Debi w sadzie

[MJowitek]

MDż*mówisz ze bedzie dobrze a ja tu juz palce zgryzam z nerw

"z nerwów"...mówi się "z nerwów"...

"Nie dręcz się tworami wyobraźni.
Wiele obaw rodzi się ze znużenia i samotności."
/z Desideraty/

Wiesz co, jakbym siedziała za dużo na forum, to też pewnie bym się powoli zjadała, ale jednak w życiu jest dużo mniej lub bardziej interwsujących rzeczy, którymi można się zająć...Wiesz, mam wrażenie, że Ty tu siedzisz dość dużo..chociaż może się mylę. Ja też ostatnio zostawiam włączoną stronę, i wygląda, jakbym tu była, jak mnie tu wcale nie ma...ale jednak mam wrażenie, że za dużo czasu poświęcasz na denerwowaniu się sprawami, o których za dużo nie wiesz../nikt z nas nie wie/. Dochodzę do takich wniosków na podstawie listy 10 najaktywniejszych /jedna z opcji w memberlist/. W dość krótkim czasie znalazłaś się w zcołówce. Pierwszy jest Pan, druga jest Kate /japrosic Kate..pisz pisz kobieto te newsy, pisz/ no..a zgadnij kto jest trzeci? Swego czasu też byłam na tym miejscu, ale mnie to aż przeraziło. Co innego, jak ktos tyle pisze, bo ma jakieś newsy, ale ja jakoś raczej zwykłe posty pisałam w takiej ilości...i się zastanowiłam czy aby nie za dużo tu siedzę. Doszłam do wniosku, że jednak za dużo...Hmmm...może też się nieco pohamuj...czy ja wiem co...Ale jeśli w co drugim poście piszesz, ze cie nerw zjada, to zajmij może go czymś czy co? A jak masz więcej czasu wolnego, to może potłumacz angielskie newsy, trochę ich jest, a ja nie mam czasu wszystkiego czytać więc będe wdzięczna. papataj.

[kate]

ale o sprawie z kasetą nagrywaną z ukrycia to już interia nie wspomni?? No tak; bo to na orzyść Michaela... A przy okazji, to miały być zarezerwowane również bilety powrotne... o tym też nie wspomną... eh

EDIT: EDIT: ja dzięki tłumaczeniu newsów z Cnn szlifuje sobie angielski Tak więc korzystam i ja i forumowicze, którzy albo nie są jeszcze najlepsi z anglieskiego (mi też jeszcze wiele do takiego poziomu brakuje, ale... wszystko w swoim czasie :D ) albo po prostu nie zawsze mają czas żeby zagłębiać się w informacje po angielsku

[Kermitek]

Kate tak zgadza sie ale ta rezerwacja była podobniez tylko dlatego ze amerykańscy obywatele nie moga kupić biletu w jedna strone do brazyli .Ato dlatego ze nie maj jakiegoś tam wstepu czy cos w tym stylu, ale moze zle to zrozumiałam.Pisali o tym na stronie CNN i BBCnews oraz na foxnews gdzies o tym wspomnieli a tu troche informacji z MJJsource:

Day 38: Defense Says Prosecution Allowed to Call Debbie Rowe, in End of Case “Desperate Tactic”


Created: Tuesday, 26 April 2005

Monday, April 25, 2005
On Day 38 the judge overruled defense objections in Michael Jackson's trial Monday, saying he will allow Mr. Jackson's ex-wife Debbie Rowe to testify as a prosecution witness.

Prosecutors want Rowe, the mother of two of his three children, to tell jurors that she was compelled to appear on a videotape praising Mr. Jackson as a good father and a humanitarian. Defense attorney, Mr. Sanger stated that there was no script for the video, just questions that were written out.

The defense objected on grounds that the testimony was part of a prosecution "desperation" tactic at the end of its case and had no relevance to the charges against Mr. Jackson.


