doctormcmeekle said:

no, that was the Madonna/Sean Penn divorce trial.

sosgemini said:

They've divorced!?!

a MJ fan who can write.

John Karrys: America’s Eyes - Not Wide Shut Anymore

The anointed media “experts could not have imagined, even in the worst of possible scenarios, that District Attorney Tom Sneddon’s case would sink into this quagmire of libellous quicksand. If this isn’t a smear campaign, then where are the legions of outraged, child-abuse moral advocates crying out for a public hanging? Were this a legitimate and plausible, circumstantial case, wouldn’t one think that the media would have at least that to advertise? Something doesn’t seem right with this disturbing snapshot. History has showcased to us, on too many occasions, the consequences where the partnership between state and media is blatantly obvious. It’s time for all of us to step out of our fantasy bubbles and acknowledge, at this moment in history, our civic institutions are at a dangerous precipice. The graveyards are rumbling with warning sirens from our ancestors who suffered mercilessly under such partnerships.

The ad homonym attacks against Michael Jackson and anyone who dares to support him have intensified as establishment media shifts its tactics to save face and restore its crumbling credibility. Let us not forget that America is a nation born out of its distrust of the absolute power of the State, as well as the interference of the State in the lives of private citizens. If we are living in a society where cases such as this are being tried, with these poorly coached witnesses, then let us confess that we do not have any real educational standards. We have neither the moral base to assert legal standards, nor do we have the common, decent values to dialogue about morality.

Are we to believe that this kind of conduct is acceptable in our courts? Is this something to take pride in? Is this what we salute to? What Grand Jury testimony or evidence rationally convinced Judge Melville that this was adequate enough to warrant a trial? Where is the accountability?

It is a façade, and no law professor can dare to rationalize otherwise. Yet, the media have rationalized, haven’t they? Witness after witness, the media bronzes into headlines carefully coached slogans or statements, yet, leaves out the context and trivializes the impact of the contradictions. Anyone who studies some history be it political, economic or legal, would not be surprised to find out that this selective historiography is a common occurrence.

Does anyone think that journalists report exactly what they see without bias, concision, or exclusion? Most Americans don’t, and most scholars have confirmed that. The rampant censorship disguised as political correctness across University campuses was bound to filter into institutional mass media. Is it because Michael Jackson asserted his right not to be a typical icon that enrages so many? Chose not to be that stereotypical idol that has been marketed to us as cool and has branded our psyche. Michael Jackson has chosen to be self-made rather than be manufactured. He certainly doesn’t solicit public opinion to define who he is. Does he?

Reading the headlines alone would make one think that Tom Sneddon has a strong case, along with credible witnesses and damaging testimony. The reality is that there is no timetable for these alleged molestations and we have a bunch of key witnesses who are strapped for cash and have every reason to be lured into suddenly remembering new testimony. How I wish there were an agency, not unlike the Consumer Protection Agency, for journalists and pundits. There, a viewer or a reader could check a credibility rating and compare the lying averages. Now would be a good time to set that up.

Let’s make one thing clear: the free-marketplace of ideas is a battleground for control over the spheres of influence of the mind. Just like we expect a juror to deliberate through a logical process when rendering a verdict, everyone needs to learn how to manage information and take into account a narrator’s biases, agendas and vendettas. It is a war and the consequences are as fatal. You think Michael Jackson is guilty? Examine the nature of that claim. Are the sources credible? Is their even quasi-circumstantial evidence to convict him in a court of law? Think of how easily a jealous or vindictive person could implicate you using the same standard you think is “fair game” by which judge to Michael. Is this a standard you can live with?
The grave consequences being showcased to the world are much bigger than Michael Jackson. Whether one likes him or not, at this point in the trial, is irrelevant. To look the other way at this Jacobin version of justice clearly highlights that institutional journalists are successfully doing their job in nurturing ignorance and managing opinions.

In America, are the real prosecutors, law professors and journalists ready to step forward and bring to justice those who have maliciously molested the constitution and have perverted their duties as officers of the law? This is the new frontier.


