0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Andrea

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So, we have a convicted, popstar killer, wanting to take the fifth so he doesn't mess up a chance to clear his name in a potential re-trial of his own? 
Or have I missed something?
I am sure there is more to this than CM just taking the 5th.  A person can only take the 5th if the questions are self- incriminating.  If the questions lead to the incrimination of others, taking the 5th can lead to contempt of court, I believe.  I am not sure a convicted felon, such as CM, could take the 5th in a trial that is about anything related to himself anyways. 
It could stand for double-jeopardy, and lead to a dismissal altogether....why would the DA even allow that?  It would seem that the state of CA would have a conflict of interest in it all.  If they allow CM to take the 5th, they may prohibit justice for the Jacksons.  If they make him testify, they may come into new evidence that would either force CA to re-try him, or drop all charges immediately....thereby looking like fools.    Does anyone know if the 5th was taken during any of Michael's trials......not necessarily by Michael, but by anyone?  Could we relate this to something in the past?  Is this a metaphor for something......didn't Front mention "silence" at some point?  Or was it TS? 
I'll stop here....my head is spinning....I still think there is more to it than just taking the 5th......I guess we'll find out in due time. 

Blessings Always


Bashir took the Fifth.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

So did Janet Arvi$o. About her previous money-scamming ways.

Quote
On the first day of her testimony, the accuser's mother, Janet Arvizo, took the Fifth Amendment regarding welfare fraud and perjury allegations.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

*

everlastinglove_MJ

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So, we have a convicted, popstar killer, wanting to take the fifth so he doesn't mess up a chance to clear his name in a potential re-trial of his own? 
Or have I missed something?
I am sure there is more to this than CM just taking the 5th.  A person can only take the 5th if the questions are self- incriminating.  If the questions lead to the incrimination of others, taking the 5th can lead to contempt of court, I believe.  I am not sure a convicted felon, such as CM, could take the 5th in a trial that is about anything related to himself anyways. 
It could stand for double-jeopardy, and lead to a dismissal altogether....why would the DA even allow that?  It would seem that the state of CA would have a conflict of interest in it all.  If they allow CM to take the 5th, they may prohibit justice for the Jacksons.  If they make him testify, they may come into new evidence that would either force CA to re-try him, or drop all charges immediately....thereby looking like fools.    Does anyone know if the 5th was taken during any of Michael's trials......not necessarily by Michael, but by anyone?  Could we relate this to something in the past?  Is this a metaphor for something......didn't Front mention "silence" at some point?  Or was it TS? 
I'll stop here....my head is spinning....I still think there is more to it than just taking the 5th......I guess we'll find out in due time. 

Blessings Always


Bashir took the Fifth.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

So did Janet Arvi$o. About her previous money-scamming ways.

Quote
On the first day of her testimony, the accuser's mother, Janet Arvizo, took the Fifth Amendment regarding welfare fraud and perjury allegations.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote
5. The lawyer says, “It may come as a surprise to know that protections (which are given to the accused by criminal law) are not available in civil law”.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote
This was what Larry Feldman meant when he said that Michael’s lawyers were to worry about his Fifth amendment rights. This is why there was some ‘procedural maneuvering by the defense to try to keep putting that decision off’, as he said. Taking the Fifth Amendment (which Michael didn’t) was a terrible disadvantage for him in a civil case Larry Feldman imposed on him by force and Larry Feldman knew that once the civil suit went forward the situation became exceptionally favorable for him and his case and exceptionally unfavorable for Michael Jackson.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

By reading this I'd think that when Murray would take the 5th in this civil suit it could become quite favorable for Katherine Jackson and unfavorable for Murray, as far as I could comprehend this       :judge-smiley:

Last Edit: March 18, 2013, 04:00:13 PM by everlastinglove_MJ
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
It's all for L.O.V.E.

*

Andrea

Thanks for that info everlasting, I didn't know there was a difference between criminal and civil cases in regards to taking the Fifth.  It does seem that taking the Fifth in a civil suit can be damaging to a defendant as silence could = acquiescence, unless the civil case is considered a "criminal case".  Is Katherine's considered criminal?  Did I read and interpret the below correctly?

Quote
Refusal to testify in a civil case

While defendants are entitled to assert that right, there are consequences to the assertion of the Fifth Amendment in a civil action.

The Supreme Court has held that “the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.” Baxter v. Palmigiano, “[A]s Mr. Justice Brandeis declared, speaking for a unanimous court in the Tod case, ‘Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.’” “‘Failure to contest an assertion...is considered evidence of acquiescence...if it would have been natural under the circumstances to object to the assertion in question.’”

