Tom Mesereau: A Source for Michael‘s Innocence?

Slave To The Rhythm

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2014
Messages
417
Points
18
Location
Bavaria, Germany
I always felt like Tom Mesereau is a source for MJ‘s innocence because he knew all about the case and defended him for years even after the trial.
But I just found out that he’s defending Bill Cosby and is saying that he is not guilty of anything. We all know Bill Cosby is guilty. There‘s way to much evidence. So I feel like I can‘t take him as a source for Michael‘s innocence anymore because he seems to do the same for every client.

That doesn‘t change my mind about his innocence because Tom has nothing to do with the facts

How do you guys feel about this? Why is he working for Bill Cosby? Just for money? Because he must have known before that he is not innocent. And how does this affect you as seeing him as a defender of Mike?
 
none. In fact, TMez got Janice Dickerson to admit on the stand that she LIed on Cosby. Cosby is on trial for one woman, not the others. You have to look at the total picture. Cosby admitted he gave those drugs to women but you have to look at the day and age that was high in the 60's, 70's, 80's. In those days, people did that kind of thing together men AND women. The issue is not about did he give the drugs but was the acts consent and now some women want to jump on the band wagon who agree to do drugs with Cosby who are now trying to turn it around. I think it is some of everything in this case. When it comes to MJ, whom had NO special treatment-the public, the media, etc treated MJ like dirt and far worst and really that jury was ready to convict but the EVIDENCE and the testimony showed MJ to be innocent even bring in the 1993 case which was a good thing because they was on trial and showed to be a lie even to those thought the 2005 was a not true but was holding on to the 1993 case. 1993 was put on trial as well since it was allowed to come in. EVIDENCE cleared MJ and Tmez brought it out. So NO it changes nothing in my book. By the way, Cosby was found Guilty.
 
Slave To The Rhythm;4220947 said:
I always felt like Tom Mesereau is a source for MJ‘s innocence because he knew all about the case and defended him for years even after the trial.
But I just found out that he’s defending Bill Cosby and is saying that he is not guilty of anything. We all know Bill Cosby is guilty. There‘s way to much evidence. So I feel like I can‘t take him as a source for Michael‘s innocence anymore because he seems to do the same for every client.

That doesn‘t change my mind about his innocence because Tom has nothing to do with the facts

How do you guys feel about this? Why is he working for Bill Cosby? Just for money? Because he must have known before that he is not innocent. And how does this affect you as seeing him as a defender of Mike?

It’s the job of a lawyer to defend a client, whether this client is guilty or not.

It’s a constitutional right for anyone to be represented in court by a lawyer, including guilty individuals. For a fair trial.

Every lawyer has defended both innocent and guilty people in their career. Because that is their job. A client decides to hire a lawyer to represent him in court, the client pays the lawyer, the lawyer represents the client in court. In law schools, students are taught that.

A lawyer is not a kind of justice warrior who only represents innocent people in court. The lawyer is not a superhero.

I don’t see how that can be used against MJ. If it is, then that kind of argument is VERY simplistic, to not say downright idiotic.
 
Last edited:
That doesn‘t change my mind about his innocence because Tom has nothing to do with the facts
------------------------

You have answered your own question
 
It is unfortunate that Mez was defending Cosby.

I hate to sound like the uneducated trolls that dump on MJ all the time, but it does appear that there are enough women against Cosby to show that something was going on. Weight of evidence appears to indicate Cosby was guilty of something, even if there had been a not guilty verdict in that one case being tried in court. Yes I do feel bad saying it because I have argued with so many trolls over so many years who say the exact same things about the MJ trial.
Just like them, I don't know much about the actual case or the accusation he was found guilty of. Unlike them, i will admit that and I won't make a decision based on the media reports, in fact I deliberately haven't read any.

We all know lawyers are paid to help their clients, whether that be to secure a not guilty verdict if defending, or a guilty verdict if prosecuting. In my mind Mez held so much credibility for the way he defended MJ in court and in all the years the trial ended. we know MJ was not guilty based on a weak prosecution case and a strong defense case.

If Mez continues to strongly defend Cosby for years to come then it will only degrade MJ's not guilty verdicts in the eyes of the trolls and general public, who are already suspicious of the verdict in many cases.

Cosby may well be guilty of the case he was tried for, but guilty of other allegations not yet tried. Many trolls will conceded MJ was found not guilty for the Arvizo allegation but still consider to be a criminal based on the other allegations, especially the Chandler case which they believe MJ bought his way out of prison by paying a settlement. (Yes I know that's not true, but it's what people believe).
 
