Online Casino taking bets on the Michael Jackson Trial


http://www.onlinecasinoreports.com/

A real bettor will place a wager on just about anything. The online casinos have taken notice of this fact and are taking bets on the outcome of all sorts of events from presidential elections to celebrity showcase trials. Your favorite online casino may offer a lot more than just traditional casino games. One online casino recently started taking bets on the outcome of the upcoming Michael Jackson trial. Right now they are offering odds on a variety of different outcomes.

when will Bubble testify?

jn2 said:

After the manniquins.

lilgish said:

Wait a minute. You mean they made him an offer?

calldapplwondery83 said:

Yeah, this was a while ago.

thesexofit said:

Basically, Michael had to agree to stay away from children.

Not just stay away from children, stay away from his children, register as a sex offender, etc.

There's no way in hell Michael would agree to be without his children.

Pepina said:

I'd not heard that. Thanks for filling me in.

coming soon


[Edited 5/1/05 18:33pm]

I never thought Id be starring at the mugshots of Chris Tucker or M. Culkin.
Hell, I never thought Id see an MJ mugshot. What a crazy world we live in.

hey, did u all know that Culkin was dating the brunett from That 70's Show? they have been dating for two years now....

who knew he was *really* straight...

Regardless if Michael is innocent or guilty, how in the hell would Debbi know if he's a good father or not?

TheOrgerFormerlyKnownAs said:

she doesn't...

Luv4oneanotha said:

I wonder why they even called her as a wtiness. Doesn't seem like there have been really any credible witnesses on this trial at all. I wonder if Mike will take the stand in his own defense.

TheOrgerFormerlyKnownAs said:

maybe hew will sing his testimony...

TheOrgerFormerlyKnownAs said:

The way Michael answered Martin Bashir's questions on the documentary, it would be wise for Michael NOT to take the stand.

I don´t know guys, why you keep thinking MJ is an idiot who cannot put an sence-ful sentence together. It is not just about the way MJ answered questions, it is also anout the way it was cut. If you read or watch any other of his interviews you´ll find out that he is capable of speaking in an intelligent way.

dag said:

umm..no, michael is an idiot when it comes to most things outside of his music.....

the guy dangled a baby outside a balcony....he held a boy's hand passionatly and just shaked it in a feverish and freakish manner..

there is no way you can justify that stuff....and you dont need to. just accept mj can be freakish....that doesnt take away from his music.

dag said:

I have no idea where you got that we don't think he can put a sentence together. whether folks here think it's okay to have kids sleeping in your bed who are not related to you, a huge majority of people have a problem with it.

sosgemini said:

he's an idiot when it comes to music as well...

but thats off the subject...

MJ is naive and is a bad witness because the prosecution could easily mix him up...
unless the defense thoroughly prepares him for every single question
i don't think it would be a good idea to put him on the stand

the latest news is that mesereau feels michael would be a good witness. mesereau has a history of putting his clients on the stand and allowing them to speakfor themselves. it seems as though he thinks its important for a defendent to address the jury and say, for themself, "i'm innocent." i don't think the question is "will michael testify?" but rather "how will michael testify?" i think its more than likely that mj will be shown on video claiming his innocence and not actually being interviewed on the stand. its difficult to cross examine a video, you know?

Krytonite said:

I agree. The prosecution has, IMHO, failed to put together a coherent, credible story of misconduct on his part, and have relied on tangential evidence of prior bad acts and character evidence that will be difficult to tie to the alleged crimes at issue in THIS case. Every witness they've brought has been spotty, none have come away clear and convincing as I could tell.

So, why would you put MJ in the position of incriminating himself or appearing to incriminate himself?

Odds are even that he'll come away with a Not Guilty.

I agree namepeace. All of the "1108" testimony/evidence does next to nothing to prove that the charges filed against MJ are credible. If anything, it speaks volumes of the weakness of the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the admittance of the "1108" testimony/evidence lends credence to the notion that the prosecution has OVER CHARGED MJ!

If I were MJ and I were aquitted, I would sue the accuser and the State of California for slander.

right now the defence is trying yet again to get these charges dismissed, for lack of evidence. i think its a waste of time though, i dont think the judge will dismiss the case.

Sooo....

"The Boy: A Photographic Essay" and "Boys Will Be Boys", hmm?