In Baxter, the state was entitled to an adverse inference against Palmigiano because of the evidence against him and his assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege.

Some civil cases are considered "criminal cases" for the purposes of the Fifth Amendment. In Boyd v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "A proceeding to forfeit a person's goods for an offence against the laws, though civil in form, and whether in rem or in personam, is a "criminal case" within the meaning of that part of the Fifth Amendment which declares that no person "shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself."

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Last Edit: March 18, 2013, 05:03:00 PM by Andrea
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

*

MJonmind

Wishingstar
Quote
A person can only take the 5th if the questions are self- incriminating.  If the questions lead to the incrimination of others, taking the 5th can lead to contempt of court, I believe.  I am not sure a convicted felon, such as CM, could take the 5th in a trial that is about anything related to himself anyways. 
It could stand for double-jeopardy, and lead to a dismissal altogether....why would the DA even allow that?  It would seem that the state of CA would have a conflict of interest in it all.  If they allow CM to take the 5th, they may prohibit justice for the Jacksons.  If they make him testify, they may come into new evidence that would either force CA to re-try him, or drop all charges immediately....thereby looking like fools.

This is truly a predicament. Is not the goal, justice for the victims; and protection for criminals should not supercede that?
Thanks all for your helpful discussion on legal matters which are beyond me.

"Anything you say, can and will be held against you."  So who's big idea was it to film and allow to air, the Conrad Murray documentary during his own trial, in which Conrad's "trap" was not only open but flapping and incriminating himself royally, leading to his prison sentence. In his trial itself, he chooses to not testify and is later sorry, apparently. Now again, he could speak and clear his name by incriminating AEG, and he uses his right to remain silent. Craziness!  Either all the lawyers are only thinking of the money they make and not their clients, or MJ has a story-line impossible to predict.
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

*

Dontwalkaway

  • Hoaxer
  • View Profile
  • 849
  • Don't let go, I don't wanna walk away
Yes, MJonMind.  I think it could be part of the story line.  A story line impossible to predict.   :icon_cool:
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
"And when that flag blows
There'll be no more wars
And when all calls
I will answer all your prayers"

Chorus from the song "Cry",  Invincible Album

ahhhhh, cry, cry....I just lost my long reply : ( Ugh.......sorry guys.......I can't stand when I do this! 

Anyways.....I will just say that I appreciate all the responses and thank you so much for these great thoughts! 
I will try to piece back together my post : ( just not right now....it was "legal thinking" stuff that just hurt, lol.......
But, I'll try to redo it...here in a little bit : )

Love you guys! You're amazing!
Blessings Always
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

*

Girl_In_the_Mirror

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Wishingstar
Quote
A person can only take the 5th if the questions are self- incriminating.  If the questions lead to the incrimination of others, taking the 5th can lead to contempt of court, I believe.  I am not sure a convicted felon, such as CM, could take the 5th in a trial that is about anything related to himself anyways. 
It could stand for double-jeopardy, and lead to a dismissal altogether....why would the DA even allow that?  It would seem that the state of CA would have a conflict of interest in it all.  If they allow CM to take the 5th, they may prohibit justice for the Jacksons.  If they make him testify, they may come into new evidence that would either force CA to re-try him, or drop all charges immediately....thereby looking like fools.

This is truly a predicament. Is not the goal, justice for the victims; and protection for criminals should not supercede that?
Thanks all for your helpful discussion on legal matters which are beyond me.

"Anything you say, can and will be held against you."  So who's big idea was it to film and allow to air, the Conrad Murray documentary during his own trial, in which Conrad's "trap" was not only open but flapping and incriminating himself royally, leading to his prison sentence. In his trial itself, he chooses to not testify and is later sorry, apparently. Now again, he could speak and clear his name by incriminating AEG, and he uses his right to remain silent. Craziness! Either all the lawyers are only thinking of the money they make and not their clients, or MJ has a story-line impossible to predict.
Now that just wouldn't make sense, now would it? You're right MJonmind... this could be a part of the story line.
@Wishingstar: :p we're looking forward to seeing your long post :p
Last Edit: March 19, 2013, 06:51:33 AM by Girl_In_the_Mirror
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"As the planet faces danger and bad days,
We look up to you and we bring our praise
So, know that moonwalkers will always stand by
The man with the heart as big as the sky!" (GITM -  February 2013)

*

suspicious mind

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Bummer......I was hopin' he'd let fly  :icon_lol:

weren't we all  :thjajaja121:
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
"I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be shrewd as serpents and as innocent as doves."  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login




Why not just tell people I'm an alien from Mars? Tell them I eat live chickens and do a voodoo dance at midnight. They'll believe anything you say, because you're a reporter. But if I, Michael Jackson, were to say, "I'm an alien from Mars and I eat live chickens and do a voodoo dance at midnight," people would say, "Oh, man, that Michael Jackson is nuts. He's cracked up. You can't believe a single word that comes out of his mouth."