The Cosby case has nothing to do with MJ's case. I have not dealt with it intensively. If Mez has decided to take the case, that's his thing. At the end of the day, every defendant is entitled to have a good defense lawyer. I had allways the thought it was not a good move from Meserau and in the last years it seems he was a little bit too much attention- seeking, too many interviews to cases he was not involved with.

The evidence in the court was obviously sufficient to convince the jury of Cosby's guilt. And at the end of the day (of course, assuming the verdict is justified), it also shows one thing. Meserau is a very good lawyer but he is not able to help guilty people for a not guilty verdict. He's not the lawyer who wins impossible cases and that's only good for Michael, because he was innocent because there were no other facts and not because a star attorney won a impossible case.
 
Last edited:
I do feel like ever since MJ's exoneration in 2005, there's kind of been this "meme" among celebrities that if you were ever accused of a sexual crime, then the lawyer you want representing you is TMez. Because hey, "He got Michael Jackson off scot-free, why can't it work for me?"

The Bill Cosby trial completely debunks that whole meme. If you actually are guilty of the crime, there really isn't much that he can do for you, just because he was MJ's lawyer dosen't mean that he's automatically going to pave the way for a not guilty verdict. With Bill Cosby, there was sufficient evidence and enough witnesses to corroborate the claims that he did drug and sexually abuse multiple women to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it.

With Michael Jackson, there was zero solid evidence to back up the claims of not only Arvizo, but also Chandler, Francia, and (when the prosecution got REALLY desperate), the even more preposterous claims that he did something to Macaulay Culkin and Brett Barnes or that he gave a porno magazine to Gavin Arvizo. He was found innocent not solely because Tmez was his lawyer, but through the facts alone. MJ was put through the wringer several times, was treated worse than a criminal, had all these cards stacked against him, but he was found innocent through fact alone.
 
Tom Mez has represented guilty people before.. He's a Defense lawyer, his job is to defend those who want/need defending.. Of course he selects his cases and at one point he may have thought Cosby was innocent.

To me the fact Cosby was found guilty and Michael was NOT guilty with the same lawyer - that only proves more that Michael was not just a celeb that "got off".. Big names can be found guilty, even with Celeb Lawyers like Tom Mez. This brings more validity to the MJ case.


Now when people say Michael got off cuz his fame.. We can bring up Cosby!!!
 
Last edited:
MJTruth;4220968 said:
It is unfortunate that Mez was defending Cosby.

I hate to sound like the uneducated trolls that dump on MJ all the time, but it does appear that there are enough women against Cosby to show that something was going on. Weight of evidence appears to indicate Cosby was guilty of something, even if there had been a not guilty verdict in that one case being tried in court. Yes I do feel bad saying it because I have argued with so many trolls over so many years who say the exact same things about the MJ trial.
Just like them, I don't know much about the actual case or the accusation he was found guilty of. Unlike them, i will admit that and I won't make a decision based on the media reports, in fact I deliberately haven't read any.

We all know lawyers are paid to help their clients, whether that be to secure a not guilty verdict if defending, or a guilty verdict if prosecuting. In my mind Mez held so much credibility for the way he defended MJ in court and in all the years the trial ended. we know MJ was not guilty based on a weak prosecution case and a strong defense case.

If Mez continues to strongly defend Cosby for years to come then it will only degrade MJ's not guilty verdicts in the eyes of the trolls and general public, who are already suspicious of the verdict in many cases.

Cosby may well be guilty of the case he was tried for, but guilty of other allegations not yet tried. Many trolls will conceded MJ was found not guilty for the Arvizo allegation but still consider to be a criminal based on the other allegations, especially the Chandler case which they believe MJ bought his way out of prison by paying a settlement. (Yes I know that's not true, but it's what people believe).
Then those people who fall into what you are talkin about just want to believe the lie on MJ. There is too much evidence that proves MJ's innocence IF someone wants to know the facts (and remember, JUNE CHANLER, Jordan's mother who also got some of the settlement in 1993 and who was the DA's witness, testimony pretty much helped MJ in 2005. Now, if her son was really abused by MJ, that was the perfect time for June to speak and say HE ABUSED MY SON. It does not matter what she sign or whatever, June was in a COURT OF LAW nd NEVER said that one time; in fact, her comments helped MJ. So those who want to talk about the 1993 and the settlement are shot down by what June did. Tell any Troll that which I am sure they do not know (but TROLLS LOOK FOR DRAMA NO matter who it is).
 
