Krytonite said:

You know damn well what I'm talking about.... the SICK Jacko fans... and I mean "sick" in a bad way...

LightOfArt said:

Unbe-FUCKIN-lievable!!!

People suck...

Chico319 said:

Wow, Prince looks just like... Debbie.

SassyBritches said:

Before I comment, I first want to say that I'm not a fan of Sneddon. I also want to add that the state's case could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, so Michael DESERVED the verdict he got. However, I'm not gonna jump in on the Sneddon-bashing, or even suggest that the case should NOT have been heard before the court regardless of Mesereau's and other’s criticisms concerning monies spent, collection of evidence, and “ridiculous” charges. I know the "standard" is lower, but there was a pre-trial hearing in matter AS A WHOLE, and the decision was made to proceed. So yes, an exorbitant amount of tax-payer dollars was spent to present the state’s case, but also Michael spent quite sum of money himself , probably more than in an average defense case. So maybe the state was in the position of fighting fire with fire.

As far as the specific case is concerned, I saw Mesereau being interviewed last night on Larry King, and of course now he is starting with this "malicious prosecution" stuff against Sneddon while at the same time commending Judge Melville. That statement is inherently contradictory. The deal is I just read on old article about the defense's motion to dismiss the case during the preliminary hearing, primarily based upon the over-zealous search conducted at Neverland: Judge Melville rejected the motion. He also rejected evidentiary motions to suppress during the trial in regard to the evidence that was collected during that time as well as other types of "inflammatory" evidence, specifically the adult material. Judge Melville also allowed the 1108 evidence to be heard after the case-in-chief. So I would think that if this malicious prosecution case went forward that some of Judge Melville's decisions would be questioned as well.

On Larry King, I also heard Mesereau flat-out deny allegations made in this and other cases that Michael ever "shared his bed" with the boys. Well, that is NOT true. Michael himself admitted that he engaged in this practice during the Bashir documentary. He said that "sharing a bed with someone was the most loving thing a person could do." That is why the Jackson camp was frantically trying to do some damage-control after the documentary was aired. Furthermore while denying molestation, even DEFENSE witnesses admitted to sleeping in the same bed with Michael. I guess in victory, Mesereau has a selective memory, when now defending his client’s “judgment” in the media. Ironically, he complained about Court TV’s biased misrepresentation of the FACTS, but now isn’t Mesereau guilty of the same?

In addition, Meseareau said that Michael Jackson had NEVER molested any boy. Well, that very well MIGHT BE true, but during the trial there was at least ONE “youth-leader” direct witness who yes, received a large settlement, but also came forward to say that Michael DID molest him. And although Jordie Chandler declined, his mother testified that Michael had indeed molested her son. Therefore, by adamantly defending Michael's innocence in all matters, then is Meseareau also implying that these witnesses perjured themselves? Yes, these people received settlements, but at the same time, Michael agreed to settle. So for me one is no less suspicious than the other. Interestingly, I believe the late, great Johnnie Cohran was responsible for advising a settlement in the Chandler case. So is Mesereau indirectly criticizing the esteemed late TRIAL attorney’s legal counsel?

Finally, on this Larry King interview, Mesereau described Michael in saint-like terms. However, I don't really care about the defense team’s spin concerning Michael's damaged reputation because Michael is NOT guiltless in this matter. I'm not suggesting that he is definitely a pedophile, but some of Michael's self-admitted behavior was suspect. In fact, even some of the jurors even said that they couldn't say FOR SURE that Michael WASN'T a pedophile based upon the evidence heard in the state's case. There WAS compelling testimony from the 1108 victims that came forward. I would even go so far as to suggest that if the state had focused on the child molestation charges rather trying to bring in more evidence with the other charges, then the decision may have been much closer: there was an alleged victim, an eyewitness, other prior accusers to establish a sort of pattern, and questionable behavior and incriminating admissions by Michael himself. The time-line issues and mother's credibility would NOT have been quite as pronounced.