*

suspicious mind

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So, we have a convicted, popstar killer, wanting to take the fifth so he doesn't mess up a chance to clear his name in a potential re-trial of his own? 
Or have I missed something?
I am sure there is more to this than CM just taking the 5th.  A person can only take the 5th if the questions are self- incriminating.  If the questions lead to the incrimination of others, taking the 5th can lead to contempt of court, I believe.  I am not sure a convicted felon, such as CM, could take the 5th in a trial that is about anything related to himself anyways. 
It could stand for double-jeopardy, and lead to a dismissal altogether....why would the DA even allow that?  It would seem that the state of CA would have a conflict of interest in it all.  If they allow CM to take the 5th, they may prohibit justice for the Jacksons.  If they make him testify, they may come into new evidence that would either force CA to re-try him, or drop all charges immediately....thereby looking like fools.    Does anyone know if the 5th was taken during any of Michael's trials......not necessarily by Michael, but by anyone?  Could we relate this to something in the past?  Is this a metaphor for something......didn't Front mention "silence" at some point?  Or was it TS? 
I'll stop here....my head is spinning....I still think there is more to it than just taking the 5th......I guess we'll find out in due time. 

Blessings Always


Bashir took the Fifth.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

So did Janet Arvi$o. About her previous money-scamming ways.

Quote
On the first day of her testimony, the accuser's mother, Janet Arvizo, took the Fifth Amendment regarding welfare fraud and perjury allegations.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote
5. The lawyer says, “It may come as a surprise to know that protections (which are given to the accused by criminal law) are not available in civil law”.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote
This was what Larry Feldman meant when he said that Michael’s lawyers were to worry about his Fifth amendment rights. This is why there was some ‘procedural maneuvering by the defense to try to keep putting that decision off’, as he said. Taking the Fifth Amendment (which Michael didn’t) was a terrible disadvantage for him in a civil case Larry Feldman imposed on him by force and Larry Feldman knew that once the civil suit went forward the situation became exceptionally favorable for him and his case and exceptionally unfavorable for Michael Jackson.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

By reading this I'd think that when Murray would take the 5th in this civil suit it could become quite favorable for Katherine Jackson and unfavorable for Murray, as far as I could comprehend this       :judge-smiley:[/color]

humm or maybe they knew there was no way in hell this kid was gonna co operate in anything that might send michael to prison but he wouldn't feel so bad if it was only goin to take money from some big insurance company . not to mention as long as this is out there there is always leverage to stir up another accusation to hang onto the opportunity to hold it over his head.
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
"I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be shrewd as serpents and as innocent as doves."  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login




Why not just tell people I'm an alien from Mars? Tell them I eat live chickens and do a voodoo dance at midnight. They'll believe anything you say, because you're a reporter. But if I, Michael Jackson, were to say, "I'm an alien from Mars and I eat live chickens and do a voodoo dance at midnight," people would say, "Oh, man, that Michael Jackson is nuts. He's cracked up. You can't believe a single word that comes out of his mouth."

*

MJonmind

Wish, looking forward to your re-assemble of thoughts! It's happened to me sometimes too--grr... :Crash:

Suspicious, yes, the same background people who tried so hard to incriminate MJ, are still out there.  But MJ is also still out there, and IS going to bring them all down in one big CRASH/BAM!  Using art/story to reveal truth!
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Let me "try this again", LOL....bad joke considering the topic......(I accidentally lost my last post)

@StrangerinCalfornia.....I think CM could be given the choice to be re-tried.  He has the right to wave the double jeopardy clause if he decides.  However, from what I have been reading, the courts would just need to change the charges, even slightly.  He's in for involuntary manslaughter.  They could move it to a degree of murder, or even voluntary manslaughter and avoid the double jeopardy clause.  Basically there are ways around it.  But, I don't think the court would just up and over-turn the verdict.  CM is in a good spot for leverage, I think he'll use it. 

