Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael"/ Excerpt @pg151/New Interview Post 3743

More Interviews

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eARuXIzpAvg&feature=player_embedded


http://mjdatabank.com/mjjnews/wordpress/2012/06/08/exclusif-frank-cascio-linterview-12/
Freshly arrived from New York, Frank Cascio has settled into a quiet hotel in the 6th arrondissement in Paris for the launch of his book "My friend Michael." Released in France on June 7 published by Michel Lafon, this testimony to discover the world of Michael Jackson in an unusual way: Frank Cascio was one of the relatives of the King of Pop and has coasted for a quarter of a century. More recently, his surname was marred by controversy about 3 songs on the CD posthumously published MICHAEL. It was time to come together to address this issue but also many other times that the two men were able to share ... In the meantime our exclusive podcast, here are some passages of the interview.



MJJNews.fr: You made some of the people who have seen Michael grow for many years ...

Frank Cascio: I met Michael at the age of 4 years. For 25 years I held various positions at his side. It was like a father and brother to me. It was all, my teacher, my mentor, a family member. For 25 years, no matter what I could do for him, I was ready to do so. I was his assistant, his nurse for a time, his manager ... Everything Michael needed, I tried to do it for him.



MJJNews.fr: What motivated you to write this book?

Frank Cascio: I never thought about writing a book before. But I've seen people who have self-proclaimed "friends of Michael" and who wrote books for making money on him, enjoy his fame. When Michael died, it was a special moment for me, I was lost, sad, I did not know where I went. Her death affected me a lot. I was in Germany and I began to write constantly. I slept a lot of our stories on paper. It was like therapy for me. Just after his death, people called me to offer me extravagant sums to write a book. I told them, "Are you kidding or what? It was like a father to me. You want me to write a book? "I felt insulted. I am pleased to have been raised in a family where morals and respect are important. Then I resolved some issues and I felt better mentally. Fans around the world have continued to question me about Michael. And I saw these other people proclaim themselves "experts Michael Jackson" or "best friends Michael Jackson" and scroll on the set of Larry King. They said the man know without having met. My goal is to protect the legacy of Michael Jackson and I wanted to write a book that would tell who was the Michael that I attended for 25 years. I wanted to show the world the human being Michael Jackson, my friend, the one that I have known intimately. To the world he was the King of Pop. To me it was Michael, my friend. (...) In life I do not believe in coincidences, I believe that events have meaning. There is always a reason. It is no coincidence that 25 years we had this relationship, which is built over time. There were people who were close to Michael and have disappeared. My family was fortunate to be part of his life and be there for him for 25 years. He was able to be happy and have access to some normalcy. We treated him like a human being, not like the pop star Michael Jackson.



MJJNews.fr: Michael has said repeatedly no longer want to perform on tour. Invincible he wanted to become involved differently, particularly through events such as autograph session at Virgin Store in New York (it was a first in his solo career). You were with him at that time: Can you tell us more about this campaign that ultimately never took place?

Frank Cascio: Michael took a long time to invincible. His mind was elsewhere, he was competing against himself. He had nothing more to prove. He had accomplished everything. He took his time to invincible as he sought a new direction. And when he began working with Rodney Jerkins I saw him find the direction he wanted and he wanted to develop her. But it took time. He said at the time: "Invincible is too far ahead of his time. People will begin to understand the next 10 years. " (...) He knew he was ahead of its time and it would take time to understand it. Then, other external factors worked against the success of the album. Michael took his children and mostly in the studio. The registration of Invincible was not easy but I think it is a great album and that people start to appreciate it. (...) I was close to Michael and I tried to manage the egos and problems around him at that time. He had engaged the services of The Firm (a management company highly regarded at the time, Ed) for the manager. He waited an innovative marketing plan from them. But The Firm is not proposed that. Michael wanted to keep innovating, to the extent, modes announce future. But he did not support its management, or his record company. In any relationship, there are unfortunately compromised, it is 50/50. It is understandable that Sony wants him to go on tour. But Michael did not want. If Michael was away on tour, everything would have been different. There are only two ways to make money in the world of music publishing rights through and through touring and merchandising that goes with it. Michael decided not to go on tour and suddenly it was not supported by his record company. (...) He was very frustrated because The Firm was very present in the film industry and he wanted to devote himself to cinema. The Firm has convinced Michael to engage them, but ultimately they have never allowed him to break into the film world. I remember it was a day when Michael came home from a trip. He was in Norfolk and I was in New York to prepare for the concert of 30 years. He was not in a good mood. I've never seen insulting people like that. I saw him in many days, but there it was crazy. He turned these people, and they well deserved. He was right. It is the biggest star in the world he set records and led the way almost all the artists of today. When you marriages such an artist, you make sure that the promotion is excellent. It was no coincidence that Michael was the greatest artist of all time. The Firm did not deserve to work with him.