KOPV;4220991 said:
Tom Mez has represented guilty people before.. He's a Defense lawyer, his job is to defend those who want/need defending.. Of course he selects his cases and at one point he may have thought Cosby were innocent.

To me the fact Cosby was found guilty and Michael was NOT guilty with the same lawyer - that only proves more that Michael was not just a celeb that "got off".. Big names can be found guilty, even with Celeb Lawyers like Tom Mez. This brings more validity to the MJ case.


Now when people say Michael got off cuz his fame.. We can bring up Cosby!!!
Exactly.
 
fraroc04;4220989 said:
I do feel like ever since MJ's exoneration in 2005, there's kind of been this "meme" among celebrities that if you were ever accused of a sexual crime, then the lawyer you want representing you is TMez. Because hey, "He got Michael Jackson off scot-free, why can't it work for me?"

The Bill Cosby trial completely debunks that whole meme. If you actually are guilty of the crime, there really isn't much that he can do for you, just because he was MJ's lawyer dosen't mean that he's automatically going to pave the way for a not guilty verdict. With Bill Cosby, there was sufficient evidence and enough witnesses to corroborate the claims that he did drug and sexually abuse multiple women to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it.

With Michael Jackson, there was zero solid evidence to back up the claims of not only Arvizo, but also Chandler, Francia, and (when the prosecution got REALLY desperate), the even more preposterous claims that he did something to Macaulay Culkin and Brett Barnes or that he gave a porno magazine to Gavin Arvizo. He was found innocent not solely because Tmez was his lawyer, but through the facts alone. MJ was put through the wringer several times, was treated worse than a criminal, had all these cards stacked against him, but he was found innocent through fact alone.
And do not forget AGAIN, June Chandler, who was there and the MOTHER of Jordan and who got some of the settlement and was the DA's witness testimony wind up HELPING MJ. Like one reporter said on tv, "she pretty much helped Michael. She did everything but come out and say 'Michael did not molest my son". So in many ways, she help knock down the 1993 case as well and she could have said ANYTHING on that stand. She knew what ex did this but she took dirty money as well and know MJ did not do it.
 
Last edited:
And do not forget AGAIN, June Chandler, who was there and the MOTHER of Jordan and who got some of the settlement and was the DA's witness testimony wind up HELPING MJ. Like one reporter said on tv, "she pretty much helped Michael. She did everything but come out and say 'Michael did not molest my son". So in many ways, she help knock down the 1993 case as well and she could have said ANYTHING on that stand but she did not. She knew what her ex did this but she still took dirty money as well and know MJ did not do it; otherwise, she would have blasted MJ in court and in front of the world with nothing to gain or lose if MJ really molested Jordan but she did not. People tend to forget about this.
 
Last edited:
Goddess4Real;4221016 said:
Bingo, (y) I used that example today with a person who was talking about the celebrity cases and media bias.
And MJ was treated far worst. When claims came up against MJ, NO ONE waited to jump on the case; in fact, many jumped on the case, spread lies, etc. So for anyone to say MJ was treated "bias" in a good way do not know what they are talking about. His home was raided 3 times by over 1,000 cops/investigators.
 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-cosby-fires-lawyers-camille-cosby-divorce-reports-denied/

Bill Cosby fires lawyers; Camille Cosby divorce reports denied

PHILADELPHIA -- Bill Cosby has ousted the high-powered defense team whose aggressive tactics failed to sway jurors from convicting him of sexual assault in April.

Cosby's spokesman, Andrew Wyatt said Thursday that Tom Mesereau and the rest of the retrial team have been replaced by a Philadelphia-area defense attorney with experience handling sex crimes cases.

The new lawyer, Joseph Green, didn't immediately return a message.

Wyatt wouldn't say why the change was made.

Wyatt also refuted reports that Camille Cosby is considering a divorce, telling CBS Philadelphia the suggestion is "false."

Cosby is scheduled for sentencing Sept. 24 on three counts of aggravated indecent assault for drugging and assaulting a woman at his suburban Philadelphia mansion in 2004.

The charges will likely be combined into one charge that carries a standard sentence of five to 10 years in prison.

The 80-year-old comedian has been under house arrest since his conviction.
 
I don’t see how Mesereau representing Cosby has anything to do with Michael at all. He’s doing his job to defend him and lost, because we knew the evidence anyways like we knew the truth about Michael and won. Just be thankful for Mesereau defending Michael and won the case and never mind Cosby since he’s already convicted (though he may not live too long since he may die naturally during his conviction).
 