Consequently, I'm not going to accept Mesereau’s one-sided complaints, then completely blame Sneddon for even bringing the case, and subsequently absolve Michael from the ultimate responsibility for getting himself in this precarious position in the first place.. Frankly, I’m a little tired of this continuing trend by members of the Jackson family and other celebrities in general of blaming everyone’s reactions to their misjudgment as unreasonable rather than accepting any shred of responsibility for their behavior, then having the audacity of taking on the role of martyrs. I’m a fan of their ART, but I’m starting to become a disillusioned with their egos. At one point, it would be nice if someone from their camp would just admit that the Michael made a mistake. I’m not talking about references to being “forced” into changing behavior because casual observers, prosecution teams, and the media, etc., are " out to get" Michael and then the Jackson clan by default. God, I do feel quite sorry for multi-millionaire celebrities who more often than not are given "free-passes" and/or special treatment in other situations. They have such a tough lives, particularly when challenged to be held accountable for their actions just like the rest of us. The realization that they,too, are members of our little "common-folk" community must be very traumatic.

That said, it's obvious that Sneddon is NOT a Michael Jackson fan, and his personal feelings may have clouded his judgment. And if very well might be rue that the D.A. had "delusions" of grandeur in regard to taking-down a celebrity in a John Wayne sort of way. However, Sneddon was not solely responsible for the decision to pursue this case. Furthermore, there WAS obviously enough "smoke" in this case to be brought before the court just based upon the accuser's story and past allegations alone in spite of credibility issues. Isn’t it the jury’s ultimate responsibility to decide whose story is “credible” with consideration to the facts in ANY case. The JUDGE responds to questions or matters of law. If there HAD been a smoking-gun, I’m sure Mesereau would have advised Michael to plead guilty because there would have been NO WAY OUT. True, details of the conspiracy charge read like piece of fiction, but ultimately THE COURT allowed the prosecution to proceed with its entire case-in-chief, warts and all.

In the REAL world, the progression of the case would have proceeded in the same way: investigation ,collection of evidence, and evaluation by the state; then grand jury or preliminary hearing depending upon the state’s decision to go forward, and a trial if deem warranted from that initial hearing regardless of the sometimes “outlandish” details of the charges. So as much as I admire Tom Mesereau and dislike Sneddon, Mesereau can’t have it both ways: In attacking Sneddon's charges, then he also indirectly suggests that the court was just as much at fault.
[Edited 6/15/05 6:54am]

I'm just glad this is all over.Time to move on!

I stopped reading at this point

he just didnt

LightOfArt said:

I know it's long, but I was pissed. And by the way, Mesereau DID deny that Michael ever said the he shared his bed with boys. He said that that Michael only shared his bedroom.

Sorry for the length, but I just had to vent.

Isel said:

he didnt say Michael 'didnt sharhe his bed with boys'.he only pointed out that he has a big bedroom. he said on another program that sleep overs need to stop so he isnt denying it

You raise some interesting points, Isel.

Tito and Jermaine will be on tonight. Wonder what they'll have to say. Comedians joke that the family left the courthouse with the screw-face and when they got Michael home they probably laid into him. I'm betting that they didn't.

Isel said:

[Edited 6/15/05 7:08am]

hey...he shouldnt have payed off the first person that file against him

I agree he shouldn't have paid the first family off although I could understand why he did. However, what's the point in paying off when you're going to continue to do the same thing. Sorta makes no point.

Isel said:

good points, but there was no pre-trial hearing, which is done in virtually all crimes of this nature. Sneddon took this to a grand jury. In 1993 Sneddon also took the chandler case to a SB Grand Jury, but they didn't indict.

Stymie said:

U may admire MLK or NM I dont they dont have any significance in my life, I couldnt care less when they were born, freed or died (i know NM is still alive btw no need to point that out) MJ does, I am a person in the world that it has effected so in my eyes it's an historic event - some would say you were ignorant for trying to brush it under the carpet - you were probably one of the people who asked for a trial so that he could be judged & sentenced and didnt like the outcome - get over it. Monday June 13th 2005 was a monumental day to alot of people & even ignorant people like you will never be able to take that away!

LightOfArt said:

quote from Mesereau (Larry King Live transcripts) concerning Michael sharing his bed with boys:

"MESEREAU: Well, first of all, Larry, this notion that he sleeps with boys was a concoction by the prosecution. What he said very openly was that he allows families into his room.

Now, his room is the size of a duplex. It's two levels. He's had mothers sleep there, fathers sleep there, sisters sleep there, brothers sleep there. The prosecution concocted this little saying about sleeping with boys, because they thought it would turn off the jury, and they failed. "

quote from Larry Kind live concerning prior acts:

"KING: I would imagine. We had one of the -- we had the foremen on last night. We also had one of the jurors who said he believed that Michael Jackson was or is a pedophile. It's just that this prosecution didn't prove this case. How do you react to a statement like that?