MJJNews.fr: Fans in France have already read your book in English and were surprised by some of the stories and details: how did you selected the anecdotes and stories, such as the numerous passages where Michael and you drink wine or smoke grass: why these choices and wanted to show you this?

Frank Cascio: We are in France right? My family is Italian, we are European. What I like above all else in this world is cooking, open a bottle of wine, eat cheese, olives and have a good conversation. Why would it be wrong to do that with Michael? Is that it is illegal for Michael to do that then the fact that in France, Italy and around the world? In my book I wanted to show the Michael I knew and that I love. He was human, just, believe it or not. We did not drink to be completely drunk. You probably drink too, and you manage it well, it is the same. About marijuana, I'm sorry to say that Michael and I have smoked pot may be twice. I'm really sorry, but I'll tell you one thing: in California, marijuana is not illegal, and doctors prescribe it to certain patients. It is produced at the time when Michael was in Florida with Barry Gibb to work on songs. One of my favorite songs is How Deep Is Your Love Bee Gees. Barry and told Michael that he wrote all his greatest hits while smoking. Michael, as he was curious, tried with me. Why am I telling you this in the book? Because I wanted to show that Michael was human. I wanted to share and show the good and bad times, I wanted to be honest. I wanted to show the Michael I know, the good and the bad. People want to believe that Michael was perfect. But he was my friend and he was human. That was my goal to show as well: human and I think he would be proud. I wanted to erase all these stories and put an end to bridge all the rumors. It was not a pedophile and everything else ... and I know his mother was happy to read my book and find that I could restore the truth that Michael was not a pedophile.



MJJNews.fr: The CD Michael: What was your involvement in these securities? What can you tell people who do recognize the voice of "James Gate" than Michael leads in songs?

Frank Cascio: Ok, my name is Frank Cascio and I have a brother named Eddie Cascio and .... "We Are Two Different People" (referring to the phrase of Michael alongside Janet at the Grammy Awards in 1993, Ed). I have nothing to do with this disc. I have no financial motivation and have nothing to do with it. I know that tomorrow (the interview took place June 5, 2012, Ed) I'll meet fans who want me to throw tomatoes, but I do not have to defend something I do not have to defend, but I can tell you is that it is Michael who sings on this disc. And if you read the credits, you will see that the recording studio is the same as that used for the remixes of Thriller 25. All this is unfortunate because the album could be successful. But because of these stories, it was not the case. I ask you just read between the lines. (...) Do you think Sony and the Estate take the risk of releasing a record without Michael's voice on it? They hired two experts to study the songs and both have confirmed that it was him. The songs were recorded when Michael got back to work. The only thing I am guilty of is having convinced Michael to return to the studio to create music and to dance again. I remotivé and showed him he could be himself and relax. It was a long "process". My brother had to go to London and build a studio to work with Michael there (for This Is It, Ed). That's what I can tell you ... "That's life" (in French, Ed).



MJJNews.fr: Personally what do you think the three songs that have created controversy?

Frank Cascio: I like Keep Your Head Up and it's one of the best songs on the album. I do my best to answer you but it would be to my brother Eddie to do so.



MJJNews.fr: What was the involvement of John McClain in the preparation of this CD?

Frank Cascio: I love John Branca and Michael did well to place it in his estate because it handles things well. John and Michael may have had their differences over the years. But both have made history, they purchased the entire Beatles catalog. Once a case was complicated surface, called John Michael to take things in hand. As for John McClain, I am reminded of an anecdote: one day he came to see me on the set of You Rock My World, saying: "Frank, you must blacken the skin of Michael and put the dough on the nose ... "And I said:" I do not think it's a good idea, if you want to say, go ahead, I do not tell him. And I suggest you not to do. " And you talk ... I got a call from Karen Faye asking me to come urgently. Michael's was locked in his dressing room and he had all broken after John McClain has finally said what he wanted to tell him. I knocked on the door several times and finally Michael opened. He was sitting on the floor, his hands on his face, crying like a baby. And I felt so bad for him. He said: "What a crazy team. Is what I'm strange to you? I did not tell them how they should be, me ... Let them go to hell, I cancel the shoot today and I canceled everything. " He cried. I could not believe it. How people could afford to say such things. If John really knew Michael would never have done that. (...) John played double game is never of course, I respect it for its place within the Estate. But I am aware of this animosity towards me because of my surname. He played double game could not stand to see me in the entourage of Michael, he took my name and has turned against brother. Eddie must have had six songs on the album, and John wanted to put in too. Again, read between the lines and this is only my opinion ...



