Mike's In trouble

[tabby]

Gua said:

It does seem like a waste of time

.. I can imagine that this is the work of some perfectionist bureaucrat :laughing Just following the steps in the book ;D

[Beej]

I disagree with the notion that the judge acted improperly.

Judge Melville not only has the right, but the obligation to maintain control of his courtroom. If he feels Michael Jackson -- who has a history of odd, disruptive behavior -- is mocking the court or delaying the court's business in an unjustified manner, he's well within reason to reprimand the defendant in accordance with the law.

I mean, if I'm scheduled to report for jury duty and I'm a no-show, a bench warrant will be issued and a Deputy will be dispatched by the court to arrest me. I'd hope a defendant in a child molestation case would be held to at least that same standard.

Michael had an obligation to inform the court of his problem and his intentions immediately -- not have his attorney issue a statement just minutes prior to the jury being seated -- at which point the judge would determine whether or not his excuse was valid. As it turned out, Michael's back didn't hurt bad enough to keep him from making it to court after all.

So, he wasted over an hour of the court's time...which would aggravate any judge.

Judge Melville's actions, I believe, were intended to send the message to Michael that outlandish behavior and delay tactics will not be tolerated while he's presiding over this case. Try as he might, Michael will not turn this into a circus; he'll have to sit there and face reality...for once.



Is he guilty? I don't know. My gut tells me he's a middle-aged homosexual pedophile who has the means, opportunity and popularity to target boys from families with questionable backgrounds. That's, generally, what predators do.

Then again, he may be completely innocent of all charges...just displaying acts of kindness and love above and beyond what one would usually expect.

I don't know which is true, but I'm certain I'd never let a child in my family anywhere near the man.


Lucky for him, "weirdness" is not a capital offense...otherwise, he'd be sitting on death row as we speak.

[Debbie]

Beej said:

I disagree with the notion that the judge acted improperly.

Judge Melville not only has the right, but the obligation to maintain control of his courtroom. If he feels Michael Jackson -- who has a history of odd, disruptive behavior -- is mocking the court or delaying the court's business in an unjustified manner, he's well within reason to reprimand the defendant in accordance with the law.

I mean, if I'm scheduled to report for jury duty and I'm a no-show, a bench warrant will be issued and a Deputy will be dispatched by the court to arrest me. I'd hope a defendant in a child molestation case would be held to at least that same standard.

Michael had an obligation to inform the court of his problem and his intentions immediately -- not have his attorney issue a statement just minutes prior to the jury being seated -- at which point the judge would determine whether or not his excuse was valid. As it turned out, Michael's back didn't hurt bad enough to keep him from making it to court after all.

So, he wasted over an hour of the court's time...which would aggravate any judge.

Judge Melville's actions, I believe, were intended to send the message to Michael that outlandish behavior and delay tactics will not be tolerated while he's presiding over this case. Try as he might, Michael will not turn this into a circus; he'll have to sit there and face reality...for once.



Is he guilty? I don't know. My gut tells me he's a middle-aged homosexual pedophile who has the means, opportunity and popularity to target boys from families with questionable backgrounds. That's, generally, what predators do.

Then again, he may be completely innocent of all charges...just displaying acts of kindness and love above and beyond what one would usually expect.

I don't know which is true, but I'm certain I'd never let a child in my family anywhere near the man.


Lucky for him, "weirdness" is not a capital offense...otherwise, he'd be sitting on death row as we speak.

Well said Beej !

[Gua]

Beej said:

I disagree with the notion that the judge acted improperly.

Judge Melville not only has the right, but the obligation to maintain control of his courtroom. If he feels Michael Jackson -- who has a history of odd, disruptive behavior -- is mocking the court or delaying the court's business in an unjustified manner, he's well within reason to reprimand the defendant in accordance with the law.

I mean, if I'm scheduled to report for jury duty and I'm a no-show, a bench warrant will be issued and a Deputy will be dispatched by the court to arrest me. I'd hope a defendant in a child molestation case would be held to at least that same standard.

Michael had an obligation to inform the court of his problem and his intentions immediately -- not have his attorney issue a statement just minutes prior to the jury being seated -- at which point the judge would determine whether or not his excuse was valid. As it turned out, Michael's back didn't hurt bad enough to keep him from making it to court after all.

So, he wasted over an hour of the court's time...which would aggravate any judge.

Judge Melville's actions, I believe, were intended to send the message to Michael that outlandish behavior and delay tactics will not be tolerated while he's presiding over this case. Try as he might, Michael will not turn this into a circus; he'll have to sit there and face reality...for once.