I have never justified that. Those were all stupid mistakes and I think MJ knows that. The only thing that amazes me is what an unbelievable impact had that Bashir thing on ppl. That seems to be the only thing that ppl remember Mj ever do and say outside his music. He´s done a lot much saner interviews that nobody seems to give a damn about. I for example loved his latest Geraldo interview. And I think he´d be able to be like that on the stand. But if it would be a good idea to call him as a witness.... I don´t know.... I am not a lawer.

Dispatches From the Michael Jackson Trial

From: Seth Stevenson
Subject: The Prosecution Puts MJ's Mom to Sleep
Monday, May 2, 2005, at 10:27 PM PT

7:10 a.m.: Gosh it's good to be back here in Jacko-ville. I didn't realize how much I'd missed this place.

I missed you, courtroom artist, wheeling around your big case of art supplies. Happy sketching today!

I missed you, TV sound guys, drinking your coffee behind the satellite trucks. You look so bored, with your boom-mikes hoisted on your shoulders. So bored, in fact, that I swear you've been practicing—standing in front of mirrors with your boom-mikes, trying out disinterested facial expressions.

And I missed you most of all, crazy fans outside the gate. You've brought a whole bunch of "We Love Michael" balloons with you this morning. But not helium balloons. Your regular balloons just fall at your feet and roll around aimlessly. As you gather together to start an impromptu shouting session, I get a warm feeling inside.

It feels like coming home.

8:29 a.m.: Michael arrives in the courtroom, looking sharp: The armband is hunter green; the face is toothpaste white.

Wow. This is the easily the whitest I've seen him yet. As he takes his seat, I look for a mushroom-cloud of face-powder to poof toward the ceiling. I can't quite make it out from my vantage point, but I'm certain it was there.

8:47 a.m.: The prosecution calls Detective Craig Bonner. Thus begins an entire day of reviewing telephone records.

You may recall that I previously sat through a full day of fingerprint testimony, and considered it tedious. I'd like to revise that assessment.

Because first of all, those fingerprints were found on the pages (sometimes on the centerfolds!) of hardcore porn mags. So, for that whole day we were staring at filthy, filthy smut. By court order! In retrospect, I had no right to complain about this.

Also in the course of that day, I learned a little bit about modern fingerprint science. Which was interesting. By contrast, there is nothing at all interesting about telephone records. There's no "science" involved in examining a Verizon bill. And—unlike fingerprints—official telephone records are rarely superimposed on top of a nasty, spread-eagle beaver shot.

I guess what I'm saying is that the testimony today is deathly boring. For hours on end, we just look at lists of phone calls. The detective describes when each call was made, where it was made from, whose phone was called, and how long the connection lasted. We are given no context. The detective doesn't know (he can't know) what was said in these calls. Or, for that matter, whether anything was said at all. These calls may have consisted entirely of burping noises, as far as he can tell.

Eventually the prosecution hauls out a few charts that visually represent the calls. They're hoping to illustrate some greater point—I'm not sure what it is, but it seems to have something to do with the conspiracy charges. The lawyers never really clear this up. The charts have cute little phone icons, labeled things like "Neverland Ranch," with lines drawn between the phones to link them together. They look a lot like that wall-chart in The L Word—the one that shows which lesbians have had sex with whom.

But even though they're forcing us to pay attention to all this phone record stuff, the prosecution can't prove that Michael Jackson was talking, or listening, on any of these calls. Not a single one. And since the case is against Michael Jackson, well … that's a problem.

(I'd like to pause here to clarify something I mentioned a moment ago. Yes, I watch The L-Word. Only because it's a fascinating cultural touchpoint. I thought I should explain that.)

9:03 a.m.: A bill from the Turnberry Isle Resort & Club is projected on the wall of the courtroom. In addition to offering more phone records, it seems to show that Michael Jackson stayed in a suite that cost $3700 per night. The tax alone on the room was $481 a night—which is more than I've ever spent on a room, never mind the tax. For this kind of money, I hope you get awesome toiletries.

More interesting details from the bill: MJ appears to have registered under the pseudonym "Fred Macy." I Googled it to look for some sort of provenance, but all I could find was a character by that same name in Shadow of the Thin Man. Could MJ really be a big fan of William Powell and Myrna Loy? Of dry banter and stylish crime-solving? If so, he should have named his chimp Asta instead of Bubbles.

