JACKSON RESTS!

Time for rebuttals...

To me, Tom Sneddon looks like a complete ass..

And all of the wealthy in California should beware of these people..

That poor guy who was hired to play MJ doesn't
get his big break since MJ isn't testifying.
I wanted to hear his MJ impersanation.

sosgemini said:

With you being a moderator and all, perhaps you should think twice before practically mass flaming his 'crazy loony fans' for showing any level of support to the man (as it appears you are) Better yet, don't bother posting at all on these threads if cheap shots are what it's come to. We can all do that.

BTW, It's spelt 'losing', no such word as 'loosing'.

see?

Besides, if he needed to (which i personally don't think he does) Michael can't just go to any old shrink, No such thing as confidentiality if the price is right.

He attended group sessions with Beechy Colcough in London in 1993 for his addiction to prescription drugs, it took about a couple of days to reach the media here. Not saying Beechy told anyone, but he did the chat circuit in the UK for awhile afterwards and MJ was always brought up. I bet the publicity didn't do his business any harm either.

.
[Edited 5/25/05 11:24am]

namepeace said:

frustrated. Yes. also maddening and totally avoidable.

I believe there's a possibility the alcohol charge might actually stick, but even that's a long shot. Other than that, he's definately got this case beat.

All being well.

Sky News

DEFENCE REST ITS CASE

The case for the defence has come to an end in the Michael Jackson child abuse trial, and a verdict could come as soon as next week.

The conclusion to the defence's case means that the singer himself will not be taking the stand.


Comedian Chris Tucker was the last defence witness to give evidence.

Tucker told the court that he had warned Jackson two years ago to be wary of the mother of Gavin Arvizo, who has accused the star of sexual abuse.

Tucker recalled traveling to Miami with the accuser and his family on February 4, 2003 where he said he became suspicious of the family.

"I pulled Michael in a room and told him to ... watch out," Tucker said. "I said Michael, something is not right."

Tucker also said that far from being an easily-influenced boy susceptible to Jackson's suggestion, the star's now 15-year-old accuser was "cunning."

"He was really smart, he was cunning at times," Tucker told the court.








Tucker, who befriended the future accuser and the boy's family after meeting them at a fundraising event aimed at raising cash to treat the boy's cancer around 2000 or 2001, also said he felt the family took financial advantage of him.

Tucker also described how the trip to Miami came about, saying it was he who chartered a private jet to Miami after the accuser and his family asked to join Jackson there.

Janet Arvizo had earlier said her children were taken out of school and whisked off to Miami at Jackson's command.

The two sides will now get a chance to rebut evidence presented since the trial began on February 28.

They are likely to present their closing arguments next week before handing the case to the jurors.

Jackson, 46, denies molesting 13-year-old Gavin Arvizo, plying him with alcohol and conspiring to hold him and his family captive. The trial continues.

Marrk said:

scroll down:

http://www.prince.org/msg/8/146726

and heres the issue with flaming..you can not flame another participant of this website. making a blanket statement about particular fans of an artist does not constitute "mass flaming" as you called it...GET THE FUCK OUT with that shit!!!






cha know...im simply voicing my opinion that the crazy mj fans who blindly support everything he does (and whom are very vocal) actually hurt this mans chances for a stable mental lifestyle.

case in point, prince screwed his fans with the whole crystal ball fiasco. prince upset a lot of his fans with the whole jw preaching and pamphlet dispursing during concert shows.....prince's fans became outraged and expressed their unhappiness...and prince reacted.

but mj fans are always trying to justify the mans strange behavior..and im not even talking about his skin color or nosejobs. im talking serious character flaws that he has displayed.

i get the impression mj evolves lives for his fan support. if these crazy arse people who camp out at the courthouses....who travel all around the world and scream and cry at the sight of him actually expressed reservation about some of his behavior maybe he will get the fact that his shit aint normal.

and cut the spelling bullshit...its childish...

Marrk said:

What did Michael do in response to Chris Tucker's warnings?