Double Posted
 
Last edited:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-cosby-fires-lawyers-camille-cosby-divorce-reports-denied/

Bill Cosby fires lawyers; Camille Cosby divorce reports denied

PHILADELPHIA -- Bill Cosby has ousted the high-powered defense team whose aggressive tactics failed to sway jurors from convicting him of sexual assault in April.

Cosby's spokesman, Andrew Wyatt said Thursday that Tom Mesereau and the rest of the retrial team have been replaced by a Philadelphia-area defense attorney with experience handling sex crimes cases.

The new lawyer, Joseph Green, didn't immediately return a message.

Wyatt wouldn't say why the change was made.

Wyatt also refuted reports that Camille Cosby is considering a divorce, telling CBS Philadelphia the suggestion is "false."

Cosby is scheduled for sentencing Sept. 24 on three counts of aggravated indecent assault for drugging and assaulting a woman at his suburban Philadelphia mansion in 2004.

The charges will likely be combined into one charge that carries a standard sentence of five to 10 years in prison.

The 80-year-old comedian has been under house arrest since his conviction.
It's my opinion that Cosby should have fired Mesereau as soon as he found out the defense strategy he wanted to use. Extortion was well and good in Michael's case, because that was the truth, but nothing could convince me that Constandt was an intentional extortionist who was looking for a mark before she even met Cosby.

I think the first defense strategy was a good one, because I do believe she (and all the other 50-60 women) were in this pretty much consensually. I doubt many were in love with him, but using him to get their careers going? Yeah. Constandt even visited him several times after the alleged attack.

Yes, he said in his deposition that he gave women pills-but did he say (or they say) that the pills were slipped in drinks unknown to them? Did he force them down their throat. No, they all took them willingly. They went to his house or his hotel room and many more than once. Janice Dickerson sat around with him in bathrobe and has pictures as momentos.

Sexual misconduct and sexual assault is (and never was) OK, but women also share in some of the responsibility-whatever happened to slapping guys in the face, or kicking them in the groin-or shoving an elbow at them.

This was just a pitiful defense move.
 
One thing I have learned from the MJ trial, is to not judge anybody based on the coverage in the media...... I don't know what to think about Cosby, at all.
 
All defense attorneys defend guilty people at some point in there careers.
 
When you have 50 plus people all accusing you of the same thing and prior bad acts allowed in then even a defence attorney called jesus (and hes not spanish!) aint gonna get an aquital!!
 
Yeah, but 30 of those women used Gloria Allred. That would actually HELP your case!
 
And it doesnt help when Cosby spoke about drugging women.. maybe in 3rd person most of the time but it was a common topic.
 
MusicMan26;4223885 said:
Yeah, but 30 of those women used Gloria Allred. That would actually HELP your case!

It did help the case, but still I don’t trust that woman at all.
 
Yeah, but 30 of those women used Gloria Allred. That would actually HELP your case!


We know who allred is but i doubt the jurros care.ambulance chasers like her are the norm in the usa. Im not passing judgement just saying anyone is gonna have a up hill task with thos sort of accusations and the amount accusing
 
I always thought it's crazy that people use the amount of accusers as a reason to think he's guilty. That is why I pointed out the Gloria Allred thing. It shows that many of them worked together. But it seems that some of the jurors already had their minds made up before the trial even started.
 
I always thought it's crazy that people use the amount of accusers as a reason to think he's guilty. That is why I pointed out the Gloria Allred thing. It shows that many of them worked together. But it seems that some of the jurors already had their minds made up before the trial even started.
What hurt Cosby was his deposition as some jurors said. Many felt some of those women jumped on a bandwagon and some lied (Janice Dickerson) but they could not get pass the deposition.
 
Allowing "prior bad acts" is always gonna make it harder for a defendent. The law is totally wrong legally and morally imo. Thats why cosby had such a up hill struggle with the amount accusing him. That was only gonna get worse when the judge made that ruling and a few were used but others were left up in the air unable to defend against which is always gonna make people go hmmmm

When you have that amount of people accusing you of course people view it in a negative light its human nature to as people will say even if half of them are lieing theres still 25 who werent. Same with jimmy saville in the uk. Different to mj were you had prior bad acts allowed about "victims" that denied anything had happened!!
 
The number of people will always matter.. first question is why so many people? You say because the money... in this case really? Famous celebs that have money joining in.. what do they get out of it?

And the more people that speak against hinders the possibility of them being persuaded to do so.. it's easier to convince one person to speak against than let's say.... 30! If it were false
 
Back
Top