MJJNews.fr: In the end, this story has brought controversy in the music of Michael, which was not the case in his lifetime. What do you think?

Frank Cascio: It should not have to be this way. It's sad because it's a good album, a compilation of good music. I learned one thing in life is that it is difficult to make everybody happy. I try to make everyone happy but that is impossible. And in the end it's me who suffers. I know how much Michael loved his fans. All I know is that my book helps preserve the legacy of Michael as Michael would have liked. He has so tried to explain who he was, but he did not know how. He said he wanted to make the world understand who he was. And there was this story with Martin Bashir .... But he tried. And it was stabbed in the back.
 
I didnt like the whole "I'm sorry to say that Michael and I have smoked pot may be twice" bit , i mean why the heck did he have to mention that? Imo that didnt really need to be spoken bout

And also this:
Frank, you must blacken the skin of Michael and put the dough on the nose
I dont know if that is true that john branca said that cuz really it is frank's words against john's but if he did WTF!!!!???? :eek: . Everyone in michael's life knew how sensitive he was bout his looks n stuff and for john who i guess u could say was a major force in michael's life to say something like that is uncalled for imo.
 
I didnt like the whole "I'm sorry to say that Michael and I have smoked pot may be twice" bit , i mean why the heck did he have to mention that? Imo that didnt really need to be spoken bout

And also this: I dont know if that is true that john branca said that cuz really it is frank's words against john's but if he did WTF!!!!???? :eek: . Everyone in michael's life knew how sensitive he was bout his looks n stuff and for john who i guess u could say was a major force in michael's life to say something like that is uncalled for imo.

I don't see anything wrong that he says Michael smoked pot a few times!

J Branca didn't say anything about Michael's look, the other John did, John McClain.
 
has Tom Mesereau cleared that up yet about Frank not wanting to testify in 05? i forget where i read things, but didn't Frank say he would ask TM to clear that up and say Frank was willing but was told not to testify?

he did months ago on a positively Michael podcast, I wrote the text of it before. here's repost of it

Transcript of what T-Mez said

First of all this was a very complex, confusing, terrifying situation. What Sneddon did , the DA who was after Michael as everyone knows, What he did was he brought these conspiracy charges for many different reasons. One of them was to terrify away witnesses that can help Michael Jackson.

And what he did was and it was very strange, he had the grand jury indict Michael on various counts the first one being conspiracy. But the only one in the alleged conspiracy charged was Michael. He called everyone else an unindicted co-conspirator which is a give away right away that he had a nefarious purpose for bringing a conspiracy charge.

So Michael was charged with conspiracy. Remember a conspiracy is an agreement among various individuals to commit a crime. the agreement can be in writing or it can be not in writing. It can also be an understanding. But nevertheless conspiracy involves more than one person and it requires a form of agreement to commit a crime. But the only one charged was Michael Jackson. So that ought to tell you something right there something is wrong.

Everyone else was called an unidicted co-conspirator. Frank Cascio, Vinnie Amen, Dieter, Konitzer, Marc Shaffel. What I think he did was he wanted to scare the daylights away from these potential witnesses for Michael Jackson because they were there when Arvizo's was around. And to do that he sort of hang the possibility of charging them over their heads, he forced them all to get lawyers and he terrified them. Let's face it.

As I said in other discussions there were other technical reasons he brought that charge. It would allow the Arvizo's to testify about Cascio, Shaffer, Amen, Dieter and Konitzer and at the same time scare them away so Michael couldn't bring them in to contradict or refute what Arvizo's said. It was very very sinister in my opinion.

