Cloudbuster said:

not enough neon green tho

dag said:

He is not a kid. He is a man. A. Grown. Man. Don't be fooled. He is trying desperately to regain something that was lost. I don't blame him for that.

But there are ways to do that and not get in trouble. And there are ways to do it and get in trouble.

The truth of the matter is that MJ made a conscious decision to sleep with young boys. He may not have molested them, but he got into bed with them and made a choice to do so. The problem is that it's simply inappropriate for him to do that kind of thing and it invites scrutiny. It doesn't matter what the boys say in his defense. It's not going to keep him out of trouble and potential incarceration. Avoiding the situation altogether by not having such contact with them is the best solution.

And he may not have admitted to this behavior publicly in 1993, but 10 years removed from the worst scandal of his career, what does he do? He puts himself in harm's way AGAIN by a) continuing to do what got him in trouble before, and b) openly admitting it.

He's a MAN, he made his decision to do what he wanted to do, and now he's living with the consequences. That doesn't mean (necessarily) that he's a criminal. That means he exercised bad judgment. No defense or excuse can hide that.

Cloudbuster said:

I'll tell you this: you're making my point for me.

MJ's conduct, and his open admission to same before the world, was tantamount to him stamping "INDICT ME" on his forehead.

And if you know anything about DA's, you know at the end of the day, they're elected officials. Do you think any DA worth his political salt is going to be seen as doing nothing while the world sees a guy engage in bizarre and creepy behavior in that DA's backyard? The answer: hell no. Especially not a DA who has had it in for MJ for over a decade.

Now, does this mean the DA had a case? Nope (not necessarily). Does it mean the DA's intentions are noble? Nope.

MJ opened the door, the DA walked through, and there's no guarantee that MJ will be vindicated by the jury.

So, even though I agree with you about this DA's motives, I'll ask a different way. The DA didn't move against MJ for over a decade. And soon after MJ does the doc, the DA gets MJ indicted.

Would Sneddon have moved without the documentary (EXHIBIT 1 IN THE TRIAL)?

Tell me. Be honest.

namepeace said:

How am I supposed to answer honestly here?

Yes, possibly. Even more likely, probably.
As you say, it seems Sneddon was biding his time. So yeah, even without exhibit 1 it's probable that a case would have eventually been invented.
It's well known that Sneddon wants that "n*gga" out of town. Looks like he may finally have his way.

Jacko Witness Invited Along on 'Kidnapping'
Friday, May 20, 2005
By Roger Friedman

Jacko: Accuser's Mom Invited Pal On 'Kidnapping'

One of the most anticipated witnesses in the Michael Jackson trial finally showed up yesterday and wowed the crowd.

I am not talking about Larry King, who turned out to be a dud. The person of the hour was Azja Pryor, a beautiful, articulate casting assistant from Los Angeles who also happens to be the mother of comic Chris Tucker’s 6-year-old son.

Pyror, sometimes fighting back tears, told the jury how Janet Arvizo wheedled her way in and out of her life. Her testimony was compelling, truthful and exculpatory for Jackson as she exploded into more fragments the government’s conspiracy case against Jackson.

Pryor, with guidance from Tom Mesereau, concisely laid out the genesis of her friendship with the Arvizos. Her biggest bombshell was that Arvizo invited her to come on a trip to Brazil for Carnivale. This was the same trip that Arvizo and her kids allege was actually a ploy by Jackson to send them out of the country for good.


According to Pryor, Arvizo was excited about the trip and wanted her to come along. The trip never happened, Pryor said, and eventually Arvizo stopped mentioning it.

The friendship between Pryor and Tucker and the Arvizos began when Tucker met the family at the Laugh Factory comedy club.

The three children and their father, David, got closer to the couple when the oldest boy — now accusing Jackson of molestation — was diagnosed with cancer. Pryor quickly came to the family’s aid, even writing them a check for $600 for Christmas presents in 2001.

But soon David Arvizo was usurped by his wife in the relationship with Pryor and Tucker. Until then, Pryor had witnessed David sleeping by his son’s side in the hospital, never eating or leaving him alone. There was no sign of the mother.

But when the health picture improved, Janet Arvizo was suddenly on the scene. Her husband, whom she divorced, was now painted as abusive and unfeeling.

Pryor’s testimony underscored several important points. Even though she spoke to Janet Arvizo regularly, the mother never told Pryor that she’d been in a fracas with J.C. Penney, sued them and won $153,000.

She didn’t tell her “best friend” a lot of things, apparently. Janet Arvizo, for example, claimed in the Penney case that their security guards had broken her son’s arm. She told Pryor the accident happened in a softball game because the boy’s mitt was worn out. Pryor immediately bought him a new one.

Arvizo is a passive aggressive master, according to witnesses who have said she never asks for money. She simply lays out for her targets a tale of woe that inspires voluntary contributions. She’s an artist -- a con artist.

For example, at the same time she accepted the $600 Christmas gift from Pryor, Arvizo was also orchestrating other fundraisers and gifts from strangers. She was also stringing along a boyfriend with a big paycheck -- who is now her husband. Her secret was to keep everyone away from each other. It worked.

Pryor, who speaks with a lilting voice and could easily have been a fashion model, recounted independent verification of many traits of the Arvizo kids testified to by others. She characterized the boys as “tough,” and said they continually roughhoused. They helped themselves to things that weren’t theirs.

Under oath, Pryor conceded that though she was in daily contact with the Arvizos in February and March 2003, no one of them ever mentioned being kidnapped, held against their will or extorted by Jackson. None of them signaled an accusation of molestation, either.