Marrk said:

I agree the liquor charge may stick, but that isn't a huge worry.

Don't count MJ's chickens until they hatch.

Before the trial I withheld judgment until I knew about the actual evidence presented. Now, I think that purely from a legal standpoint, the case calls for reasonable doubt. But I can't say that I'm certain MJ has never been involved in any wrongdoing with boys. I don't see where they have made a bulletproof case, but enough has come out about MJ's questionable contact with boys to the point where a jury may say, "where there's smoke, there's fire," and convict him if only to keep someone they feel is a pervert off the streets.
I wouldn't in good faith do that, even though I have my doubts about the man. But don't think those folk on the jury might not. You never ever know. Then again, all MJ needs is one.

sosgemini said:

I've seen some gigs and buy his music, wouldn't dream of camping outside a hotel to glimpse his hand at the window. Most acts have fans like that, crazy fans are not exclusively MJ's alone. come on.

Basically, i think MJ HAS been a little stupid and entirely negligent of himself in allowing this situation to arise, it's not all his own fault though, by any means. Don't you honestly think this whole trial stinks, you might not if you're only following it superficially (not saying you are, but alot of peeps are)

as for your link, what am i looking for? Peoples opinions on MJ 'falling off'? so what? Most acts would be overjoyed at the level of success he still enjoys to this day and that's despite all his troubles.

opinions and arseholes, we all got one.

look for my defending mj's prospect for a career after this trial is over...

Marrk said:

Substitute "monumentally stupid" for "a little stupid" and I pretty much agree.

I didn't like Sneddon's Cheshire-cat grinning in his initial press conference after the indictment. I didn't like the theory of the prosecution's case (too cluttered). I don't like a lot of the characters surrounding the case, including the accuser's family.

But this isn't a real difficult chicken or egg argument. If MJ isn't stupid, Sneddon doesn't take a shot at him.

sosgemini said:

Never in doubt. He doesn't need the good old USA to survive, he's still a major act in other territories (only problem is, he has no recording contract at present).

Infact, i do hope he leaves the States permanantly after all this shit is over.

He won't, i'd class him staying as a real lapse in judgement. I'm hoping for major security when he's acquitted, otherwise i fear the worst, i really do.

namepeace said:

Doesn't he? the inclusion of the 1108 witnesses says differently. however, they've only further fucked this trial up for 'Mad Dog'. Less would definately have been more in this trial if he was after a conviction.

Too many players with axes to grind from 93 IMO.

Even if sneddon had concentrated purely on the Arvizo claims, he'd have dad a problem. Gavin, Develin, Star and Janet contradicted each others testimonies numerous times. It just got silly.

Yesterday's testimony from the paralegal woman was enormous in relation to the JC Penneys lawsuit, scripting her kids, mexican mafia etc. yet my paper this morning referred to Leno only. there were 7 or 8 other witnesses yesterday too, all kicked the prosecutions arses.

Sad to say this, but that mother appears to have lied, cheated and ultimately exploited her own cancer-suffering son for financial gain. Bloody disgrace.

Tucker Says Jackson Accuser Was 'Cunning'

By TIM MOLLOY, Associated Press Writer

17 minutes ago

SANTA MARIA, Calif. - Actor and comedian Chris Tucker testified Wednesday in Michael Jackson's child molestation trial that during the time he befriended Jackson's young accuser he found the boy to be unusually sophisticated and cunning for a 12-year-old.

"He was really smart and he was cunning at times, and his brother ... was definitely cunning," said Tucker, who was called by Jackson's attorneys as their last witness.

Tucker was put on the stand to help make the defense case that the boy and his family have a history of targeting celebrities and trying to get money from them. The defense was expected to rest when Tucker was done, without calling Jackson.

After the defense rests, prosecutors will begin a rebuttal and Jackson's attorneys will then be given an opportunity to respond. Closing arguments probably will not begin before next week.

Tucker also testified that he once took Jackson aside and warned him to "watch out" for the boy's mother because he had grown suspicious of her.