So Frank Cascio and the rest all got lawyers, you would expect them to. They were looking at the possibility of felony charges of conspiracy and years in prison. We were sort of preparing our defense and trying to figure out who everyone was and what they can contribute to our defense and what they had to say and what they said to other people, have they talked to Sneddon and company. You know this is what criminal defense is. This was a huge case, everything was magnified a million times.

So Frank Cascio got a lawyer and I did not want Michael talking to him or him talking to Michael because this would open up the door to types of examination by the DAs in the trial. Although I believe they were talking anyway because they were friends for many years.

And Cascio's lawyer Joe Tacopina from NY started calling me and asking me what was going on and what I thought. I would tell him what I could and I would ask him what Frank was up to. My impression was Frank was listening to his lawyer. His lawyer was going very carefully, very professionally, very delicately through the evidence and trying to find out how to protect his client. That was what his job was. So his lawyer wasn't right away saying "he'll do whatever you want", he was being careful about it and I think Frank was listening to his lawyer. I don't know what he said to Michael or what Michael said to him. I know his family members were talking to Michael , I wasn't privy to those conversations. You know they are all very close friends.

At some point a perception that Frank was not being cooperative had developed. I'm not so sure why it might have developed. It might have been just his lawyer being cautious and careful. But I can say this in the end he was willing to testify. His lawyer told me he was willing to testify , he had a lot of conversations. What I think happened was he was scared, he was listening to his lawyer , his lawyer was being cautious that may have been construed as him not being cooperative but I will say this in the end he was willing to come in and testify. That's what I think really happened with Frank Cascio.

Now you know I can't blame him for being terrified. He does say in his book that I have to point out that Sneddon offered him immunity from prosecution. What that meant was if he came forward and cooperated with Sneddon and the DA's office he could not be prosecuted. He also had to be willing to testify against Michael and he refused it. Even though that would have been a very safe way to go to make sure that you aren't charged. You gotta give him credit for that. Gotta give him credit for that, gotta understand how terrified they were about being charged with felony conspiracy going to prison. You gotta appreciate he was listening to his lawyer who was going on cautiously and carefully to figure out how to best protect his client. So I don't think anyone should blame Frank. Really don't.

Now other people weren't as terrified as he was. For example Chris Tucker and Maculay Culkin were not unidicted co-conspirators. They were never facing charges. So they came right out and told their lawyers and agents and managers and advisers "we are testifying for Michael whenever he needs us. You know there's no doubt about it". And they did that. I sat with Maculay Culkin and his entertainment lawyer and his entertainment lawyer was scared to death. Where as Maculay was cool as can be said "when Michael needs me I am there". I met with Chris Tucker and his lawyer at his lawyers home and his attitude was exactly the same "When Michael wants me I don't care what I'm doing I'm there". But they weren't also facing the possibility of a conspiracy charge. So I'm not hard on Frank, I understand the whole situation, in the end he was willing to testify.

And as he correctly said in his book , and I read it and I enjoyed the book, I decided that I didn't need to call him. I wanted to get this case to the jury , I actually shortened our witness list, we initially expected the trial to last a few more months. But I wanted this to get to the jury, I thought we really rocked their world so to speak and I thought this case was ready for an acquittal. That's what happened fortunately.


Source: Positively Michael Podcast December 4 , 2011
 
I don't see anything wrong that he says Michael smoked pot a few times!

J Branca didn't say anything about Michael's look, the other John did, John McClain.


The reason why that buggs me alot is mainly cuz its bad enough haters keep saying " mj was a druggie blah blah" then to have frank talk bout the pot thing it only makes it worse imo.

Oh sorry i got confused i thought it was john b i apologize
 
Frank Cascio : "His greatest achievement is to have been father and have raised three wonderful and incredible children. Paris loved her father so much. Paris always wanted to be with her father, always. Michael is their father. I know that a lot of people think is not, but I know these three children are his . For his kids, he was the greatest father in the world."

From this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGU3YG_rNg0
 
The reason why that buggs me alot is mainly cuz its bad enough haters keep saying " mj was a druggie blah blah" then to have frank talk bout the pot thing it only makes it worse imo.

Oh sorry i got confused i thought it was john b i apologize

I understand your concern, we all are fed up with tabloid calling Michael druggie among other things.
Actually Frank didn't say anything new that wasn't out already. If you remember when Michael died, Jackson's found some stuff from Michael's house (they thought it was tar heroin) but it was checked and found out to be rotten marihuana. It could have been Michael's old stash or it could have been Frank's. The amount that was there and rotten, doesn't make Michael "pot head", and if someone who regularly smokes pot, would not let that amount to go bad.
Also Frank clearly stated in his book that Michael heard that BeeGees made best of their songs when they smoked pot, so he wanted to try, and he tried few times, that is it.