John Karrys

BREAKING NEWS !!!!!


Source: Culkin to testify for Jackson
Ex-guard says staff was told to keep accuser at Neverland
Wednesday, April 20, 2005 Posted: 9:33 PM EDT (0133 GMT)


SANTA MARIA, California (CNN) -- Former child movie star Macaulay Culkin plans to testify on behalf of Michael Jackson in the singer's trial on child molestation charges, a source close to the case told CNN.

But Culkin's publicist, Michelle Bega, who said last month the actor had no plans to testify, would not confirm any change in his position.

"There is no change, and there is no comment," she said.

The testimony could rebut claims by former Jackson employees who say they saw the pop star inappropriately touch Culkin in the early 1990s when he was a frequent guest at Jackson's Neverland ranch.

Culkin, now 24, has denied that anything of a sexual nature took place between him and Jackson. In an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live" in May 2004, he defended the entertainer and described him as a friend.

"Nothing happened," Culkin said.

The trial judge has allowed prosecutors to present witnesses to support their contention that Jackson had a pattern of singling out and grooming young boys -- including Culkin -- for sexual abuse.

The evidence related to five boys, although only one of them actually testified. Allegations relating to the other four, including Culkin, came from third-party witnesses who said they saw inappropriate behavior.

Former guard testifies
In trial testimony Wednesday, a former guard at the ranch said the security staff was ordered not to allow the singer's teenage accuser to leave the ranch in early 2003.

The notice was posted on a guardroom message board around the time that prosecutors allege Jackson's associates held the teenager and his family against their will.

"We weren't to allow him off property without some sort of permission from the supervisor," said Brian Barron, a Guadalupe police officer who moonlighted as a guard at Neverland for five years.

Barron said a notation that the boy was not allowed off the property was written on a message board in the guardhouse at the main entrance sometime in January or February 2003.

Under defense questioning, however, Barron said it was policy at Neverland not to allow children to leave the ranch if they were visiting without their parents, and notations often were made in the guest log to that effect.

Asked if the accuser's parents were at Neverland at the time, he said, "I don't think so."

Barron also said he never saw criminal behavior at Neverland and that as a sworn police officer would have taken action if he had. He said the rest of the staff at the ranch was aware that he was a police officer.

Barron described Jackson as a hands-on manager, saying the staff would be "on pins and needles" when he was at the ranch and there was "much more work to be done."

"He's very much like a perfectionist," Barron said.

Barron also testified that the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department had asked him to work undercover as a confidential informant at Neverland after investigators raided the ranch in November 2003.

He refused and quit his moonlighting job after a discussion with the chief of his department, Barron said.

The prosecution has alleged that in February and March 2003, after the singer and boy were shown holding hands in a television documentary, Jackson and members of his entourage conspired to control and intimidate the accuser's family into helping with damage-control efforts, holding them against their will at Neverland and a Los Angeles hotel.

Barron said he seldom saw Jackson's accuser -- now 15 -- when the boy stayed at the ranch, but when he did, he never saw any indication the boy did not want to be there.

Barron also said on a visit in June 2002, the accuser crashed a golf cart into a fountain and was warned that if he didn't slow down, the golf cart would be taken away.

Gatehouse logs
Defense attorney Robert Sanger took Barron through logs kept at the gatehouse in which the arrivals and departures of Jackson's guests were noted.

The notations in the logs showed that on February 12, 2003, the accuser and his mother, brother and sister left the ranch at 1:30 a.m. in a Rolls Royce driven by Jackson's ranch manager.

The mother had previously testified she was uncomfortable being at the ranch because she felt intimidated by Jackson's associates and she had persuaded the ranch manager to take the family back to Los Angeles.

Interpreting the logs for the jury, Barron said that there was no indication anyone was notified or called after the family's departure in the middle of the night.

The accuser and his family returned to Neverland several days later, after repeated phone calls from a Jackson associate, Frank Tyson, urging them to come back, the mother testified.