Is he guilty? I don't know. My gut tells me he's a middle-aged homosexual pedophile who has the means, opportunity and popularity to target boys from families with questionable backgrounds. That's, generally, what predators do.

Then again, he may be completely innocent of all charges...just displaying acts of kindness and love above and beyond what one would usually expect.

I don't know which is true, but I'm certain I'd never let a child in my family anywhere near the man.


Lucky for him, "weirdness" is not a capital offense...otherwise, he'd be sitting on death row as we speak.

I don't disagree with any of this. This judge seems to be a no-nonsense kind of guy. If Mike is proven guilty (and it looks bad so far) this judge will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.
BTW, I think Mike is way past "weird"

[MissTara]

.

[Gua]

Accuser Told Dean Jackson Did Nothing

2 hours, 29 minutes ago

By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent

SANTA MARIA, Calif. - Depicting Michael Jackson (news)'s accuser as vengeful and angry over being evicted from the Neverland Ranch, the pop star's attorney suggested that the boy made up a story of abuse to get even.


Under cross-examination, the boy's testimony consumed a full day on the witness stand Monday. He also was confronted with his own statements to a school official that Jackson "didn't do anything to me."

Prosecutors allege Jackson, 46, plied the boy with alcohol and molested him at Neverland in 2003. The child molestation trial was expected to resume Tuesday.

Jackson, who was threatened with arrest last week when he failed to appear in court on time, arrived on schedule Monday. He wore a stylish red jacket with a black armband and black slacks.

The boy, now 15, said he envisioned a future with Jackson as a mentor. But the Neverland idyll that began when the boy had cancer ended with the family being delivered by limousine to a grandmother's house.

When the time came to leave, the boy acknowledged, his mother was anxious to go but "I wanted to stay there."

Earlier, the teenager was asked about conversations he had with Jeffrey Alpert, the dean at John Burroughs Middle School in Los Angeles, where the boy had a history of acting up in class.

Defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr., in cross-examination, quoted Alpert as telling the youngster: "Look at me, look at me... I can't help you unless you tell me the truth — did any of this happen?"

"I told Dean Alpert he didn't do anything to me," the boy said. "I told him twice."

Jackson was indicted in 2004 after an investigation prompted by the broadcast of Martin Bashir's documentary "Living With Michael Jackson," which showed Jackson with the boy at Neverland. The program triggered controversy because Jackson acknowledged he let children sleep in his bed.

Striking at the heart of the prosecution's allegations of child molestation and conspiracy, Mesereau displayed a video tribute by the boy and his family in which they credited Jackson with changing their lives and helping to cure the boy of cancer.

The video had already been shown in the trial twice. This time, Mesereau stopped it repeatedly to ask if the boy and his family were lying. In most instances, the boy said they were speaking the truth.

"Michael was nice to me," the boy testified. "I felt like he was a father to me."

Prosecutors allege Jackson's associates had the boy's family make the video after the broadcast of an infamous documentary in which Jackson said he allowed boys to sleep in his bed. The prosecution claims the rebuttal video was staged and scripted.

Mesereau noted that the accuser initially told the prosecutor he was molested before the making of the rebuttal video rather than afterward.

Asked when the conversation with Alpert occurred, the boy said: "I believe it was after I came back from Neverland."

It was not clear in court why the dean asked him about Jackson.

Also Monday, the accuser spoke warmly of Jackson's children, Prince and Paris, and said he considered them a brother and sister. But the tone changed when the boy testified of his exile from Jackson's estate.

"When you left Neverland for the last time, you felt your father, Michael Jackson, had rejected you," Mesereau said.

The boy bristled, "I didn't need him. I didn't want him. I didn't feel I was rejected because I had my own real father now," referring to a man who would later marry his mother.

Jackson sat motionless across the courtroom, watching the boy testify.

The teen also denied he ever spoke to Jay Leno but said he once placed a call to the comedian from a hospital and left a message on an answering machine. The defense, which claims the family sought to get money from celebrities, has said Leno alerted police after a call from the boy because he thought the family was looking for a "mark."

And the plot thickens

[tabby]

Darned ... some people are just as disgusting as they can get
I hope this family gets kicked in the behind real good.