I understand Frank's point of view when he says that he wanted to humanise Michael. This little pot story, in my opinion, just do that.
Tabloids couldn't get any stories of Michael so they started to invent ones. If something like this pot story had come out at some time, it probably would have helped people's perception of Michael more than the invented ones.

Last note, haters are going to hate and no matter has come up, they will not change their opinion of Michael.
Michael's Vitiligo was proved to be true, yet there are "those" people still claiming that Michael bleached his skin to be white.
Those haters want to hate so let them, every celebrity has their haters, Michael too.
 
I understand your concern, we all are fed up with tabloid calling Michael druggie among other things.
Actually Frank didn't say anything new that wasn't out already. If you remember when Michael died, Jackson's found some stuff from Michael's house (they thought it was tar heroin) but it was checked and found out to be rotten marihuana. It could have been Michael's old stash or it could have been Frank's. The amount that was there and rotten, doesn't make Michael "pot head", and if someone who regularly smokes pot, would not let that amount to go bad.
Also Frank clearly stated in his book that Michael heard that BeeGees made best of their songs when they smoked pot, so he wanted to try, and he tried few times, that is it.

I understand Frank's point of view when he says that he wanted to humanise Michael. This little pot story, in my opinion, just do that.
Tabloids couldn't get any stories of Michael so they started to invent ones. If something like this pot story had come out at some time, it probably would have helped people's perception of Michael more than the invented ones.

Last note, haters are going to hate and no matter has come up, they will not change their opinion of Michael.
Michael's Vitiligo was proved to be true, yet there are "those" people still claiming that Michael bleached his skin to be white.
Those haters want to hate so let them, every celebrity has their haters, Michael too.


Wow thats something i didnt know bout the beegees lol
But you are right bout the haters all they consume is hate and they know no else.
 
Just to be clear, I have to clarify my previous post. Barry (not Bee Gees as a whole band) was the one who smoked pot while recording:)

Michael had always been against pot and other illegal drugs. But back in Miami, a year earlier, Michael had spent some time with two of the former Bee Gees, Maurice Gibb, who was on his deathbed, and Barry Gibb. When Barry told Michael that he had recorded his greatest songs when he was smoking pot, Michael was intrigued. He was a big fan of the Bee Gees. The songs “How Deep Is Your Love,” “Stayin’ Alive,” and “More Than a Woman” were among his favorites. And so Michael smoked pot with me when we were at the ranch working on the home videos, for what I think was his first time. I remember how, in that state of mind, the lights of Neverland came to life.

“Ah, now it all makes sense,” Michael had said, as we drove through the property. “This is exactly what the Indians were doing when they passed around the peace pipe.”

He liked that pot came from the earth—it helped him justify something he’d always been against. Over the past year, we had gotten stoned on a few occasions up in the mountains. Michael was extraordinarily discreet—he didn’t want a soul to know about it.

One afternoon, in an attempt to cheer both of us up, I rolled a joint and found Michael in his office, which was an extension of the main house, a warm room with dark wood floors, a beautiful desk, and a couch. Six flat-screen TVs lined one wall— each playing different cartoons. On the wall over the fireplace was a six-foot-tall portrait of Prince at age two or three, asleep, with me and Eddie standing on either side of him, keeping guard.

“Come on, let’s take a break,” I suggested.

“Yeah, okay,” he said.

We walked outside and got into Michael’s golf cart. We drove up to the mountains, and passed the joint back and forth, quieter than usual. It’s not that the conversation lagged, exactly, but we didn’t want to talk about the looming allegations, and we couldn’t come up with any other subject to discuss. I wanted to say, “I told you so,” but I didn’t. And Michael wanted to ask, “How did this happen?” but he didn’t. Instead, we were mostly quiet, and every so often I would say, “Can you believe this fucking family?”

“I can’t believe this shit,” Michael would respond.

We would look at each other and shake our heads. It felt like a bad dream. Ordinarily we would have driven around like this, with or without the pot, taking in the beauty of our surroundings and just relishing the moment. Now we were trying, and failing, to distract ourselves from reality. To my knowledge, that was the last time Michael smoked pot—it was a short-lived phase for both of us.