A grand jury indicted Jackson, 46, last year on charges of molesting the boy, giving him alcohol and conspiring to hold him and his family captive in 2003. Jackson has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Testimony on Culkin
Among the witnesses who testified about Jackson's relationship with Macaulay Culkin was Phillip LeMarque, a former chef at Neverland.

LeMarque testified that in 1991 he was "shocked" to see Jackson's hand shoved up Culkin's shorts when he walked in on them playing a video game in the middle of the night, when Culkin was 10 or 11.

At the time, LeMarque said he was delivering an order of french fries that Jackson had ordered.

"I almost dropped the french fries," he said.

LeMarque said he did not report what he saw to the police or anyone else at the time, "because nobody would ever believe" his story.

A former maid, Adrian McManus, also testified she once saw Jackson put his hand on Culkin's leg and buttocks and kiss him on the cheek while they were sitting together in Neverland's library.

CNN's Ted Rowlands and Dree De Clamecy contributed to this report.

lilgish said:

Fruit of the loom?

psychodelicide said:

Say what??

lilgish said:

Fruit of the loom is the name of a brand of underwear here in the U.S. Although, in MJ's case, it should be called "Fruit of the LOON".

psychodelicide said:

I'm American (New Yorker) and I know what Fruit of the Loom is. I wear hanes though.

well I knew he had the Nation of Islam there the first day, but I just didn´t get your remarks..nevermind.....

I know we have said that before but was this police officer and ex-security member a witness for the prosecution?

Has anyone watched the last edition of Larry King Live? It was FABULOUS!! 4 people called in and asked those two bitches (Dimond and Nancy Grace) if it makes them feel better to keep making fun and ridiculing MJ and if their self-esteem was really that low. It was great seeing them being humiliated this way in the public. At least they got what it must feel like for MJ what THEY do to him.They kept saying that they didn´t say what they said few seconds ago and what everyone saw. They were so ridiculous trying to excuse themselves.

dag said:

I didn't see it. But... serves them MFs right. Making a career off the back of someone else's misery is a sucky thing to do. Shame on them. Glad they got dissed.

you missed a lot! It was LOVELY watching it!!!

dag said:

I'll see if I can find it on the net.

lilgish said:

Wow. That's some haaard evidence right there. I wonder how many Neverland Ranch workers will be called in as the defence's witnesses once the case will progress to that point.

sosgemini said:

The way he puts it there dude looks like a human. Dressin' his age too. The last time he did it was when he was still signed to Motown.

I cant wait to see who E! gets to play Macaulay Culkin in their Jackson Trial Re-Inactment show.

I´ve never seen any of that E! show. Is it as embarrasing as the Man in the mirror movie?

dag said:

Actually the E! show is pretty good
thinking its E, you think they would Slander MJ every chance they get
But the Attorney's and prosecutors that host the show are very unbiased...
its very good
better than watching Court TV

Plus at least they gots omeone that at least looks like MJ

Luv4oneanotha said:

^ Cock

[Don't repost photos, please... thanx. - June7]

threat said:

Now now just because he betrayed MJ in a movie and is seemingly doing anything for money
doesn't mean he's a cock...

though it may sound like it hehe


[Don't repost photos, please. Thanx - June7]

Just Read this and thought it should be put here:
http://www.thesmokinggun....son_1.html

dag said:

Classic!!!!! MJ female fans are hot.


[Yes, they are... but don't repost photos, please. Thanx - June7]

lazycrockett said:

Prosecution should end its' case now. Don't know, but to me it gets more unlikely every day.

I can´t believe that they consider people to be that stupid to believe that MJ molests kids in front of his whole stuff.

who-hooooo
Judge didn´t allow that vaseline story in!!!!!

Obviously they wanted to hint that MJ wanted to use the vaseline on one of his victims. Why would a molester be so kind to use it?
That story is just BS. True or not, prosecution surely didn't benefit from it. Makes them look desperate to SOMEHOW rescue their case.