(Excerpt from Court Transcript)



MR. SANGER: This, once again, is reaching. First of all, Debbie Rowe gave up her parental rights, which is a totally different situation than we have here. There's an ongoing family law matter that persists, even as we speak today, in Los Angeles over this, over the relationship and attempt to get some -- possibly some visitation or some other benefit from that. However, we keep hearing "scripted performances," and there are no scripts. The only thing that has ever come up in this case, and will be clearly shown, if it isn't already, by the time we get through, is that there were questions that were written out in advance. And anybody that does any kind of an interview for television is going to script out questions in advance, just as lawyers script out questions or question areas before they get up and ask witnesses on the stand, so interviewers script out their questions. There's nothing untoward about that. There was no scripted response to anything, despite Janet Arvizo's common sense that there was no script of answers. So it doesn't show a darned thing in that regard. And as we pointed out, and the Court's already commented, the Maury Povich show is not in evidence. I don't think there's any way we can get it into evidence. We don't intend to offer it. And as a result, unless Debbie Rowe testifies, of course, so how is her performance on that tape relevant, as much as the prosecution would like to make it relevant. And I'm hearing they'd like to play parts of her tape, which just creates, under 352, if we even get to that point, if there is any probative value to this, it's far exceeded by the consumption of time, the confusion of the jury and the prejudicial effect. Because if they bring that in and they play even part of the Debbie Rowe tape, we'll play the three hours. There's no question that Debbie Rowe was spontaneous in her remarks, and it goes on and on. I think the Court saw the Maury Povich part of it, where she even answers at one point, "Look," and she uses some term that would not ordinarily be appropriate on television, kind of laughs about it, and says, "I just want to get to the point. Here's what it's all about." That is her demeanor on the rest of that tape. She is giving an interview based on how she felt at the time. However, if the Court allows the prosecution to get into this, besides playing the three-hour tape or a large portion of it - not as a threat, but because it will show the context of her answering questions in a very spontaneous fashion - we will have to get into this whole business with Ian Drew, and his fight with Marc Schaffel, and Marc Schaffel's fight with Ian Drew, and all these -- the -- all that surrounded this. Debbie Rowe's on tape. In fact -- and she surreptitiously tape-recorded conversations that she had with Ian Drew that go on for hours where she is not upset at Michael Jackson, doesn't say anything bad about Michael Jackson as far as this -- the case is concerned. She says a few callous things, I might point out. But other than that, her focus is she doesn't like Marc Schaffel. And so she's fighting with -- or working with Ian Drew to fight about Marc Schaffel. All of this will come out to show -- it will have to come out because it shows the context in which she would be testifying here. She has been extremely upset with Marc Schaffel for some other reason and has had an agenda that's clear on all of her taped remarks, including the ones she taped of herself talking. It's very clear that she has some agenda with regard to Marc Schaffel that has nothing whatsoever to do with Michael Jackson. She regards him as just being pretty much a victim in Marc Schaffel's machinations. So if she's going to testify, we're going to have to bring that out. Again, it's not a threat. But I want the Court to understand the context. There really is a tremendous amount of material, tape-recorded material, by Debbie Rowe and by others in the group that the prosecution is trying to present here which indicate that there are – there are many other agendas on this case. I don't know if you get to 352 because I just plain don't see the relevance, forgetting about the giant can of worms that it would open. I just don't see the relevance to these proceedings. So I'd submit it, Your Honor.



(End of Excerpt)

"I will admit testimony in that case" from Rowe, Judge Rodney Melville said, adding that he would seek ways to limit the scope of her evidence after defense attorneys warned that it would open "a giant can of worms."
In addition, the defense said that if Rowe testified they would seek to present the entire three hours of her video interview with Mr. Jackson’s associates as well as a tape recording she made secretly.

"She didn't say anything bad about Michael Jackson," said defense attorney Robert Sanger.

Mr. Sanger denied there were any threats to her during what he called "a tremendous amount of taped material."

"I just plain don't see the relevance to these proceedings," he said, noting that she had quarrels with Mr. Jackson aide Marc Schaffel, not with Mr. Jackson, and that her testimony would be a way to push her own agenda regarding Schaffel.

Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville said, "I will admit the testimony and will look to ways to restrict that testimony."

The defense noted that Rowe had voluntarily given up her parental rights to the children. Zonen said those rights had been recently restored and that she has a case under way in family court regarding visitation.

Rowe was a nurse for one of Mr. Jackson's dermatologists when they married in November 1996. Their son was born in February 1997, followed by their daughter in April 1998. The couple filed for divorce in October 1999. Mr. Jackson has a third child, Prince Michael II, whose mother has remained anonymous.

One of Mr. Jackson's attorneys, Brian Oxman, left the team Monday. Lead attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. announced the departure in a statement that gave no explanation. Mr. Mesereau and Mr. Oxman were seen talking and then giving each other a hug after court recessed for the day. Mr. Oxman did not return a call for comment.

In other developments, District Attorney Tom Sneddon unexpectedly announced without explanation that planned witness Christopher Carter, a former Jackson security guard, will not be testifying.