Tucker said the boy repeatedly asked for gifts but that he forgave the boy's behavior because he knew he had battled cancer and had family problems.

"He would always say, 'Chris, let me have this ... I'm not feeling too good,'" Tucker said.

Other comedians who have testified, including George Lopez and Jay Leno, cracked a few jokes on the stand. But Tucker's demeanor was calm and serious in stark contrast to his outrageous demeanor in the "Rush Hour" films and such movies as "Friday" and "The Fifth Element."

Jackson, 46, is charged with molesting the boy in 2003 when the youth was 13, giving him wine and conspiring to hold his family captive to get them to rebut a documentary in which the boy appeared with Jackson as the entertainer said he let children into his bed for innocent sleepovers.

Tucker, who co-starred with Jackie Chan in the "Rush Hour" movies, met Jackson's accuser at a benefit while the boy was battling cancer in 2000.

Tucker provided details about a gift of at least $1,500 that he gave to the family after the fundraiser for the boy at a Hollywood comedy club. He said the boy came to his house after the fundraiser and told him it hadn't raised any money.

"He was just real sad looking, saying they didn't raise any money and they needed some money," Tucker said.

Jackson defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. asked Tucker if he became suspicious since he had seen many people at the benefit.

"Yes, but I was always thinking I was helping him so I just did it," Tucker said.

Tucker also said that at one point he considered giving a truck to the family but then became concerned that he was doing too much for them.

He said that he initially gave the mother the keys to the vehicle but she lost them, and when the boy repeatedly asked him for copies of the keys he reconsidered.

"They were constantly calling for the truck and I felt the mother was making them call because it was getting on my nerves," Tucker said.

Tucker said the issue of a vehicle arose again after the boy appeared with Jackson in the documentary "Living With Michael Jackson." He said the boy told him he was being harassed by the media and that the family needed a vehicle.

"He said it was hard for him to get around because the media was hounding them and they had no transportation," Tucker said.

Tucker accompanied the boy and his family on a trip to Miami to see Jackson on the day the documentary aired.

Prosecutors contend Jackson used the trip to keep the family from seeing the documentary.

But Tucker testified that the boy said he wanted to go to Miami to be with Jackson and to get away from media bothering him and his family. Tucker said he agreed to charter a flight.

Tucker said that when he arrived at Jackson's suite in Miami he pulled Jackson aside to report his concerns about the mother.

"I told him to watch out for her because I felt suspicious about her," Tucker said. "I was trying to talk to Michael. She kept interrupting. ... I pulled Michael in a room. I told him, 'You need to watch out.'"

Tucker said Jackson listened but they didn't talk long because the singer was busy.

Tucker also said the boy initially introduced him to Jackson by letting him talk to the singer while Tucker was on the set of a movie in Las Vegas. He said after the conversation he and Jackson agreed to meet in New York, and have remained friends since.

On Tuesday, Leno said he grew suspicious when he began receiving overly effusive voice mail messages from the boy in 2000. He said he thought it strange that a 12-year-old would tell a comedian in his 50s that he was his hero.

"I'm not Batman," Leno said, to laughter throughout the courtroom.

Leno said the boy left so many messages that he finally approached comedian Louise Palanker, a friend who was among several comedians helping the boy's family.

"I said, 'What's the story here? This doesn't sound like a 12-year-old. This seems a little scripted,'" Leno testified.

___

AP Special Correspondent Linda Deutsch contributed to this report.

Marrk said:

I don't get it?
What do you think is going to happen should he be acquitted?

How's it going to work when they make their verdict? Do they all have to agree on the decision or do they go with the majority?

I think it really should be mandatory for the defendant to go to the witness stand if the US court system would make any sense. Of course, if they think pleading "not guilty" is sufficient enough then fine.

MattyJam said:

It's either all 12 saying "guilty" or you're out.

Marrk said:

Sneddon needed new smoke to shout "fire." MJ's continued behavior with boys, culminating in his creepy carrying on with Gavin and admissions in the doc, gave him the new smoke he needed to go after MJ. Period.




