I'm watching the early show. Matt Lauer is interviewing Diane Dimond and Dan Abrams and they keep talking about how the case could or could not be called off this week. What am I missing here?

Is it like a weekly assessmemt: Is this case bullshit, or should we hear some more witnesses?

I wish they´d stop this stupidity and let Mike do what he´s supposed to do - MUSIC!!

CinisterCee said:

The prosecution is supposed to rest today (possibly) after they're done the defence will put forward a a futile motion to stop the trial (this is normal apparently when the state rests)

Anyway,

Mike Tiabbi report on MSNBC list of witnesses to be called. Said Sneddon was told the list just yesterday and he sit in stunned silence. Mike Tiabbi said the defense case will start will a bang.

Bret Barnes and his mother, sister all in a row.

Wade Robson- Mother, possibly sister.

Mac Culkin later in the proceedings.

I read Ryan White's mother too will be there telling how Mike helped her son before he finally succumbed to AIDS.

So not just celebrity types then.

Marrk said:

According ABC Wade Robson and Brett Barnes will be the first witnesses. With Mac Culkin being called later in the case. Said Rudy would read from his notes that Michael direction the damage control operation

lilgish said:

I could write a journal and claim it's true, especially if i was planted within MJ's camp. Provincio worked for a short time at Neverland and was out within weeks. I'm highly suspicious of this guy. In part because he's the last witness. We'll see.

I wonder if Brett and Wade are going to mention Sneddons all expenses paid trip to Australia in 1999 when they both hit 18 years old. He was trying to hook them then but they wouldn't play ball. Both declared Mike hadn't done a damn thing wrong back then and they'll reiterate that point in Michael's defence.

Sneddon getting in the 1108/1993 stuff will backfire.

.
[Edited 5/3/05 9:45am]

It's the new " ".

This whole trial is ridiculous.

The more I hear, the more I realize how can they possibly convict Michael on a bunch of lies.

These people give Latinos a bad name. The mother is an expert at manipulating, and using the system.

what ever happene to the orger
OrgJacko?

Luv4oneanotha said:

Do the words, "got fed up" and "of all the Hate" meen anything to u, like me

In YOUR Opinion: John Karrys Writes "Michael’s Promethean Revenge"


Created: Tuesday, 03 May 2005


By John Karrys

The show must go on. The incredible shrinking timelines are dancing with the parade of testimony from the prosecution’s witnesses. The brilliant and talented Tom Sneddon has accomplished the unthinkable in such a short period of time. This maestro of justice and his prodigious team of protégés have masterfully demonstrated that the child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson are completely false. Those other charges are just smokescreens. If you are among the envious, the cynical or the parasitical or if you have decided to follow the herd and publicly judge and profit like a parasite rather than a producer, I must say that that karma is coming to a nightmare near you. Parasitic vultures have masticated Michael’s reputation in the hope that he would one day break. You, the parasite, were wrong about Michael and the Jackson family.


With the help of the State and establishment Media, these socio-pathic storm troopers have failed to break Michael’s spirit or tarnish the Jackson name indefinitely. They have tried with every advantage available and, no matter how hard they try, they won’t get that satisfaction that only an envious parasite is constantly hungry for.

Let us not forget, this is a family from Gary, Indiana. That’s an extremely tough town, one of the most dangerous in the nation. It has always been a tough town. One has to be exceptionally tough to fight your way out. Michael’s has undergone phenomenal military-type training, under two disciplinarian perfectionists, his father, Joseph Jackson and Berry Gordy. Visit the Motown Museum, read the history of the training those artists received and when you’re standing in the actual recording studio, imagine the gut wrenching discipline and backbreaking work that was required to produce the songs we now take for granted. Michael has gone through all the rites of passage that a warrior must take to prepare for the Leviathan State scrutiny such as this.

Tom Sneddon miscalculated on that resilient Jackson faith. In an attempt to aid and abet the District Attorney, in what appears to be a series of crimes, the establishment media have invested and committed a pivotal error in choosing to be a propaganda pusher for the State’s half-truths. Legally, retribution is on the way. In the court of public opinion, revenge will proceed accordingly. All of Sneddon’s cases, as well as certain journalists’ ethical conduct will have to be reviewed.

Finally, Michael Jackson’s innocence will be heard, seen and experienced. Principled prosecutors across America know this case is dead. Law professors are at a loss for words, as they struggle to explain to their students, as to why this case was even brought to court. Good pundits across America are introspecting as to what made them so quickly believe Tom Sneddon as they revisit in their notes, their cognitive framework as well as the overwhelming number of prosecution witnesses that alarmingly became defence witnesses.