Carter was recently arrested in Las Vegas and is facing bank robbery, kidnapping and other charges and had indicated he would invoke the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination if asked about his criminal case.

He was the only witness that the prosecution had hoped would corroborate claims by the accuser and his family that Mr. Jackson gave alcohol to children and specifically to the accuser.

In another key ruling, the judge decided to grant "use immunity" to a travel agent who also is invoking Fifth Amendment protection and is under investigation by federal authorities looking into the alleged illegal and secret videotaping of private conversations between Mr. Jackson and his attorney on a charter jet flight.

The form of immunity granted to Cynthia Montgomery means her testimony in the Jackson case cannot be used against her in any other proceeding. She had told the court last week she would refuse to testify about anything involving the charter jet flight.

The jury, which was out of the courtroom most of the morning, returned to hear testimony by former Jackson employee, Kassim Abdool.

Abdool said he saw Mr. Jackson and the boy, who later received a multimillion-dollar settlement, leave a Jacuzzi with Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson, wearing a towel, gave a piggyback ride to the boy, who wore a bathrobe.

Abdool was one of a group of former employees who lost a wrongful termination suit against Mr. Jackson in 1997 and were ordered to pay damages to the entertainer.

Under defense questioning, Abdool said he participated in an interview for a tabloid for which they received $15,000 and that he spent the money to fund the lawsuit.

The prosecution spent the balance of the day calling witnesses to authenticate documents.

Source: MJJsource / AP




Day 39: Family’s Tickets to Brazil Never Purchased, Videographer Gives Accuser's Mother Money


Created: Tuesday, 26 April 2005

Tuesday, April 26, 2005
On day 39 a travel agent testifying under immunity in Michael Jackson’s trial said Tuesday she booked a flight to Brazil for the family of the accuser at the request of one of his business associates.

Cynthia Montgomery testified that she arranged a $15,000 flight to Sao Paulo at the request of Marc Schaffel, who is named by prosecutors as one of the unindicted co-conspirators in the Jackson case.

Prosecutors contend Mr. Jackson's associates planned to keep the family in Brazil indefinitely in the aftermath of the Feb. 6, 2003, airing of the TV documentary "Living With Michael Mr. Jackson."

Montgomery was granted immunity because the FBI is investigating her in relation to the secret videotaping of Mr. Jackson and former attorney Mark Geragos during a charter jet flight she booked. The charter flight brought Mr. Jackson from Las Vegas to Santa Barbara where he surrendered to authorities.

Montgomery said she booked, but did NOT purchase tickets for the accuser's family on a flight scheduled to depart for Brazil on March 1, 2003. Montgomery told jurors the plane tickets were never purchased because Shaffel later informed her he "had a change of plans." She also said she never spoke to Mr. Jackson, or the accuser's family about the trip.

She said Schaffel asked her to book a one-way trip but she had to arrange a round-trip flight because Americans are not allowed to enter Brazil with one-way tickets. She said she arbitrarily chose a return date.

The family never made the flight and prosecutors did not discuss the reason why in court.

(Excerpt from Court Transcript)

MR. MESEREAU: You and Mr. Schaffel discussed a round trip to Brazil involving the Arvizos, correct?

MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.

MR. MESEREAU: And you put together an itinerary for that round trip, right?

MS. MONTGOMERY: I made a reservation for that trip.

MR. MESEREAU: And in the course of making the reservation, you actually had an itinerary with dates, correct?

MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.

MR. MESEREAU: There was a departure date, true? And there was a return date, right?

MS. MONTGOMERY: True.

MR. MESEREAU: The trip you were arranging was for how many people?

MS. MONTGOMERY: Four.

MR. MESEREAU: You separately had arranged a Brazil trip for Mr. Schaffel, correct?

MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.

MR. MESEREAU: You arranged a separate trip for Mr. Schaffel around the time that you and he discussed arranging a trip for the Arvizos, correct?

MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.

MR. MESEREAU: And when you used to get tickets for Mr. Schaffel, how would you typically arrange to pay for those tickets?

MS. MONTGOMERY: He would send me a check or put it on his credit card.

MR. MESEREAU: Did he ever send you a check involving a trip for the Arvizos?

MS. MONTGOMERY: I couldn't tell you for sure. I'd have to look at documents.

MR. MESEREAU: To your knowledge, was there ever a charge made on any credit card for a trip to Brazil involving the Arvizos?

MS. MONTGOMERY: Not to my knowledge.

MR. MESEREAU: Okay.

MS. MONTGOMERY: No.

MR. MESEREAU: And at no time did you ever arrange any trip to Brazil for Mr. Jackson, right?

MS. MONTGOMERY: That's right.

MR. MESEREAU: And at no time did you ever speak to Mr. Jackson on the phone about any trip to Brazil, right?

MS. MONTGOMERY: I've never spoken to Mr. Jackson on the telephone.

MR. MESEREAU: And you've never spoken to him in person about any trip to Brazil at any time?

MS. MONTGOMERY: That's correct.

MR. MESEREAU: I have no further questions

(End of Excerpt)

On cross-examination, defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. immediately noted that Montgomery was testifying under immunity granted by Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville.

Mr. Jackson's lead lawyer launched a blistering attack on Montgomery's credibility, laying bare a bitter legal battle that she is fighting against Mr. Jackson.

He revealed that Montgomery had received legal immunity for her testimony as she is involved in a Federal Bureau of Investigation probe over the illegal video bugging of Mr. Jackson's chartered private jet.

Mr. Mesereau suggested that Montgomery's request for immunity "grew out of concerns of a possible prosecution over the secret taping of Michael Mr. Jackson on that private flight" that brought Mr. Jackson to California for his high-profile arrest on November 20, 2003.

Mr. Jackson has sued the travel agent for invasion of privacy on the flight from Las Vegas, while Montgomery last year countersued the star for 50,000 dollars in unpaid bills from the flight.

Legal analysts said Montgomery scored some points for the prosecution, but warned that her credibility may have been damaged.

"The jury's got to think was she behind the videotaping" said former prosecutor Craig Smith said. "Does she have an axe to grind?"

As prosecutors wind up their nine-week case against Mr. Jackson, Mr. Jackson’s former personal videographer Hamid Moslehi took the stand to tell how he made videos after the broadcast of the TV documentary on February 6, 2003.

Moslehi said he filmed the accuser and the boy's family praising Mr. Jackson as a father figure on February 20, 2003 and an interview with Mr. Jackson's ex-wife Debbie Rowe, who is expected to testify later this week, on February 5.

But in lengthy questioning Tuesday, Moslehi failed to directly support prosecutor's claims that both Rowe and the family were coerced into making what they have tried to claim were carefully-scripted films.

While Moslehi was not directly asked whether the videos were scripted, he said the demeanor of the alleged victim's mother appeared normal during filming, although she was upset about having to sign a standard release form.

Adding to the string of cash ‘donations’ she received, the accuser's mother took $2,000 from Moslehi and never repaid this loan either.

(Excerpt from Court Transcript)

MR. MESEREAU: You got the impression that Janet and her family could use some financial help. That's why you made a loan, right?

MR. MESEREAU: Okay. You based your conclusion that Janet needed financial help on what she had said to you from time to time, right?

MR. MOSLEHI: Could you repeat that one more time?

MR. MESEREAU: Sure. Let me restate it completely. You didn't just give her $2,000 for no reason, right?

MR. MOSLEHI: That's correct.

MR. MESEREAU: You thought she could use it, right?

MR. MOSLEHI: That's correct.

MR. MESEREAU: You thought she needed it based on things she had told you about she and her family, right?

MR. MOSLEHI: Sure.

MR. MESEREAU: She didn't directly ask for it at any time, right?

MR. MOSLEHI: No, she never asked for it.

MR. MESEREAU: But she led you to believe that their lives had been turned upside down and she needed some financial help, right?

MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Compound;misstates the evidence; asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

THE WITNESS: Could you repeat that one more time? I'm sorry.

MR. MESEREAU: Yes, okay. At some point -- let me restate the question. I'll withdraw the previous question.

MR. MOSLEHI: Okay.

MR. MESEREAU: At some point after numerous discussions with Ms. Arvizo, you formed the conclusion that she and her family could use some financial help from you, right?

MR. MOSLEHI: After one conversation with her that night, February 19th, on the phone, I felt that they could use some financial assistance.

MR. MESEREAU: Okay. And because you had reached that conclusion, you gave her $2,000, correct?

MR. MOSLEHI: That's correct.

MR. MESEREAU: You called it a loan, but you didn't expect to be repaid, correct?

MR. MOSLEHI: Well, actually, I've been expecting to be paid. But if not, I can live without it.

MR. MESEREAU: Okay. I mean, realistically when you gave it to her, did you expect her to repay it?

MR. MOSLEHI: I did.

MR. MESEREAU: Did you --

MR. MOSLEHI: I mentioned, "This is not a gift. It's a loan. It's from me."

MR. MESEREAU: Okay.

MR. MOSLEHI: "And pay me whenever."

MR. MESEREAU: Okay. And has she ever repaid it?

MR. MOSLEHI: No.

MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Now, is the conversation where you spoke to her and then concluded she could use some financial help the 25-minute conversation?

MR. MOSLEHI: Approximately.

MR. MESEREAU: Okay. And to your knowledge, where was Janet Arvizo when you had this approximately 25-minute conversation?

MR. MOSLEHI: At what location she was, you mean?

MR. MESEREAU: Yes. If you know.

MR. MOSLEHI: I don't remember.

MR. MESEREAU: And did she call you?

MR. MOSLEHI: No.

MR. MESEREAU: Did you call her?

MR. MOSLEHI: No.

MR. MESEREAU: Where were you when you had the 25-minute conversation?

MR. MOSLEHI: At Neverland.

MR. MESEREAU: Okay. And do you know approximately what date that conversation took place?

MR. MOSLEHI: I believe it was February 19, 2003.

MR. MESEREAU: Okay. So the impression you got that Janet could use a little help was formed before the rebuttal video was filmed at your home, true?

MR. MOSLEHI: That's true.

MR. MESEREAU: The rebuttal video was filmed at your home the next day, right?

MR. MOSLEHI: Well, the morning after.

(End of Excerpt)



Source: MJJsource / AP


Ps Dla informacj to na pewno nie jest zaszczyt ze znalazłam sie na 3 , ale coz tłumaczyc nie moge bo nie mam gdzie w moim pokoju sa dwie dorosłe osoby do tego jedna chora która stale marudzi, klnie i człowieka dołuje mówiac stale ja sie powiesze ( jak widac nie wasołodla mnie to wyglada) do tego cały telewizor piloty sa tej osoby , robic nic tez nie moge bo jak tylko sie pokaze to usta osobie sie tej nie zamykaja a co drugie słowo to k* leci i robi to do siebie wiec uciekam do drugiego tzw pokoju, gdzie nawet biurka nie ma gdzie postawić jest tylko spanie i zostaje juz tylko komputer i internet niestety.W takich warunkach zyje i pracuje w pracy jak mnie zobaczono to powiedziano ze wygladam jak śmierć na ..........juz nie kończe.A co do moich nerw czy czytam czy nie czytam to i tak osobnik X je targa na wszystkie strony, po nocach nie dajac spać i coz mu zrobic udusić chyba nie to w koncu rodzina a ze mało inteligentna to inna sprawa, na temat spraw mj mam mało czasu na myślenie wiec jesli pisze ze sie denerwuje to tylko w zartach bo mam dosyć swoich cudownych problemów w domu.Czasami az mnie glowa boli a tak komputer mnie rozluźnia i moge wyrzucic z siebie to co mnie boli co właśnie w minimalnym stopniu zrobilam :smiech:Przy okazji właśnie sie uśmiecha po raz setny dzisiejszego dnia

[kate]

tak, wiem Agnieszko :) też czytałam o tym na cnn. Chodzi mi o to, że może ci, którzy zlecili zarezerwowanie biletów zdawali sobie sprawę z tego, że I TAK BĘDĄ MUSIELI wykupić bilety powrotne, dlatego też stwierdzili, że nie będzie większej różnicy jeśli nakażą zarezerwować "one-way ticket" czy "round-trip ticket".

[M.Dż.*]

MDż*mówisz ze bedzie dobrze a ja tu juz palce zgryzam z nerw

Eh! No powiem Ci, Kermitku, że i tak się trzymasz.
Ja gdybym czytała informacje z Interii i Onet'u, pewnie już dawno przestałabym być fanką Michael'a, latałabym po ulicy z trasparentem "Pedofile do Pierdla", a kto wie, może sama bym udała się do Kalifornii, żeby nawciskać Michael'owi.
Ale ponieważ uważam się za osobę inteligentną (tak sobie posłodzę- o co! ), dlatego omijam te rewelacje SZEROOOOOOKIM łukiem.
A czasem, jak coś mi wpadnie w łapki (czyt. ktoś te "news'y" przywlecze na forum), to wtedy biegiem pędzę przeczytać o sprawie w jakimś innym źródle.
I wiesz co? Zwykle teksty na CNN czy jakimś innym BBC mają się nijak do Interio-Onetów. Pewnie ci pierwsi są niekompetentni

W skrócie:
Kermitku Drogi, przestań czytać brukowce- Michael wielokrotnie nas o to prosił

[dzina]

- Debbie może okazać się kolejnym świadkiem prokuratury, który bardziej Michael'owi pomoże niż zaszkodzi.