@Hes.......a million times YES!  It wasn't long ago that CM wanted to speak to Katherine and was saying how much he loved the family, loved her, loved the kids etc......
So, yes.....he's his chance to speak on record, under oath, and he's choosing to cower silently in the corner.  No sense at all.......

@Andrea.....yes, yes!  I thought I had remembered something about the 5th being taken.  Thank you so much for the links.......sometimes, I feel Front's posts really help. 
That rear-view mirror.....everything is more clear looking back........

@MJonmind.......that whole video thing of CM during his trial....I just knew it was crazy.  Nothing he said in that video could be used against him.....he wasn't under oath.
BTW...do we know for sure he was read his Miranda Rights in the first place?  In the US, when you are arrested, if you are not read those rights, it's grounds for dismissal in court. 
it's a set of rights given to each person.  I have a couple of like links here.  I am reading some things with regards to evidence that I don't quite understand....fresh eyes would help, if anyone wants to read....thanks!  Here are the links to Miranda:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

But, yes......impossible storyline for sure!!!! 

Thanks guys.....sorry I had lost that first post....ugh, hate that.  I know I had more swimming around my head, but this should suffice for now.
Hope you all have a brilliant and beautiful day!
Blessings

friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

*

MJonmind

Thanks Wish, what legal mumbo-jumbo! And the labyrinth assures that only lawyers can find the way to clear or incriminate you. It hardly seems about justice anymore, just how good your lawyer is.
 
Quote
Exceptions
Assuming that the six factors are present, the Miranda rule would apply unless the prosecution can establish that the statement falls within an exception to the Miranda rule.[54] The three exceptions are (1) the routine booking question exception[55] (2) the jail house informant exception and (3) the public safety exception. Arguably only the last is a true exception–the first two can better be viewed as consistent with the Miranda factors. For example, questions that are routinely asked as part of the administrative process of arrest and custodial commitment are not considered "interrogation" under Miranda because they are not intended or likely to produce incriminating responses. Nonetheless, all three circumstances are treated as exceptions to the rule. The jail house informant exception applies to situations where the suspect does not know that he is speaking to a state-agent; either a police officer posing as a fellow inmate, a cellmate working as an agent for the state or a family member or friend who has agreed to cooperate with the state in obtaining incriminating information.[57] The window of opportunity for the exception is small. Once the suspect is formally charged, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel would attach and surreptitious interrogation would be prohibited.[58] The public safety exception applies where circumstances present a clear and present danger to the public's safety and the officers have reason to believe that the suspect has information that can end the emergency.
Does the justice system care if CM was only a hired assassin--AEG (#2 above), or do they care if he plays around with the lives of future patients--not following standard medical practises (#3 above).
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Good question MJonmind......I don't think the justice system does care. 
I guess it's just JailHouse Rock, lol......
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Conrad doing a video taping in the middle of a felony trial is ludicrous  :ghsdf:  Can anyone remember this ever happening in any other high profile case?  First off, computers, etc. I though were not allowed and that this kind of carrying on would constitute a breach.  Usually sequester is in order.  Why was this allowed? It wasn’t a real trial is all I can come up with.  Surely the judge would’ve thrown the book at him and his attorneys for allowing this to be done & then televised.  NOT ALLOWED!
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
"Don't stop this child, He's the father of man
Don't cross his way, He's part of the plan
I am that child, but so are you
You've just forgotten, Just lost the clue.”

MJ "Magical Child"
Still Rocking my World…
   and leaving me Speechless!

“True goodbyes are the ones never said

Yep yep yep Hes......totally ludicrous.  In the 2005 trial, Michael had made a video, if I am remembering.  It was a brief video in which he told the world of his innocence.......
OK....I went searching......I found two....same wording:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLpABElGXb8[/youtube]

and this one:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOmE-4IO8SY[/youtube]

Now, these are in no way the same as CM's video...but he did give a statement.  Ugh.....
I hate seeing this video.....I remember it now and am remembering the whole trial crap.....
I feel my heart racing at the thought of it all.......  :icon_e_sad:

Anyways.....I think if CM's trial were completely real, yes, the judge would have thrown the book at him......
even the "innocent until proven guilty" line would have been questionable with CM's actions.  Just don't know
what to think.  But, I do still believe one thing...the best is yet to come!  :fresse:

Blessings


friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
pwnt
0
like
0
dislike
0
late
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

 

SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal