Since: Jun 13

Durham, NC

#57 Oct 9, 2013
Len is Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>
Scary lot, aren't they?
Very. smh And very delusional.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#58 Oct 9, 2013
Butterballs wrote:
<quoted text>
It's rather odd that Pedophone the one who claims the judge rejected it because he didn't want it becoming a "case within a case" has given this thread a wide berth.
I guess he or she cannot dispute the evidence that you have presented.
I was hoping he/she would comment. Perhaps the proof it was a match is too indisputable, now that even f'loons can see the judge, himself, agreed all of it matched. Even Jermaine has been strangely quiet about this one.

We'll see if Pedophone will mention the two grand juries who rejected it, as a match.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#59 Oct 9, 2013
BadMan84 wrote:
<quoted text>
Very. smh And very delusional.
The more documentation sane people reveal to them, the angrier they become. I suppose it's not easy when a deeply felt religious belief is proven false.
FOREVER MICHAEL

London, UK

#60 Oct 9, 2013
When are you jerks going to listen to the truth
Its been all set up and totally false
I dont care what any of you say
I dont listen to crap.
Michael the most honest person
I trust him.and Innocent man
Who these circus of clowns made up lies and gossip.for money.and to get in to the headlines

Michael is so sweet and precious. And a wonderfil kind caring

I Love you MJ

“Evolution is fab!”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#61 Oct 10, 2013
Len is Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>
I was hoping he/she would comment. Perhaps the proof it was a match is too indisputable, now that even f'loons can see the judge, himself, agreed all of it matched. Even Jermaine has been strangely quiet about this one.
We'll see if Pedophone will mention the two grand juries who rejected it, as a match.
Yes, they've been awfully quiet, especially the child hater, Pedophone. I'm surprised he/she/it hasn't attacked the judge and started making wild and insane claims about him.

I guess the silence speaks for itself.

“Evolution is fab!”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#62 Oct 10, 2013
FOREVER MICHAEL wrote:
When are you jerks going to listen to the truth
Its been all set up and totally false
I dont care what any of you say
I dont listen to crap.
Michael the most honest person
I trust him.and Innocent man
Who these circus of clowns made up lies and gossip.for money.and to get in to the headlines
Michael is so sweet and precious. And a wonderfil kind caring
I Love you MJ
We have been listening to the truth, Forever Michael. It's all in the legal documents what that creep got up to and the hundreds of nights he spent in bed with unrelated little boys. We've now also heard about his long drug abuse from the Jackson/AEG trial, where AEG were found "NOT GUILTY".

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#64 Oct 10, 2013
FOREVER MICHAEL wrote:
When are you jerks going to listen to the truth
Its been all set up and totally false
I dont care what any of you say
I dont listen to crap.
Michael the most honest person
I trust him.and Innocent man
Who these circus of clowns made up lies and gossip.for money.and to get in to the headlines
Michael is so sweet and precious. And a wonderfil kind caring
I Love you MJ
Of course you call legal documents crap. They expose your god as a false idol.
EIHN

Coventry, UK

#65 Oct 14, 2013
Len is Disgusted wrote:
F'loons insist Judge Melville wouldn't allow the drawing, description, and photos of Michael's spotted pecker into court because it would turn it into a "case within a case." But what did Melville really say? Why, it's right here, in these transcripts, from the 26th of May, 2005.
On pages 43 - 45, the judge denies admission of the evidence on grounds shyness was not an issue of his character, per 1101(b), Character Evidence, and the prejudicial impact of the evidence on the jury would outweigh the shyness issue, and the Crawford case applies to the fact Jordan would have to be cross-examined in order to admit it. This would have been Mesereau's perfect time to subpoena Jordan Chandler.
However, on page 45, the judge stated to the D.A., and I quote: "...your analysis is I think correct, I keep going through it, but I think it is not hearsay."
The judge cannot give his own opinion on evidence. When he said analysis, he was most likely referring the case cited by whom he was speaking to.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#66 Oct 14, 2013
EIHN wrote:
<quoted text>
The judge cannot give his own opinion on evidence. When he said analysis, he was most likely referring the case cited by whom he was speaking to.
*guffaw*

He was looking at the evidence and weighing the pros and cons, with the different aspects presented to him by both attorneys. This was to determine whether or not the evidence should be brought into court. He certainly was entitled to comment on the evidence itself, especially between lawyers. And he did. He also said, on page 43, in his reasons for not admitting the drawing, description, and photos into court, on grounds of shyness, Section 1101(b), "...evidence of the blemished penis." This preceded his comment on page 45, "I think -- even though your analysis is I think correct, I keep going through it, but I think it is not hearsay." Mesereau wanted to keep the material out of court, by saying one without the other is hearsay.