MESEREAU: Well, I think he's wrong. Michael Jackson is not a pedophile. He's never been a pedophile. The prosecution has spent years trying to put together a story which they hoped they could prove and failed to prove. Michael Jackson is not a pedophile. He's never molested a child, nor would he ever even conceive of doing such a thing.

KING: So these were concocted stories?

MESEREAU: Well, certainly, they were concocted by the main accusers, and certainly, the prosecution tried to create the impression that other people were molested. And they all came in and said they weren't. "
[Edited 6/15/05 8:14am]

lilgish said:

A New York Times article that I read mentioned thatthis motion to dismiss took place during the "pre-trial hearing"??

Judge Rejects Jackson Dismissal

Published: December 21, 2004, Tuesday

"A judge rejected a defense motion to dismiss the child molesting case against Michael Jackson. A defense lawyer, Robert M. Sanger, said the authorities had violated Mr. Jackson's rights by executing more than 100 search warrants. Prosecutors said 92 warrants were for business records and did not involve searches of Mr. Jackson's property. Judge Rodney S. Melville of Superior Court in Santa Barbara made the ruling at a pretrial hearing. Mr. Sanger also asked to delay the start of the trial for three months, saying prosecutors had ''sandbagged'' the defense by turning over incorrect and misspelled witness names. The errors caused defense lawyers to think initially that a pornography star was being called as a witness, Mr. Sanger said. District Attorney Thomas W. Sneddon Jr. said the names should have been easily recognizable. The judge denied the request for a delay. "

The bottom line is that the case was allowed to proceed because there was an indictment based upon the evidence. In regard to the Chandler allegations, I thought that Sneddon was allegedly angry that Cochran pulled the rug out from under him by settling??? I don't believe that formal charges were ever even filed?

Whatever the situation might be, I'm gonna let it go now, though, coz it's over. I was just disppointed in Mesereau's remarks last night, so I came here to vent. I really admire him and his defense, but I just didn't agree with this "malicious prosecution" asssertion and obviously some other stuff if you look at my long post.

I don't think I'm even gonna watch Tito and Jermaine tonight, coz it will probably get me all riled up again, and I really do want to be happy for Michael, believe it or not.
[Edited 6/15/05 20:13pm]

Isel said:

yeah looks like he's denying it

but it sounds to me as if he's making it clear that his bedroom was no just open for boys but everyone. and he's saying that prosecution did try to make it seem like only boys were allowed.



referring to Culkin, Barnes and Robson I guess

I will agree with Mez about the word choice and/or semantics. If I remember correctly, Michael said that he "shared his bed" with boys. Of course, the phrase "sleeping with boys" has a more negative connotation. However, the fact remains that there were underaged boys sharing Michael's bed. The opportunity for impropriety occurred, regardless of any innocent intentions.

JackieBlue said:

Seeing these children breaks my heart....

Now that the singer has been cleared of all the child molestation charges against him, the word is that he will proceed with a lawsuit against the documentary maker whose footage started the whole case. Martin Bashir’s interviews, broadcast in the UK and in the U.S., caught Jackson on camera admitting that he shared his bed with boys. Jackson is “expected” to sue both Bashir and the U.K. network that did the program, according to This Is London, because they “had broken a promise to allow the star to vet the program.” Although some Jackson watchers believe that he just wants the whole mess behind him, others say it’s a necessary step if he wants to completely clear his name.

Bashir’s office wouldn’t comment on the report and Jackson’s rep couldn’t be reached for comment.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8133746/

interestingarticle from imdb.com:

lilgish said:

lilgish said:

CinisterCee said:

Janet Jackson's put some weight on.

Step to the side people, I'm about to back a bitch up.

in the other thread Sassy said (and caught some flack for) :


I believe this as well. I think both he and MJ are guilty but a trial is supposed to be beyond doubt and in neither case did they have substantial proof. I have had a major problem with the Peterson case because it was all circumstancial and while I think there was much more concrete evidence to convict MJ, I trust that the jury went with the facts of this case. And I do applaud them for it, even though I still think MJ has molested boys.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

is this the first or second time we've ever agreed on something?

SassyBritches said:

What do you think this is for

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

they sho' nuff are flying around today!

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Concrete evidence? WTF?! Where??? :

can i safely assume you didn't follow the trial too closely then Supa?