[tabby]

Gua said:

I don't disagree with any of this. This judge seems to be a no-nonsense kind of guy. If Mike is proven guilty (and it looks bad so far) this judge will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.
BTW, I think Mike is way past "weird"

I still don't see why the judge should assume that Michael was cheating. Accidents can and do happen, for example. And in a case of emergency, the doctors do right to focus on the patient instead of the appointments he/she may have. In my opinion, he could have handled the matter better -- no display of anger would have been somewhat more professional. He seemed to have realized that in retrospect because he admonished the jury not to take this incident into account when deciding about MJ's guilt. In my opinion, the judge has his mind made up about MJ's guilt. He assumes MJ is a liar.

[Beej]

Instructing the jury as to what they should and should not consider is one of the judge's primary duties. His personal feelings toward Michael -- whatever they may be -- are irrelevant. He's not there to decide Jackson's guilt or innocence and will play no part in doing so. His basic role is to rule on procedural motions (basing those rulings on legal precedence) and to keep the trial moving forward in an orderly manner.

This judge's admonitions -- like any judge's admonitions -- are intended to protect the defendant's rights by making sure the members of the jury base their decisions of guilt or innocence solely on the evidence being submitted and not on external factors. It's not a sign of a guilty conscience on Judge Melville's part...it's his job.

With respect to the judge's "anger," he had every reason to be upset with the defense for wasting not only the court's, but also the jury's and taxpayers' time. Furthermore, he was well within procedure to issue the threat he did. A non-celebrity may not have been granted the one hour extension that Michael received. Jackson failed in his obligation to notify the court and provide cause for his absence immediately. Given his history of goofy, carnival sideshow-like behavior -- both in and out of the courtroom -- it's not unreasonable to assume Michael just didn't want to show up for court that day. Whether Judge Melville jumped to that conclusion or not, I can't say. My understanding was that he was upset over not being notified earlier than he was. Either way, he acted properly.

As it turned out, Michael wasn't ailing badly enough to miss court afterall.

At the end of the day, the jury -- and ONLY the jury -- will decide Jackson's fate. This judge's personal feelings (which none of us is equipped to surmise) will not affect the outcome of this trial. His decisions thus far have been by the book...and I see no reason to expect differently as the trial progresses.

[tabby]

What you describe, Beej, is the the "should-be-state" of affairs in so far that only the jury's uncontaminated judgement decides the fate of a defendant. Unfortunately, the jury is not only affected, for example, by the reaction of the media to a certain case -- a concern that often leads to a jury's sequestration -- but also to the behavior of others they view as competent. In this case it's the judge.
Another possibility of a judge to influence a jury's decision, in my opinion, is his ability to decide over the admissibility of evidence, for instance. He/she also decides what questions are to be allowed by both the prosecution and the defense, which maycrucially influence a jury's decision. Lawyers on both sides smuggle in questions they know are not admissible at court because they know people cannot simply "delete" an impression created with them.
In short, I believe that any system, no matter how carefully designed, has as its weakest link the human being.
I used the word "angry" because the news article described the judge as angry. I still think the judge had no right to react the way he did without having the facts before him. How can one be sure that this judge treats certain evidence with the same rush to judgement?
Your logic, as always, is undeniable, Beej; still it lacks the human element, in my opinion.

[tabby]

You see what a terrible guy this judge Melville really is


abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/LegalCenter/wireStory?id=584209

:laughing :laughing :laughing

[keres]

Michael is good person! I`ve seen a documentary about his personal life, where he was the way he really is and I have a lot of respect for him since then. He may be different from the rest, but he is a wonderful singer and wonderful person!


That`s all I got to say about this subject.

[Gua]

Martin said:

Michael is good person! I`ve seen a documentary about his personal life, where he was the way he really is and I have a lot of respect for him since then. He may be different from the rest, but he is a wonderful singer and wonderful person!


That`s all I got to say about this subject.

We will see if the jury agrees with you

[TeaGirl22]

Yeah but sleeping with boy's and showing teenage kids prono photo's and not includeing girls to a sleep over espechaily the parents is sick.

I wouldnt want my teen son sleeping at some 40 year old mans house and shareing the same bed. no way! forget it.

They arent 5 years old anymore. I've never seen anyone cudle up like that and hold hands like that with kids from age 12-14 years old. never.

If i was in his shoes I'd have everyone included. and have a hang out. not just boy's who are 12-14 that's not normal behavior.

My opinion.

[TeaGirl22]

And the back thing is so full of crap.

He's just doing it to get pittied and attention. He's got attention what more dose he need??? people sympothy??? c'mon

He's so full of it. If it was me I'd want to get it over with and done.