There is nothing further to dispute.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#67 Oct 14, 2013
As an afterthought, Zonen's comments, beginning on page 41, were quite interesting. The entire discussion is interesting.
FOREVER MICHAEL

UK

#69 Oct 15, 2013
Complete garbadge.you tell me why it took.more than 70 officers to raid neverland..how would any of you like strangers filthy hands going through you stuff.doors were broken down in the raid.mattresses slashed,Journals books videos were taken away in box loads.officers looked under beds.in desks and closets.rummaging through personal belongings..even worse was yet to come.the humilation of being strip searched.in which photos were taken of his body parts.in which nothing was a match.and there wasnt one piece of evidence.they were trying to pin something on him..but found nothing.

Two grand juries questioned close to 200 witnesses..includes 30 children who knew Michael
Not a single witness could be found.the accuser himself refused to testify in 1993 then again in 2005.the documents you keep talking about.were well though out by him and sneddon.all planned and set up.sneddon was out to get him.so this is the only thing they could pin on him.com plete crap

Miss Michael so much.I would give anything to have him back.but sometimes you think to yourself
Nobody can hurt him any more..I wish he had faked his death.he would still be here.happliy with his children.and happy.that what the sweet man deserves.Leave him alone.not one of you know anything about him.Michaels not here to tell you the truth he is Innocent.and defend himself
Give some respect for this wonderful man
I am right behind him all the way..

Michael Jackson I Love you precious sweet baby
persephone

Mountain View, CA

#70 Oct 15, 2013
Len is Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>
*guffaw*
He was looking at the evidence and weighing the pros and cons, with the different aspects presented to him by both attorneys. This was to determine whether or not the evidence should be brought into court. He certainly was entitled to comment on the evidence itself, especially between lawyers. And he did. He also said, on page 43, in his reasons for not admitting the drawing, description, and photos into court, on grounds of shyness, Section 1101(b), "...evidence of the blemished penis." This preceded his comment on page 45, "I think -- even though your analysis is I think correct, I keep going through it, but I think it is not hearsay." Mesereau wanted to keep the material out of court, by saying one without the other is hearsay.
There is nothing further to dispute.
Nothing in Melville's (or Mesereau's) statements indicates that either thought it was a match.

Furthermore, introduciing the drawings would only have sidetracked the current case--it really shouldn't be that hard for you to understand.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#71 Oct 15, 2013
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> Nothing in Melville's (or Mesereau's) statements indicates that either thought it was a match.
Furthermore, introduciing the drawings would only have sidetracked the current case--it really shouldn't be that hard for you to understand.
Your stubborn attempt to deny the obvious is trying my patience. What is the matter with you? Why do you have such a stake in this?

To begin with, had the drawing, description, and photos possessed the the ability to create prejudice among the jury, Jason Francia, the other child Michael molested, would have also been viewed as a detractor from the current case. The prosecutor made the mistake of not introducing the evidence under Section 1108, Prior Bad Acts, before the trial was underway. Under that rule, it would have been absolutely legitimate to bring it into court. But the judge was correct in ruling against bringing it into court, under Section 1101(b), Character Evidence, at such a late date. You are correct in that it would have been too sensational, at that point. But you are also incorrect because it would have been legitimate to introduce it, at the beginning of the trial. It would have also been a prime opportunity to subpoena Jordan Chandler and put him on the witness stand.

But let's look at the discussion between the judge and the attorneys, together, which was to determine whether or not the evidence should be introduced at a late date. The actual conversation about this particular evidence (Exhibit 901) begins on page 29 and was completed before the jury came into the room.

http://www.mjfacts.info/transcripts/Court_Tra...

