Posted on 04/28/2005 4:21:47 AM PDT by Chairman_December_19th_Society
We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail!
Good morning!!
Do not let the victims of the attacks on New York and Washington, nor the brave members of the Nation's military who have given their lives to protect our freedom, die in vain!!
The prosecution in the Michael Jackson case has been given a probably irreversable setback as the singer's ex-wife testified on direct examination that she had not been coached to say nice things about the entertainer on video tape.
There are allegations that former NAA(L)CP Kwaisi Mfume rewarded women with whom he had close personal relationships with perks and such in the organization--his own sort of afirmative action program.
The House voted to approve legislation that would make it a Federal crime to transport a minor across a state line for the purposes of obtaining an abortion.
And Algore is back...
Commenting on the Republican effort to nuke unconstitutional judicial filibusters: What makes it so dangerous for our country is [the GOP's] willingness to do serious damage to our American democracy in order to satisfy their lust for one-party domination of all three branches of government. They seek nothing less than absolute power. He would know about such things as attempting to seize absolute power, I suppose.
For AMERICA - The Right Way, I remain yours in the Cause, the Chairman.
Good hunting boys.
BTW...she is sheduled to have the eyes done in JUNE...14th and 21st. One eye on the 14th ...the other eye on the 21st....I'm going to see about taking vacation days.
I agree.
That's an insult to all non-sapien animal life on the planet, you know that, right?
Looks like he was gutshot....uh oh..
It really is a crying shame.
I haven't been watching the Neverland Circus, just listen to news reports. I have a feeling he is going to get off on the child molestation charges but will be convicted on some of the other charges, i.e. giving alcohol to a minor, etc and just get a "wrist slap". In my heart I KNOW he is a pedophile but, his money has bought off critical witnesses.
As far as the ex-wife goes? Any woman who sells her children to a pedophile has zero credibility to start with.
Yep.
It works like this. The prosecutors take depositions on all witnesses long before the trial begins. Prosecutors always ask every question they are going to ask at trial. If the person says something different at the trial than they said on the deposition they go to prison for perjury.
There are only three possibilities, Sneddon is such a poor prosecutor that that he failed to ask the right questions during her deposition or allowed her to give ambiguous answers to his specific questions. If he left her wiggle room during the deposition he is just incompetent. The other possiblitiy is she committed perjury and said one thing at the deposition and another thing in court. No one is saying that. The third possibility is he asked the same questions in the deposition as were asked at trial and he knew what she was going to say. And he put her on anyway.
I would bet the latter is the case.
Sneddon had to know what was going to take place as did Jacksons attorney. I think Sneddon is a very poor prosecutor, or Jackson knows what is in Sneddon's closet.
I have covered a lot of trials in my lifetime. There are few if any surprises in testimony. The Defense has to know every facet of the prosecution's case before the trial begins.
If a prosecutor fails to give the Defense all its case before the trial, that is absolute grounds for a mistrial. Blind siding the Defense is illegal. Courts will typically punish the prosecutor by letting the defendant go free.
The legal theory is an innocent defendant can not defend what he does not know about. And an innocent defendant will not likely know very much about the case against him. So prosecutors have to give the defense every part of their case before the trial starts. The court even gives the defense ample time to construct a rebuttal to the evidence to be used against the defendant.
The Prosecutor has to give his entire case to the Defense before the trial starts. Then the Defense has to be given time to construct a defense. Only after both have taken plsce is the trial held. In most states the Defense does not have to give the prosecutor its defense case beforehand. But I think they do in California.
Sneddon and his staff's performance to this point is pathetic.
Comments anyone?
If seems clear that Jackson hired this woman to have babies for him. She said on the stand that they never lived together. There are rumors that he is not even the dad.
One thought occurs to me.. before I go off the deep end.
AS I said earlier, I covered a number of trials. One thing a reporter can'r resist is reading, watching, and listening to what other reporters covering a trial report. Comparing what other reporters wrote to what I wrote was something I could not resist doing. Reporters also tend to talk to each other a lot during trials. They tend to form a consensus of views. And all reports are very similar. I am not a pack rat. So I reported it the way I saw it. But if all reporters say the same thing, then no one gets blamed if they get it wrong.