Frank Cascio-“My Friend Michael”
 
Just to be clear, I have to clarify my previous post. Barry (not Bee Gees as a whole band) was the one who smoked pot while recording:)

Oh ok thanks for the clarification :)
 
Bubs;3657310 said:
Michael was extraordinarily discreet—he didn’t want a soul to know about it.


If that wasn't your first clue, Frank................................

Way to break your friend's trust....
 
I never read this book. I understand as a friend you want to defend that friend but I think there are things that should remain private.I have a best friend for over 30 years now and we tell each other private things. I expect her to keep that to herself and she would hope I would do the same.


I want people to see Michael as a human being. When people talk about going to the movies with Michael or having a laugh with him it shows he had a sense of humor and cherished his time with his friends. When Paris said daddy at the memorial it showed everybody Michael wasn't just this musical icon but as a dad whose 3 young kids had to grow up without him. Michael was a private person and some of his private thoughts and moments should be kept private. It was the one thing he could control since so much of his life was in the spotlight and everything he did was for the world to judge and pick at. I just think there are other ways to show who Michael was but still giving him his privacy.
 
I never read this book. I understand as a friend you want to defend that friend but I think there are things that should remain private.I have a best friend for over 30 years now and we tell each other private things. I expect her to keep that to herself and she would hope I would do the same.


I want people to see Michael as a human being. When people talk about going to the movies with Michael or having a laugh with him it shows he had a sense of humor and cherished his time with his friends. When Paris said daddy at the memorial it showed everybody Michael wasn't just this musical icon but as a dad whose 3 young kids had to grow up without him. Michael was a private person and some of his private thoughts and moments should be kept private. It was the one thing he could control since so much of his life was in the spotlight and everything he did was for the world to judge and pick at. I just think there are other ways to show who Michael was but still giving him his privacy.

I completely agree....Smoking pot, no big deal..whatever....BUT, it was Michael's wishes to keep that private....Frank wanted to humanize him - well, how about humanizing him by treating him like a human being with a right to privacy just like any one of us?
 
:blink:
emoticons_487_0484.gif








Frank Cascio : "His greatest achievement is to have been father and have raised three wonderful and incredible children. Paris loved her father so much. Paris always wanted to be with her father, always. Michael is their father. I know that a lot of people think is not, but I know these three children are his . For his kids, he was the greatest father in the world." From this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGU3YG_rNg0

:cry:
 
Has Frank Cascio come to the lame extreme of using the very fact that we despise Sneddon so bad to manipulate us and make us eat all the garbage in his book? Is Frank Cascio capable of manipulating facts to make him look good? Has he done that in his book when talking about Michael?

Check this out. In an interview in Paris, Frank Cascio claims that Sneddon offered him the immunity which would protect him from doing any jail time if he testified against Michael. However his lawyer said that no such immunity was offered.

In Paris, Cascio said: " I was facing, separate from Michael, two to six years in Jail. I was also offered immunity from Tom Sneddon. If you don’t know what immunity is, it means if I cooperate with them, I will see zero jail time. No jail for me." (go to 17:24-18:46) [video=dailymotion;xrd8vb]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xrd8vb_interview-de-frank-cascio-fnac-des-halles-06-06-2012-a-paris-1_music[/video]

However in June 2005 a few days before the verdict his lawyer said on tv: “We offered our testimony with the same protection everyone would get during a grand jury, which is called immunity. We were not given immunity, we were offered limited immunity which is basically what they call a use of immunity for that particular proceeding, that grand jury proceeding which did us no good.” (go to 1:30) [video=youtube;KnFwxToajmk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnFwxToajmk[/video]

Frank Cascio's scheming seems to be working perfectly well because after he said that he got a set of applause and many fans who had been very vocal about Frank betraying Michael ended up taking pictures with him and buying his book...



Tacopina had also mentioned the fact that no transactional immunity was offered back in 2004.
Here is the transcript:

Partial Transcript: Norville Tonight
Air date: April 30 2004
Guests: Joe Tacopina, John Dolan, Diane Dimond

DEBRA NORVILLE: …I’m gonna ask you both to stand by for just a second because we’re gonna now bring in Joe Tacopina, criminal defense attorney, who is representing two of the people we may well have been alluding to earlier in our conversation. Mr. Tacopina as you know, there’s been wide speculation that those names that were blacked out on the public part of the indictment was released today may well be clients of yours. Can you verify that that’s the case?