On page 33, is where the defense argued it was not originally introduced under Section 1108, Prior Bad Acts, and that it fell under 1101(b), Character Evidence. It is also where he stated it was being introduced too late in the trial, which would cause the material to be sensational. On pages 33 - 41, is the defense's further arguments about said reasons. He also stated the question of Michael undressing was in regards to a maid seeing him change his shirt, which had nothing to do with his "shy and modest" nature.

On page 38, the defense said, in comparison to the Crawford case, "But when you get right down to it, the main reason that it has to stay out is it violates Crawford and the confrontation clause. Itís not admissible hearsay."

The prosecutor replied, on page 43 after initial discussion, "In this particular case, itís the type of information that was not commonly available at the time, and circumstantially it would be relevant for the fact that he must have seen that particular spot, and therefore itís not testimonial. Itís not communication in that regard. It would not fit within Crawford. Itís simply not hearsay."

I'm going to give you the direct quote from the judge, after he gave his first reason for rejecting the evidence from court (the shyness issue), and it is, "And secondly, I think -- even though your analysis is I think correct, I keep going through it, but I think it is not hearsay. I still think Crawford would apply to the ability to cross-examine the boy -- or the -- you know, Mr. Chandler."

So there is, Pedophone. The judge saw the evidence and knew it was a match, not just hearsay. Neither the judge nor any of the attorneys said the child's drawing and description did not match the photos.

Do keep in mind the defense never said it wasn't a match, in his original rebuttal. He said introducing the drawing and description without the photos would make the statement it matched mere hearsay. Click on the link, below.

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/0...

Now, please explain why it so personally important for you to protect a notorious pedophile who got away with child molestation. I would genuinely like to know.

“Evolution is fab!”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#73 Oct 16, 2013
FOREVER MICHAEL wrote:
mattresses slashed.
Come on now, they were only cutting out the semen stains on Wacko Jacko's bed.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#74 Oct 17, 2013
Butterballs wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on now, they were only cutting out the semen stains on Wacko Jacko's bed.
I always find it curious f'loons seem to think there was something indecent and inappropriate about officers of the law, with the proper search warrants, raiding a place when somebody has been arrested and is facing allegations of criminal behavior.

Is there such a thing as rehab for rabid fans addicted to the jesus-juice spiked kool-aid?

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#75 Oct 17, 2013
Len is Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>
I always find it curious f'loons seem to think there was something indecent and inappropriate about officers of the law, with the proper search warrants, raiding a place when somebody has been arrested and is facing allegations of criminal behavior.
Is there such a thing as rehab for rabid fans addicted to the jesus-juice spiked kool-aid?
Stop hyour stupid spam Len...leave Michael alone. He is DEAD DEAD DEAD..let him rest.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#76 Oct 17, 2013
Jermaine 7 wrote:
<quoted text>Stop hyour stupid spam Len...leave Michael alone. He is DEAD DEAD DEAD..let him rest.
Then leave his victims alone. Leave the people who had the courage to point out he was a pedophile alone.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#77 Oct 17, 2013
Len is Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>
Then leave his victims alone. Leave the people who had the courage to point out he was a pedophile alone.
There are no victims. YOU leave his family ...friends and fans alone.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#78 Oct 17, 2013
Jermaine 7 wrote:
<quoted text>There are no victims. YOU leave his family ...friends and fans alone.
The legal documents prove otherwise, even though you don't want to admit it.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#80 Oct 18, 2013
Jermaine 7 wrote:
<quoted text>There are no victims. YOU leave his family ...friends and fans alone.
You have no proof that MJ was innocent, so if you dont like people calling him a pedo, then you have no right to discredit any potential victim

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Michael Jackson Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News A Rabbi Remembers His Relationship With Michael... 4 min MJFRIEND 126
Wacko's good friend Greville Janner 13 min MJFRIEND 78
Child Molestation Expert: Victims Can Take 20 t... 5 hr Octopus 262
News Claim: Michael Jackson Paid at Least $200M to S... 6 hr Octopus 341
Angry deluded f'loon trolls a thread 14 hr Lisa 3
Michael Jackson Chat Room! (Dec '12) 16 hr Lisa 42
News Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch could be your... Sat Len is Disgusted 46
More from around the web