Michael Jackson is a self-made man who has triumphed through the labyrinth of parasites. After all of this salacious slandering, he is still standing proud with a passion to add more value to the human experience. At this point, after all of these extensive investigations, Michael Jackson is an innocent man whose natural rights and dignity have been raped for twelve tortuous years. The defence that is to follow is Michael’s Promethean revenge.

Can you feel the anticipation? Some may love it and some will loathe it. It’s all a matter of conscience. Nonetheless, it is this concert of justice that innocent self-made people around the world are ready to receive. Some will dance and some will cry. Americans need to feel that fire of freedom, once again, instead of tolerating the perpetual service.



Day 44: Inflammatory Testimony from Prosecution’s Accountant Falls Flat in Cross-Examination


Created: Tuesday, 03 May 2005

Tuesday, May 3, 2005
On day 44 a forensic accountant for the prosecution testified in Michael Jackson's trial Tuesday that, in his opinion, Mr. Jackson was spending more than he earned. The testimony came as the prosecution neared the end of its case.

The detailed analysis of Mr. Jackson's multimillion-dollar empire was brought into the trial over vehement objections from defense lawyers who said it was irrelevant to the case and was based on hearsay statements contained in memos from various financial advisers.

Judge Rodney Melville instructed jurors they were not to consider the accounting figures "for the truth of the matter" but merely to show how the expert reached his conclusions.

Under questioning by deputy district attorney Gordon Auchincloss, forensic accountant John Duross O'Bryan traced Mr. Jackson's assets and liabilities from 1999 to 2004.

He said the balance sheet was prepared on a tax basis and assets listed might actually have higher values.

He said he formed his opinions by reading through boxes of memos exchanged by Mr. Jackson's financial managers over the years and he told of a warning to Mr. Jackson that if his overspending continued he might be forced to sell off his two greatest assets, the catalogue of his own songs and the Sony-ATV catalogue which contains rights to the works of numerous other artists including the Beatles.

The witness said even selling the catalogues would be problematic because that would incur a huge tax liability.

Defence lawyer Thomas Mesereau said the catalogue was worth $1 billion in 2003 and there have been estimates it's now worth between $4 billion and $5 billion.

Mr. Mesereau clashed with the accountant, suggesting in several questions he underestimated the value of Mr. Jackson's stake in the Sony-ATV catalogue and had not considered lucrative offers available to Mr. Jackson as an entertainer.

"Wouldn't it be relevant if you knew Mr. Jackson could accept one opportunity and solve (his liquidity problem) in a day," Mr. Mesereau asked.

Prosecutors are trying to show Mr. Jackson had banked on the documentary as a way to re-energize his career and it exploded in his face.

They said he then organized efforts at damage-control; they maintain he tried to do this by holding captive the family of the boy he allegedly molested and forcing them to participate in the so-called rebuttal video.

The accountant testified he was aware Mr. Jackson negotiated with the Fox network to get $7 million for the rebuttal video.

"Let's say he has the opportunity to make a documentary that will generate $7 million," Mr. Mesereau said.

"That $7 million is not going to make much of a difference" in Mr. Jackson's liabilities.

"No, it's not," the witness agreed.

"And it wouldn't be worth committing a crime, would it?" asked Mr. Mesereau.

The question was ruled argumentative and there was no answer.

Before the financial testimony, District Attorney Tom Sneddon called sheriff's Sgt. Steve Robel to the stand to undermine Ms. Rowe in an attempt to impeach her testimony.

Mr. Jackson's ex-wife, the mother of two of his children, had unexpectedly praised Mr. Jackson as a good father and a generous and caring friend and denied prosecution contentions that her statements in another rebuttal video were scripted by the Mr. Jackson camp.

Earlier Tuesday, police Sergeant Steve Robel told jurors how Mr. Jackson's ex-wife, Debbie Ms. Rowe, had at one time described Mr. Jackson negatively.

Prosecutors called their last witness, Rudy Provencio, who worked with Mr. Jackson on a charity record. He spent about 20 minutes on the witness stand but court ended for the day before he could get to the heart of his testimony.

Prosecutors are expected to rest their case after Provencio completes his testimony.


wow, if the catalogue is really worth that much than this 30 milion debt is ridiculous - that´s just change for MJ. It´s funny. It sounds shocking to us (ordinary ppl), but for Mike it truly must be no big deal.

Mike, just one thing - take those glasses OFF!

dag said:

Which is why his entire back catalogue re-entered the UK top 200 album chart after the documentary was aired.