You're missing the point. Even if all that is true, if MJ doesn't sleep with the boy, and do the doc, and make himself look like a pervert on television, Sneddon would never have gotten past a grand jury. Even if what you say is true, it was a setup and MJ fell for it.

(why MJ fell for the bait is a story for another day.)

mmm lots happen...

It was a trap, but who's trap was it?
Sneddon's?
The Arvizo Family?
Bashir?

Was it Mj's foolhardy lifestyle that ignited this?
befriend so many people, and then forget about them...

Was it Sneddon's lust to hunt after Jackson?

Martin Bashir's Poor journalism?

Or just a combination of everything...

I don't know, but i seriously hope they all have learned their lesson

Lov4onoeanotha - where have you been?


Some pictures, guys!

dag said:

Wen't on hiatus to south america on a field study, and i have been recording non-stop

Its nice though when people actually realize when your gone

sounds cool.

OF course I´ll notice. You´re one of my favourite ppl to talk to here.

dag said:

AWWWWW
that warms my cold evil heart, thanks

you´re sooooo welcome....


I am starting getting nervous for Mike, guys. Not that I wouldn´t believe in his innocence, but you never know.....OH PLZ GOD, DON´T LET HIM GO TO JAIL!! PLZ!! PLZ!!!!

Cheer me up, someone!!!!

dag said:

Don't worry,
if he's found guilty
he'll get an appeal
Attorney General, Bill Lockyear already issued a statement that he will investigate the matter
because of Sneddon's History with Jury Tampering

i doubt that anything will be found

This is by Roger who writes nonsence sometimes, but in case it´s true. here´s an article.
FOX 411: Jackson Accuser's Mom Had $20K Deal for Story


Created: Wednesday, 25 May 2005


Wednesday, May 25, 2005

By Roger Friedman

A contract for $20,000 between two British tabloid reporters and the mother and stepfather of Michael Jackson's accuser has surfaced.

The reporters, Alec Byrne and David Gardner, had recently thought they would be called as defense witnesses in the Jackson child molestation case and were all set to bring in this vital document.

When the accuser's mother, Janet Arvizo, testified for the prosecution, she told the jury she "wasn't the kind of person" to sell her story — but apparently she was indeed.

In fact, Byrne and Gardner only got photographs of the Arvizo family, which were published abroad, because while looking for Janet Arvizo, they first went to her mother's house in El Monte, Calif., back on Feb. 4, 2003.

That was the day after the Martin Bashir documentary "Living With Michael Jackson" aired in Britain.

Arvizo's mother, Maria Ventura, who speaks only Spanish, put the reporters on the phone with her daughter.

When Arvizo learned the men wanted to buy her story, she exclaimed, "You are my angels" and instructed her mother to give the men pictures she had of her grandchildren.

Arvizo then gave the reporters a few quotes, which were used in the story that was published that weekend in the U.K. and in Australia.

So why has this story not surfaced in the Jackson trial? After all, it would undermine the testimony of both Arvizo and her husband, Jay Jackson.

That the sale of the story did not take place is a missing link which comedian Chris Tucker may explain today in court.

Evidently, Arvizo called Tucker when she had the reporters up to $20,000.

In his testimony, Jay Jackson said the offer was only $15,000, and that he turned it down.

However, Tucker is likely to say that at that point in the negotiations, Arvizo wanted to find Michael Jackson.

If her story was worth that much to the Brits, she might have figured her silence would be worth as much, or more, to Michael Jackson.

The reporters say that when they came to meet Arvizo at the appointed time a couple of days later, she had vanished.

Tucker should testify to his end of the story. The defense, which has not been strong on outlining the timeline in the case, may or may not be able to put this together for the weary jury.

Why Byrne and Gardner were not called remains a mystery of this trial. They could have easily impeached the testimony of both Jay Jackson and Arvizo. The article published abroad would have been a damning bit of evidence.