But Pryor said under direct questioning that the family — having been offered a promise of a new car by Tucker — pursued the gift with unrelenting enthusiasm. They even faxed Pryor, unsolicited, Janet Arvizo’s driver’s license and other pertinent information on Feb. 13, 2003 — the same time Arvizo claimed that her family was being held by Jackson.

Pryor met Jackson, although she spent a lot of time at Neverland. Her straightforward accounting, along with that of actress Vernee Watson-Johnson the previous day, demonstrated that the conspiracy charges in this case should never have been filed.

Added to next week’s testimony from Tucker — widely thought to be the defense’s final witness — it should seal off a possibility of a conviction in that part of the case, for good.

I looooove his suits!

What a wonderful mother Katherine is! She has been by his side everyday.

KUDOs to her!

And always dressed so well.



.
[Edited 5/20/05 11:17am]

Cloudbuster said:

Come on, now. to use criminal law terms, Sneddon definitely had a motive to get MJ. He'd eluded him for so long. But he didn't have the opportunity to do so, because that would have required public support and some way to make a case for an indictable offense. That is, until his foolish prey stuck true to form, went on camera, and gave it to him on a silver platter.

Don't fool yourself. Even if I agreed with everything you say about Sneddon (and I agree with a lot of it), no documentary = no case. Period. End of story.

lilgish said:

CinisterCee said:

U know that's not Richards daughter

I know haha, but - that "fashion model" comment just read a bit odd in that article.

NEWS: The defence might wrap up their case next week!!!!!

Hopefully that might be the end of a nightmere for Mike.

http://customwire.ap.org/...0-19-27-11


May 20, 7:27 PM EDT

Michael Jackson Defense May Rest Next Week

By LINDA DEUTSCH
AP Special Correspondent

SANTA MARIA, Calif. (AP) -- The defense in Michael Jackson's child molestation trial may rest early next week, a prosecutor told the court Friday. That would end the defense case in less than half the time the pop star's attorneys had initially said they would need.

"We're approaching the end of trial," prosecutor Ron Zonen told Judge Rodney S. Melville. "The defense has indicated they may be resting as early as next Tuesday."

Defense attorneys did not contradict the statement but did not comment on it.

Zonen revealed the schedule change in the course of requesting that the defense rapidly turn over materials related to the testimony of Jackson's former attorney Mark Geragos.

The defense had said at the outset that they would need about six weeks or possibly up to eight weeks to present their case, which began May 5. A list of more than 300 possible defense witnesses that was submitted included such celebrities as Kobe Bryant, Elizabeth Taylor, Diana Ross and Jay Leno. The defense was expected to call Leno on Tuesday.

Jackson's attorneys presented a rapid succession of witnesses who supported Jackson's claim that he did not molest a 13-year-old boy and that there was no a conspiracy to hold the boy's family captive.

Among the most powerful defense witnesses was actor Macaulay Culkin, who spent part of his childhood as a Jackson houseguest and said that Jackson never touched him inappropriately.

Two other young men who spent time at Jackson's' Neverland ranch as children also denied accounts by prosecution witnesses that they were seen in suggestive situations with Jackson.

Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting the boy in February or March 2003, plying him with wine and conspiring to hold the boy's family captive.

Prosecutors claim the conspiracy was intended to get the family to make a video rebutting a TV documentary in which the accuser appeared with Jackson, who told an interviewer he let children sleep in his bed but that it was non-sexual.

Geragos' testimony led to verbal sparring matches with Zonen, but the prosecutor drew little from the veteran defense counsel.

Geragos repeated assertions that he was concerned the accuser's family would fabricate claims against Jackson to shake him down, and that he directed a private investigator to keep tabs on them.

Geragos testified under a waiver of attorney-client privilege that was limited to events before Jackson's arrest in November 2003. Before the lawyer took the stand Friday, Melville said he believed lead defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. had misrepresented Jackson's waiver.

"I feel deceived by Mr. Mesereau and I am considering ... sanctions of some sort against Mr. Mesereau," Melville said without taking immediate action.

Before court recessed for the weekend, the prosecution succeeded in blocking a defense bid to bring a man named by prosecutors as an unindicted coconspirator to the witness stand under immunity from prosecution.

Prosecutors had granted Vincent Amen so-called use immunity during a lengthy interview, but decided not to call him as a witness. The defense had sought to call Amen as a witness using the immunity prosecutors had granted, but the judge ruled against it.

Melville also refused to order the playing of a tape of Amen's interview with prosecutors.

I HATE THIS EFFING JUDGE!!!!!


i, for one, will not be suprised if michael is found guilty due to this c*ck head

Can someone post a picture of this "judge"?

This judge is a complete joke beyond all compare, he is an alcoholic and clearly shouldnt b in this position to judge what is quite possibly the biggest case of the decade.

If this were any other case, serious questions would have been asked about this judges conduct, and i believe sanctions should b made against him.

namepeace said:

I wouldn't have bet on it. Despite the "we don't have any victims" quote above, it's obvious that Sneddon has just been waiting for an opportunity to nail Jackson. And this current case has been pretty much invented anyway. And knowing how corrupt the police and justice system are, who's to say whether a case wouldn't have been made against Mike even without his own admission of continuing sleep-overs. Remember, there was no admission from Mike prior to the '93 case, just speculation and rumour. Sometimes that's all it takes.

I think that´s him - the judge.

Looks human...