How can the catalague be worth around 4 billion more than in 2003?

cha know..it looks like someone told mj to chill with the color and the fabric mix matching....


big improvement the past week or so...


did anyone post about debbie rowe being investigated for lying to the prosecution?

sosgemini said:

Cloudbuster said:

The point is the documentary was supposed to re-energize his career not have him end up in court on these charges. If he hadn't done the documentary he might not have gotten into this trial. Sure it caused a spike in his UK sales but was it worth the whole trial just to spike the UK charts?

thedoorkeeper said:

Yeah, I know what was being implied. But still, he's selling thousands of albums each week despite the trial. Bless him.

Cloudbuster said:

co-

CinisterCee said:

Nearly all of Sneddon's witnesses have lied, so if Debbie lied, so what? it's just one more liar.

also, it was the Defence that actually put forward a motion to have her testimony stricken, not the Prosecution.

Nearly done, defence may start today. this Rudy character is on the stand, they've still not connected Michael with this so called conspiracy as yet. I'm really glad the prosecution side of things is nearly over, the whole damn thing has made no sense at all from start to finish.



Complete bollocks.

I personally think the follwing is pro-prosecution, but in the interests of balance...

http://crime.allinfoabout...50305.html

The Defense Witness List: The Michael Jackson Trial, May 3, 2005

Defense witnesses will include actor Macaulay Culkin and two young Australian men, Brett Barnes and choreographer Wade Robson, all of whom will testify that although they spent time with Jackson when they were younger, Jackson never molested them. Last month, a former Neverland security guard said he'd seen Jackson put his hand inside Culkin's pants.

Just a thought here: Calling Culkin makes sense, because he can refute specific prosecution testimony -- though what the security guard described could have been, from the defense point of view, accidental; or, from the prosecution point of view, something Culkin might not even have noticed at the time. So having Culkin deny it happened might not be as useful to the defense as simply trying to minimize any significance it might have had.

But there are reports that the defense plans to call a large number of witnesses, and that could backfire. What do they gain by having Barnes and Robson testify that Jackson never molested them? Even according to the prosecution, most kids were never molested by Jackson? This sort of testimony almost implies that molesting children is what Jackson does by default.

And character witnesses? Seriously, every man and woman sitting in the jury box thinks Jackson is a crazy little freak, and wouldn't leave their sons in his custody no matter what the eventual verdict is. That's not going to change no matter how many times Katherine Jackson tells them her son is a good boy.

The thing is, except for the conspiracy charge, this whole trial is probably the defense's to lose -- and every time you call a witness, you're introducing a new wild card. Ask District Attorney Thomas Sneddon if you don't believe that.

One key witness: actress Elizabeth Taylor, who apparently has inside information about the 1993 settlement. If she can convince the jury that the allegations made by this first accuser were false, and that Jackson paid out between $10 million and $30 million just to avoid bad publicity and a trial, this will go a long way toward making them doubt the current allegations.
_____

Poll from this page

Based on what you know right now, how would you vote?
Guilty of all charges (318) 37%

Guilty of giving alcohol to a minor, but not guilty of any sex charges (77) 9%

Not guilty of all charges (466) 54%
[Edited 5/4/05 13:47pm]

Marrk said:

Except that her testimony was positive for MJ's case.

a question:

did she had sex with MJ

miguelbulcao said:

perv!

Defence motion.

Motion for Acquittal for Insufficient Evidence (Penal Code Section 1118.1); Motion to Strike Statements Allegedly Made in Furtherance of Conspiracy

http://www.sbscpublicacce...acquit.pdf

ignore above. can't get link to work, but you get the gist.

basically,Short and sweet motion. They are asking for the conspiracy charge to be dropped and to strike certain statments of hearsay from unindicted co-conpsirators since no conspiracy re MJ was proven. Court should also acquit MJ on remaining counts, and court should acquit because of the inflammatory nature of 1108.

Won't happen though, this whole trial is corrupt IMO.
[Edited 5/4/05 15:43pm]

This is from a motion filed on March 25th, 2005.
Title: Supplemental brief in support of opposition to district attorney's motion for admission of alleged prior offenses (Evid. Code Sections 1108, 1101( b ))
http://www.sbscpublicacce...pp1108.pdf


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
B. Jason Francia

The prosecution claims that Jason Francia will testify that he was molested when he was as young as 6 years old. However, the transcripts of his interviews with police reveal that he does not remember these events and was only able to describe these alleged incidents after being coached by the detectives who interviewed him. Furthermore, it is apparent from the interviews that his mother made him aware of these alleged incidents.

The transcripts of the November 4, 1993, and March 24, 1994, interviews by law enforcement and prosecutors are textbook examples of improperly suggestive interrogations.