Then it is time for the line that no one knows what a jury will do. Uh HUH. Or said another way, No one knows how much the media will miss.
I can recall several times reading or listening to all the other reporters, and thinking... were these people even covering the same trial I was?
Defense attorneys often try to spin the media. Even under a gag order they spin. You ask them questions and get facial expressions back. It is quite possible that Defense attorneys caused the media to think that she was going to really do Michael in. And then they get lots of Pro Jackson press when she does not.
Perhaps all Sneddon wanted to prove is that she is a flake and Jackson is a flake.. Perhaps the real impression Sneddon wanted to make on the jury is that Jackson is a child molester and she gave birth to children for him to molest and she did it for money and expects to get more.
Was that the conclusion the Jury drew? We just don't know. It is what some of us think.
I have found that media types rarely react like ordinary people who are on the jury. They often get it wrong.
If seems clear that Jackson hired this woman to have babies for him. She said on the stand that they never lived together. There are rumors that he is not even the dad.
One thought occurs to me.. before I go off the deep end.
AS I said earlier, I covered a number of trials. One thing a reporter can'r resist is reading, watching, and listening to what other reporters covering a trial report. Comparing what other reporters wrote to what I wrote was something I could not resist doing. Reporters also tend to talk to each other a lot during trials. They tend to form a consensus of views. And all reports are very similar. I am not a pack rat. So I reported it the way I saw it. But if all reporters say the same thing, then no one gets blamed if they get it wrong.
Then it is time for the line that no one knows what a jury will do. Uh HUH. Or said another way, No one knows how much the media will miss.
I can recall several times reading or listening to all the other reporters, and thinking... were these people even covering the same trial I was?
Defense attorneys often try to spin the media. Even under a gag order they spin. You ask them questions and get facial expressions back. It is quite possible that Defense attorneys caused the media to think that she was going to really do Michael in. And then they get lots of Pro Jackson press when she does not.
Perhaps all Sneddon wanted to prove is that she is a flake and Jackson is a flake.. Perhaps the real impression Sneddon wanted to make on the jury is that Jackson is a child molester and she gave birth to children for him to molest and she did it for money and expects to get more.
Was that the conclusion the Jury drew? We just don't know. It is what some of us think.
I have found that media types rarely react like ordinary people who are on the jury. They often get it wrong.
2. Pelosi would of course say that, in order to save face.
Even Fox gets stuff wrong quite a lot of the time. Example Number One is Rita Cosby announcing with breathless glee that Gore won the Supreme Court decision. I will never forgive her for that...I about had a stroke on the spot!
In California, it is my understanding the defense has to give their case to the prosecution as does the prosecution with respect to the defense.
Regarding the prosecutor's competence, it has already been put out in the media that the prosecutor has been afraid to take detailed depositions for fear of the defense attorney citing "coaching". This is, according to those reports, which surfaced a couple of weeks ago, right from the prosecutor.
So, seems as if its both incompetence and an intimidated counselor.
I still remember running for the computer and pulling down the decision from the Supreme Court's website. Took less than five minutes to find it in the document. It showed that Cosby had no idea how to parse a Supreme Court decision for quick reading.
Oh, and Rita Cosby is why Algore can claim he was once "the next President of the United States".
Also, it is possible that she did this switcheroo knowing that she would be held guilty of perjury. Enough money deposited in a bank account will make some people willingly go to jail. Web Hubble comes to mind.
You also have voiced one of most icky thoughts...that Jackson had those children so that he would have his own stable. Also, they appear to be white.
Oh, the whole thing is beyond my creepy-tolerance threshhold!!! Ick, ick, ICK!!
I went temporarily out of control when I heard Rita that day. She belongs in Hollywood as the new Hedda Harper gossip columnist.
present..... and lurking
What a night that was!
Interesting comment about the California rules.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.