Latest on MJJC

Why didn't they allowed Michael testified on the trial?

norbat

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
177
Points
18
Sorry for my bad english.

But why didn't Michael testified on his own trial?? Didn't they allowed him?
 
I'm sure he was allowed. The defense just decided not to for whatever reason. Didn't need it I guess.

For the best in the end. It would've sucked seeing Sneddon mess with him in the cross-examination.
 
It was discussed, but after Mesereau basically trashed the prosecutions case, he felt that it wasn't necessary. And it wasn't.
 
Probably also because Michael has a tendency to vomit unnecessary words that just make him look bad.
 
I remember reading something with Dan Abrams where he stated that if michael had taken the stand, he still would have succeeded no matter what because he was a megastar, so therefore he had a pre-established credibility that no one could falter.
 
As someone above said, it was probably for the best. He got hurt enough as it is--we certainly didn't need Tom Sneddon to further his pain with a series of mind-twisting cross-examinations designed to do nothing but **** with his well-being.

I could never forgive anyone who hurts Michael, and I'm just glad this terrible scenario was prevented. Then again, the entire trial should have never happened. Human avarice and heartlessness make me so angry, and when people who possess those traits target the innocent, it breaks my heart.

In any case, Messereau ripped them to pieces in the end. -claps- We should be happy for that, at least.
 
dannyboy72 said:
I remember reading something with Dan Abrams where he stated that if michael had taken the stand, he still would have succeeded no matter what because he was a megastar, so therefore he had a pre-established credibility that no one could falter.
Click to expand...
:smilerolleyes:

Cause Dan Abrams would know right?! :doh: lol He practically begged MJ to come on his show! So he was the one all gaga over celebrity there!-_-
 
JaneBender said:
It was discussed, but after Mesereau basically trashed the prosecutions case, he felt that it wasn't necessary. And it wasn't.
Click to expand...

YES! People seem to forget that MJ did testify in a way via videotape! They used the footage that MJ had his people record while being interviewed by bashit! The rebuttal interviews were used where you clearly here more of MJ true self and also how fake bashit was to him! Some have said that was MJ testifying because he explains his life and why it is what it is! So with that there was no need to testify!:yes:

But, I do think that if his defense and MJ had decided to testify he would have done fine! MJ was not hiding his so called "eccentricities" in that trial neither was T-Mez! They let it be known who he truly was! Everything in that trial about his life true and false was on display! Even the way he came dressed was MJ being himself! So the jury would have gotten who MJ was by the time he testify, if he had. IMO!
 
I also believe the rebuttal tape were enough too. The jurors could see Bashir set him up.

One juror told afterwards that after she had listened to Michaels words she thought he was not guilty.
 
bluetopez said:
But, I do think that if his defense and MJ had decided to testify he would have done fine! MJ was not hiding his so called "eccentricities" in that trial neither was T-Mez! They let it be known who he truly was! Everything in that trial about his life true and false was on display! Even the way he came dressed was MJ being himself! So the jury would have gotten who MJ was by the time he testify, if he had. IMO!
Click to expand...

Even with him doing fine, I'm glad he was spared the ordeal. I hate folks questioning him trying to make him look bad, always makes me want to yell, LEAVE HIM THE F' ALONE!!!
 
bluetopez said:
YES! People seem to forget that MJ did testify in a way via videotape! They used the footage that MJ had his people record while being interviewed by bashit! The rebuttal interviews were used where you clearly here more of MJ true self and also how fake bashit was to him! Some have said that was MJ testifying because he explains his life and why it is what it is! So with that there was no need to testify!:yes:

But, I do think that if his defense and MJ had decided to testify he would have done fine! MJ was not hiding his so called "eccentricities" in that trial neither was T-Mez! They let it be known who he truly was! Everything in that trial about his life true and false was on display! Even the way he came dressed was MJ being himself! So the jury would have gotten who MJ was by the time he testify, if he had. IMO!
Click to expand...
wow..we agree. :clapping::clapping:
 
Rawr said:
Probably also because Michael has a tendency to vomit unnecessary words that just make him look bad.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree that has been case been the case in interviews but on the other hand his legal team would have coached him on what to say and, just as importantly, how to say it. Michael was getting physically weaker as the trial wore on. He must have also been getting mentally and emotionally exhausted from the intense legal and media scrutiny (no facet of his life was off limits) and that may have impacted the decision to not have him testify.

dannyboy72 said:
I remember reading something with Dan Abrams where he stated that if michael had taken the stand, he still would have succeeded no matter what because he was a megastar, so therefore he had a pre-established credibility that no one could falter.
Click to expand...
The fact that he was a "megastar" should have absolutely no bearing on the "credibility" of arguments about his guilt or innocence in the eyes of the judge and jury. That kind of thinking is actually detrimental to arguing the case in Michael's favor.
 
It's common for defendants not to testify at their trials. As far as I know, the court always allows a defendant to testify, but their lawyer gets to decide if it's necessary. In Michael's trial, it clearly wasn't necessary. His side of the case was as strong as it was going to be. So, why put Michael through the anguish of a cross-examination by Sneddon?

Of course, there's always a risk the defendant will say something to hurt their side of the case. Why risk it?
 
In general, if the defendant doesn't need to testify, you don't do it because you don't want to allow the prosecution to question him.
 
many defense lawyers do not want their client to testify simply because if they stumble hesitate, or misspeak it may be seen as a bad thing by the jury.
plus during cross examination the prosecutor may ask things that are too complex/convoluted or too broad that may again be seen as a negative thing for the defense.
 
Any decent defense lawyer will try to avoid getting his client cross examined.

It should also be noted that Mr. Mesereau himself stated that he did not, in any way, shape or form told Michael to be anybody else but himself- not to dress differently, not to pretend to be anybody else but himself, Michael Jackson.

Mr. Mesereau also said that sure, if he deemed it helpful, Michael would have taken the stand. (and I can just see the media getting up in arms about that...)
It simply wasn't necessary. (and I am convinced Michael in the end was happy not to have taken the stand, Sneddon and his vindictive vendetta brain would have been thrilled to humiliate Michael some more- even if it didn't help his case.
But clearly the vendetta brain was way past due date anyway- judging by the fact that this farce even went to trial- who in their right mind spends 10 years on stalking somebody? Sneddon must be the worst case of stalker and personal defamation and slander the world has seen in a long time. And to think they call MJ fans obsessed!)

If you've ever dealt with sitting in a court room- any lawyer will try to avoid you saying much. :D
 
As far as I know Michael wanted to testify but Mesereau thought it was unnecessary. And it was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top