For instance, in the November 4, 1993, interview, Jason Francia tells the detectives that he does not remember Mr. Jackson putting his hands anywhere that made him feel uncomfortable. Det. Neglia, one of the interviewers, responds by stating:

---
Det. Neglia: Okay, but what I am getting at is that maybe I am not being obvious enough. What I am saying is maybe he put his hands someplace on you where he shouldn't have. Maybe he put his hands on you someplace that made you feel uncomfortable. And that's why you are not remembering. It's like there is a little bit of "Oh. I can't remember that guy's name and I don't remember his last name, and I just don't remember that. No I don't want to remember that, no I can't remember." It's a little of bit of a different kind of not remembering, one is because you are choosing not to, and one is that you just can't call back the uh, the event. And I think of what you doing is tickling and all this stuff, is trying forcing yourself not to remember. And you also kind of got to the one where you're saying that fourth time at the party you said something like, "That was the time." What time was it Jason: What was the time?
---

Later in the interview, the detectives tell Jason Francia that Mr. Jackson is currently molesting Macaulay Culkin:

---
Det. Neglia: I realize how hard this is. I realize how painful it is to think of these things you tried so hard not to think about but you are doing fine. And you are also helping the kid that he is bothering now.

Jason Francia: What do you mean he's bothering?

Det. Birchim: He's doing the same thing.

Jason Francia: Macauly Culkin.

Det. Neglia: Only he's getting a lot more into it. Like your mother pulled you out of there. Macaulay's mother is not going to pull him out of there. They are feeding him.

Det. Birchim: He's doing worse stuff.

Det. Neglia: It's much worse with him.
---

The detectives then tell him that another child actor [Corey Feldman] is a drug addict based on his alleged molestation by Mr. Jackson:

---
Det. Neglia: He's a junkie now, he gets arrested, he doesn't act or anything, he gets high. He packs his nose with cocaine and he's going to die by the time he is 22 years old.

Jason Francia: How old is he?

Det. Birchim: About 21. But that's the kind of life he is living, and it's got to do with being exposed to people like this, and having nobody to protect them and to take them out.

Det. Neglia: Like you had your mom.

Det. Neglia: Like your mom pulled you out, and you're you're candid, and you're honesty with us is going to help us. To pull the next kid out, it might even be too late for Macauly already. But these kids that he's traveling with are on tour right now. Maybe we can pull them out of it...
---

In order to defend against the false allegations of Jason Francia, it will be necessary to present expert testimony regarding child interview techniques.

Will a Juror Be Dismissed From the Jackson Trial?

Juror's Relative's Link to Key Witness Could Lead to Jury Shakeup, ABC News Learns
Michael Jackson waves to fans, as his father Joe and mother Katherine, walk with him as he arrives at the Santa Barbara County Courthouse before the prosecution rested. (Mark J. Terrill/AP Photo)
By JIM AVILA, BETH TRIBOLET, GREG MACEK, and TARANA HARRIS

May 5, 2005 — Serious questions about one of the jurors in the Michael Jackson child molestation trial could lead to the juror's removal from the panel, ABC News has learned exclusively.


ABC News has learned that a key witness, who testified that Jackson molested him when he was a child, and a live-in sister of Juror No. 11 work together in the same small auto parts store in Santa Maria, Calif., just blocks from the courthouse where "The King of Pop" is being tried. Sources told ABC News that the court does not know about this and it is being revealed for the first time this morning. This revelation could lead to the removal of Juror No. 11, a 20-year-old Hispanic male cashier.


"The fix would be to simply excuse the juror and substitute one of the alternates," said Robert Ray, a former independent counsel in the Whitewater investigation.


This potential development comes as prosecutors rested their case Wednesday against Jackson, who is on trial for allegedly molesting a now-15-year-old boy who spent time at his Neverland Ranch and appeared with him in the 2003 British documentary "Living With Michael Jackson." Jackson, 46, has pleaded not guilty to 10 charges that include felony conspiracy with 28 overt acts involving child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion.




A Question About Fairness — for Both Sides



Jurors are instructed that everything they use to decide a case should be based on the testimony they hear in court. With Juror No. 11's sister apparently working side by side with a key witness, there is at least the opportunity for outside information to reach the juror.


"It does raise the question about whether under those circumstances, both sides can get a fair trial, and particularly important for Michael Jackson," Ray said.

From CTV board:

Savannah Guthrie Sums It Up Perfectly

On Dan Abrams she basically breaks down the prosecution's case the best of all the THs

"It's the fundemental absurdity of the prosecution's case that's hardest to over come"

And she's absolutely right. The timeline of all of these events don't add up. It was the problem before the case began and its defintely a problem now. And now that Rudy "the bombshell witness" P has had his turn, with dates all screwed up in his journal of events that he found two weeks ago, we now know that the timeline is more important than everything. According to reports the dates of the possible molestation could only be four days that MJ was at Neverland in early March/late February.

Now after 80 witnesses and what's really tied to MJ. The accusers words against MJ. Right where we started."