No i dokładnie, na dzień dzisiejszy ja się nie martwię Debbie! Jej zeznania będą na pewno na korzyść Jak nie, to wówczas można zacząć się denerwować, ale póki co relaks!

A tu pare wiadomości z interii!Och wkurza mnie dzisiaj wszystko:

Kermitku proszę nie siej paniki, bo onet pisze to, a interia tamto! TAKE IT EASY

[ghoust]

A ja tam sie nieprzejmuje nawet jak przeczytam te onetowskie czy interyjne "rewelacje" niema co sie denerwowac tylko trzeba cierpliwie czekac na dzien kiedy bedzie oglaszany wyrok wtedy bedziemy sie denerwowac a narazie loozik :)

[Speechless]

Debi zeznała na korzyść Michaela - powiedziała, że nikt jej nie kazał niczego mówić :D
Najlepsze jest to co Snedon powiedział podczas rozprawy 28 lutego tego roku:

In his opening statement on February 28, 2005, chief prosecutor Tom Sneddon told the jury, "Debbie Rowe will tell you her interview also was completely scripted. They scripted that interview just like they scripted the (accuser's mother's) interview."

buahahahah co za łosioł teraz wygląda jak kompletny łosioł czyli, że blefował - brak słów...

[Pank]

buahahahah co za łosioł teraz wygląda jak kompletny łosioł czyli, że blefował - brak słów...

Ja Ci dam nazywać Sneddona łosiołem! Drobna, nieistotna wpadka przy pracy i od razu łosioł :P

A ja pamiętam jak gadaliście wszyscy na Debbie brzydkie słowa ;) A tu wychodzi, że jednak nie jest taka zła... Co nie znaczy, że jest idealną, kochającą żoną i matką...

[MJPOWER]

A ja pamiętam jak gadaliście wszyscy na Debbie brzydkie słowa ;) A tu wychodzi, że jednak nie jest taka zła... Co nie znaczy, że jest idealną, kochającą żoną i matką...

Ja tam zdania nie zmieniam absolutnie. Jak by Michael poszedł do pierdla i zbankrutował, to od kogo by kasę doiła?

[Kermitek]

Ja tam zdania nie zmieniam absolutnie. Jak by Michael poszedł do pierdla i zbankrutował, to od kogo by kasę doiła?

Ja tez nie zmieniam i zgadzam sie z toba. Zrobiła to dla forsy i nic wiecej tak samo jak urodzila te dzieci dla forsy a takie stwierdzenie nasuneło sie mi juz dawno zaraz po wyemitowanym wywiadzie TLWMJ pana B*.A do MJ nasuneło mi sie wtedy jedno pytanie ile jej za dzieci zapłacił?! Sorry ze mowie o swoim idolu tak niepochlebnie ale niestety nigdy nikogo nie brałam za chodzacy ideał i tak samo traktuje MJ, co dla mnie nie jest równoznaczne z tym ze MJ zrobił to o co jest oskarzony.Moge tylko jedno przyznac pani Debbie ze jest w miare lojalna wobec swoich obietnic a to juz jakis plus

[M.Dż.*]

Moge tylko jedno przyznac pani Debbie ze jest w miare lojalna wobec swoich obietnic a to juz jakis plus

O WŁAŚNIE!
Mądre słowa
Teraz mało kto jest lojalny względem kogokolwiek.
Więc jednak Debbie ma jakieś plusy

No i wracając do jej zeznań....
Chciałoby się powiedzieć: "a nie mówiłam?"

[Kermitek]

Przyznaje mówiłaś .Zobaczymy co dzisiaj jeszcze powie pani Debbie i czym nas zaskoczy w swoich zeznaniach

[Speechless]

Ja Ci dam nazywać Sneddona łosiołem! Drobna, nieistotna wpadka przy pracy i od razu łosioł :P

A ja pamiętam jak gadaliście wszyscy na Debbie brzydkie słowa ;) A tu wychodzi, że jednak nie jest taka zła... Co nie znaczy, że jest idealną, kochającą żoną i matką...

ekhem ja nie gadałem

[KASIA]

Czyli Debbie mieszkała z Michaelem czy nie? I wychodziło by na to, że ona widuje dzieci, skoro chce je częściej widywac to znaczy chyba, że je widuje tylko żadko?


PS. Przeklinam internet.