Man, I am losing it here. Someone make the phone testimony stop. On top of all the snoozy material, the prosecution has unleashed their most annoying attorney—a dude by the name of Mag Nicola, who sports, in addition to this unlikely name, a high, reedy voice and unacceptably smirky manner. Everyone in the courtroom is sick of this guy. When will it end?

2:30 p.m.: Mercifully, it ends.

2:39 p.m.: Outside the courtroom, a reporter shouts out one question for Michael as he walks to his SUV:

"Michael, how are you feeling today?"

Michael waggles his hand in a comme ci comme ca gesture. "Hmmmm," he says, "a little better."

2:41 p.m.: I listen to Jim Moret (of Inside Edition) give his stand-up report for the media pool camera. He confirms my feelings: The prosecution is whiffing badly. They're scheduled to rest their case tomorrow, and thus should be building to a crescendo of indisputable evidence and clear-as-day conclusions. Instead, they've bogged us down in a mire of phone records.

Moret says he saw Michael's mother, Katherine Jackson (who is without doubt the classiest presence of the entire trial—always beautifully dressed and unfailingly pleasant), nod off a few times. He even saw some journalists nod off.

Ahem. It was only for a second. And I was jet-lagged. And it wasn't just me—other people fell asleep, too. And yes, I woke up with one of those freaky shudder-spasms, but I think it was mostly contained and unnoticeable. I promise I'll do better tomorrow.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2...0/entry/0/

CELEBRITY JUSTICE

Brian Oxman Speaks, Jackson Drops XtraJet Suit

May 2, 2005

Michael Jackson's two attorneys duked it out for the entire world to see last week, resulting in Brian Oxman's dismissal from the case. But Oxman is not down or out.

On Monday, Oxman spoke for the first time to "CJ" about last week's very obvious caught-on-tape showdown with Jackson trial lead Defense Attorney Tom Mesereau.

"I'm still Michael Jackson's attorney, and I will continue to represent him on all civil cases," Oxman said.

It's still unclear why he was booted, but speaking to us, Oxman held his head high. When asked if he and Jackson are still friends, Oxman responded, "Oh yes, I am still very close to the Jackson family. I adore them. I've represented this family for 15 years."

Oxman has represented members of the Jackson family over the years in their divorces and many other cases, and it's believed that it was Germaine Jackson's influence that made Oxman Mesereau's right-hand man

So what happened to Oxman's relationship with Mesereau? "It's great," Oxman insisted. "We're getting together very soon."

Oxman was in court just before our interview on Monday, representing Jackson in a civil matter. The pop star sued the charter flight company XtraJet in November of 2003, one day after he flew from Las Vegas to Santa Barbara to surrender on child molestation charges. Jackson said XtraJet surreptitiously videotaped the flight and tried to profit by selling the tape.

But it turns out, even though Jackson filed the lawsuit, he's backing out because he doesn't want to be questioned by XtraJet lawyers in a deposition. It was a big win for XtraJet attorney Lloyd Kirschbaum, who has claimed all along that Jackson simply filed the suit to take attention away from the molestation charges.

http://celebrityjustice.w...5/02b.html

Right, I am sure MJ loves courts more than anything else right now to file new charges just like that as if he didn´t have enough to do already.

FOR THOSE WHO AREN'T PAYING ATTENTION


Jacko Prosecution's Timeline Doesn't Jibe
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
By Roger Friedman


District Attorney's Jacko Timeline Doesn't Jibe

Michael Jackson was not at his Neverland Ranch on March 6, 7 and 8 in 2003, and possibly not on March 9 either. That was news yesterday that the prosecution inadvertently admitted into evidence in the Jackson child molestation trial while they were busy analyzing phone records of all the case's main players.

And those three days, and also possibly Feb. 20, 2003, continue to narrow the time Jackson allegedly committed any crimes.

Thanks to a rather boring review of phone records in yesterday's court session, we did learn a couple of small things that may have great significance later.

While Jackson was away from Neverland, his teen accuser was at the ranch with his family. The boy, now 15, has said in his grand jury testimony and in court that his molestation took place "toward the end" of his stay at Neverland on March 12, 2003.


