another.

However, she corroborated her son's testimony that Jackson hushed the child with $100 bills tucked into his pants after the alleged groping.

"He said he had some money and it was a secret. I thought it was maybe $2," she said. "I said, 'I want to see it,' and he said, 'No, Michael told me it was for me and not to tell you.'"

Her recollection differed slightly in that she saw two $100 bills in the pocket of her son's pants, not a single $100 bill in his pocketless shorts, as he had recalled.

In the mid-1990s, the witness and her son reached an agreement with Jackson, in which neither party admitted wrongdoing, and the singer paid the family more than $2 million for their silence.

Before the settlement, in 1993, when she was making less than $20,000 a year, the witness said she accepted $20,000 to do a "Hard Copy" interview with Diane Dimond, now of Court TV.

"You told Diane Dimond that you never saw Michael Jackson molest anyone?" defense attorney Thomas Mesereau asked her. She agreed. She also agreed that in her deposition to police about the shower sighting, she was unable to discern if the two figures behind the steamed door were touching one another.

"I saw the figures," she said forcibly when Mesereau suggested her imagination betrayed her.

"And you heard a lot of laughing and thought they were playing?" he continued.

"Yes," she said.

Jackson faces more than 20 years in prison if convicted.
E-mail | Print






Full coverage: Michael Jackson molestation case

RosesRred said:

That would be Wade Robson. Do you know who he is?


http://www.waderobsonfans.com/




Nothing Happened

lilgish said:

That's right. He's repeatedly said so too. Infact he did an MJ tribute performance on TV a couple of years back. Why would he honor somebody who molested him. I feel for guys like Mac and Wade. On the plus side, their both going to end up testifying now their names have come up in court.
[Edited 4/6/05 16:57pm]

Marrk said:

because like all the other accusers, HE FORGOT!
lol

WASN'T THIS CASE SUPPOSED TO BE THROWN OUT THIS WEEK? WHAT HAPPENED THERE MJ TRIAL FANS?

CinisterCee said:

no, the media reported the conspiracy charge would be thrown out because sneddon hasn't been able to support his assertions on re-direct. If sneddon throws that out, the trial is over. The conspiracy is the pre-text for the families reaction. If there's no conspiracy, then they weren't forced to deny the allegations to everyone and did so only because it didn't happen.

Catch 22 for sneddon..