Important Videotape Missing

Where is the "secret" videotape that was shot of the packing and moving of the Arvizo family in the Michael Jackson case?

It was not played by the prosecution when it unveiled surveillance videos of the family made by Mark Geragos' private investigator, Brad Miller, several weeks ago.

Where is this tape? Why hasn't it been shown? Does the defense even know about it?

Suddenly this much-talked-about move is about to come back into the Jackson trial as an issue.

On Thursday, I've learned, District Attorney Tom Sneddon, desperate to rehabilitate the much debased conspiracy charge against Jackson, will bring in the mover who put the Arvizos' things into storage.

All of Dino's Moving and Storage records have been subpoenaed as well. This could all backfire for the prosecution, because among the papers is said to be a June 2003 letter from Miller to Arvizo attorney William Dickerman releasing the storage vaults back to the Arvizos. Geragos is carbon-copied on it.

If the letter appears and makes it into evidence, Sneddon may have a lot of explaining to do. He raided Miller's office months later because he said he thought Miller worked for Michael Jackson. The letter, sources say, would prove Sneddon knew otherwise.

Then there's the family's famous stay at the Country Inn and Suites in Calabasas, Calif. Why haven't the receipts from that little adventure come into play for the defense?

This column was the first to reveal Janet Arvizo's numerous phone calls to family and friends during her "kidnapping."

And here's something else we haven't seen presented: Arvizo demanded that Miller buy her a set of red Kipling luggage for the trip to Calabasas. She was very specific about the brand and color.

"She didn't want people to see her things in plastic bags," a source said.

The defense has the receipts, I am told.

Sneddon has asked to analyze more of Geragos' phone records in a last-ditch effort to pump up the conspiracy. But did no one ever ask to see the Neverland phone records between Feb. 20 and March 12, 2003? They would show innumerable calls to numbers well known to the prosecution: Janet Arvizo's friends and family.

As for Dickerman: If all the issues involving him return during the rebuttal, it would be interesting to see him come back and answer some of the questions I posed in yesterday's column.

To wit: He testified that his first meeting with Janet Arvizo was on Feb. 25, 2003. But Arvizo herself said she met him in his office on the 21st in his Century City office, and then again on the 25th at the Laugh Factory.

At neither time did she mention she had been kidnapped or was being held hostage. Dickerman, an officer of the court, never picked up the phone and called the police or the FBI.

You would think a Hollywood lawyer who has to meet his client in a comedy club on the sly might have asked one or two questions more than Dickerman said he did on the stand. My guess is he did.

Booking Picture Tells Many Stories

Yesterday's testimonial double punch of the paralegal and attorney who were hired by Janet Arvizo to represent her in her lawsuit against J.C. Penney, in which she got a settlement of $152,000, was powerful stuff.

Mary Holzer testified that Arvizo told her that the pictures in which she appeared battered and bruised from head to toe, and which she and her husband submitted as evidence in the J.C Penney case, were faked.

Arvizo told her she got the bruises not from the J.C. Penney security guards, but from her own husband.

Holzer said also Arvizo mentioned that her brother-in-law was in the Mexican mafia and could have Holzer and her kids killed if she spilled the beans.

The lawyer who worked on the case testified that he was shocked when the case finally got to court and Arvizo said she had been sexually molested by the J.C. Penney guards.

In 25 conversations about the incident, Arvizo had never mentioned it to him. He also concluded that he had been fooled by her.

Holzer's story made the most sense. You may recall that when the prosecution showed the pictures of a battered Arvizo a few weeks ago, we wrote that they were not from the J.C. Penney incident. Knowledgeable sources told us about that right away.

Luckily, the Drudge Report published Janet Arvizo's mug shot from the Penney's arrest, which showed no signs of bruises. That's because the bruises came later.

FOX NEWS






that anything will be found against Sneddon or Michael?

dag said:

against sneddon, i don't think he's that stupid...

but ya never know

Luv4oneanotha said:

You addressed all of the possibilities except the saddest of them all.