Jackson, as we accidentally learned in court, was staying at the Beverly Hilton for several days at that time under the name Kenneth Morgan. Phone records introduced by the prosecution show that he was there and calling his assistant Evvy Tavasci night and day. The phone records from the hotel were entered as evidence by the prosecution. So were the room bills, which show that Jackson was in an $850 suite.

Phone records also indicate Jackson may have been away from Neverland on Feb. 20, 2003. That's the day the district attorney said in his indictment that Jackson began his molestation and conspiracy. But those phone records show that Jackson may have been in Miami on that date, staying at Turnberry Isle Inn, the same place where he stayed earlier that month for $3,700 a night. And you wonder why he has no money.

Since the district attorney placed all of Jackson's indictable actions between Feb. 20 and March 10, 2003, it would seem that his window of opportunity to molest is getting smaller and smaller. It's already been established that the family was away from Neverland between Feb. 25 and March 2, 2003. Scratch that week off the schedule. Now cross off those three or four days in late March plus Feb. 20 and possibly Feb. 21 and 22.

Other items in yesterday's testimony didn't jibe with what the jury has already heard. For one thing, the accuser's mother, Janet Arvizo, was vehement during her own testimony that she'd missed celebrating Valentine's Day with her then-boyfriend because of Jackson and his associates. But phone records show that she made seven calls that day to her friend, Azja Pryor, the fiancée of comedian Chris Tucker. She also had several phone conversations with Jackson associate Frank Tyson that day. The last call of the day, placed by Arvizo to Pryor, was at 11:40 p.m. The defense could say that if she missed Valentine's Day, it was Arvizo's own fault.

Santa Barbara police detective Sgt. Craig Bonner — a nice enough fellow who'd worked on getting all the phone records together for all the parties to this case — conceded during cross-examination by Robert Sanger that he had omitted calls for Feb. 4, 2003, during his presentation under direct questioning. He also said that the phone records hadn't been finalized until late Sunday night — after over a one-year run-up to the trial.

The Arvizos' records included two calls to Chris Tucker's home on Feb. 4 within minutes of each other.

Under cross-examination during what seemed like a brutally dull day in court, the defense began to set the stage for a story we reported in this column exclusively last Friday. That's the story that has the Arvizos asked to be sent to Miami to see Michael Jackson on Feb. 6, 2003. I told you that sources say Chris Tucker will relate how the Miami trip was his idea, not Jackson's.

The calls to Tucker, the defense will argue if its case ever begins, are important. They will show that after the family was made an offer by British tabloid reporters for their story, they picked up the phone and called Tucker for access to Jackson. Tucker then flew the family to Miami on a plane he had rented, on his way to Orlando, Atlanta and the NBA All Star Game.

Mother Made Friends at Neverland

The last time anyone heard the name Angel Vivanco in court was when Janet Arvizo said she didn't know him. That was on a day of cross-examination when Thomas Mesereau craftily ran off a list of Neverland workers and asked Arvizo to identify them.

"I don't know anybody except Jesus Salas and Evvy," she said refering to Jackson's assistant.

She also said she had never heard of Violet Silva, the longtime head of security at Neverland.

But now it seems that Arvizo does in fact know Vivanco and may yet again be confronting her own lies. Phone records show that she called Vivanco at home and often, especially after she "escaped" from the Neverland ranch for the third and final time. Vivanco received a call from Arvizo at home in Guadalupe, Calif., on March 12, another one on March 13, three calls on March 19, two on March 20 and another on March 21.

Vivanco's number was on phone bills subpoenaed by the prosecution, but the district attorney's office didn't bother to see whose number it was. Defense attorney Sanger revealed during cross-examination that the defense supplied the opposition with this information. It's still not clear why the district attorney wouldn't have been interested in whom Janet Arvizo might have been calling in Guadalupe, a town near Neverland but far from her own home.

Similarly, Arvizo made lots of other calls to Neverland employees after her third "escape." She made several calls to another Neverland staffer, Maria Aceves, and to Jorgen and Adele Staal, owners of a local self-storage company in nearby Santa Ynez. Aceves was on the prosecution's list of potential witnesses, but was never called. The Staals are not on any lists from either side. Vivanco and his brother Jorge are on the defense list.