JOE Tacopina, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I can’t. I wish I could. I can’t I can speculate with everyone else in this, and speculate that it may in fact be them based on the allegations, which I think are clearly baseless. But based on the allegations that I’ve heard bantered about regarding Frank and Vinnie, these acts that are listed in this indictment would sort of fit these allegations. So it would make sense according to the allegations anyway that their names would be in the redacted names.

NORVILLE: Your clients being Frank Tyson and Vincent Amen. They were, I understand, invited to appear before the grand jury. Is that correct?

TACOPINA: Yeah. They were invited to appear before the grand jury.

NORVILLE: And they declined?

TACOPINA: Right. We declined an invitation. Not, it’s not sort of like getting an invitation to a birthday party, Debra. It’s a little different. You know a grand jury is a one-sided proceeding. In my opinion the district attorney in this case sort of had his position set in stone. And I don’t think, quite frankly, my clients going in there giving them a sneak preview of what our defense will be, if in fact they’re charged, would really bode well for them down the road.

If we’re invited into this foray, if these two really terrific young kids who are very intelligent and sweet people, are dragged into this mix, I will do everything in my power to make sure the person who made that decision will regret it and regret it but good.

NORVILLE: Well that’s why you’re regarded as a very effective criminal defense attorney. It’s been reported that your clients may have been given a promise of immunity from prosecution if they did participate in the grand jury proceeding. Can you confirm that?

TACOPINA: Well they were given a promise of ‘use immunity’, not ‘transactional immunity’. Use immunity is very different than transactional. ‘Use’ simply means they can’t use that statement, that testimony in the grand jury against them in their direct case. It doesn’t give them immunity for anything they say. The immunity that really means something is transactional immunity, which means basically you testify truthfully and you’re immunized for all your conduct. That’s the immunity that comes with the bells and whistles. The use immunity is sort of a Hyundai compared to a BMW.

NORVILLE: I sit conceivable that a broader form of immunity would be attractive to you and your clients and encourage them to participate? Or can you see absolutely no way in which you would want to be a part of the prosecution’s going forward in this case against Michael Jackson?

TACOPINA: Well, here’s the thing. Certainly transactional immunity, if offered, is something I would speak to my clients about and consider. You know, we’re not looking to be cavalier here.

But on the other hand, they’re not gonna go in there because they’re offered a promise of—a clean slate of transactional immunity and make things up. And I just do not believe that the story that they would tell—the truth as they tell it to me and I believe it to be based on evidence I’ve seen—would jibe with what, you know, the other side, the prosecution thinks the truth is.

And therefore, you know, I don’t think it would work out where they would become embraced as witnesses. So if they give us transactional immunity, it’d be something we consider but there’s not gonna be any situation here where they come in and admit to wrongdoing. They committed no wrongdoing. And if someone alleges that they did so, we’ll meet it head on.

NORVILLE: What do you think the prosecution’s case is with respect to your clients? If indeed they are past of the conspiracy that’s being alleged by the prosecution, what role do you suspect they believe your clients might have played in that?

TACOPINA: Well I think what they believe and what they’ve said anyway is that they think Vincent Amen—24 year old Carnegie Mellon educated, terrific kid, and by the way he was about 5 foot 5 [inches] and hardly intimidating looking—was someone who held the family against or participated in holding the family against their will at Neverland. Which, aside from defying common sense, does not factually seem plausible for a host of reasons that I know. And they think Frank for the most part—who is really one of Michael’s closest friends and was his personal assistant. They claim through one of the doctors apparently, Stanley Katz, made a threats to one of the sibling of the alleged victim that if he revealed any information about alcohol being distributed, he will kill them. Another allegation that is just utterly baseless.

NORVILLE: Well, but this will all be presented in evidence presumably there will be testimony this happened. Diane you wanna follow up on that?

DIMOND: Well I agree with everything Joe has just said. But I will just add this. There was a secret grand jury impaneled here. 12 other people have agreed that there was enough evidence here to include some names in this indictment. And if what Joe thinks is true and I think is true—that it’s Vinnie and Frank—that there must be something to these allegations.

TACOPINA: Except this, Debra and Diane. Diane I respect what you say but here’s the thing about that. I didn’t get to ask any questions in that little proceeding over there in Santa Maria. When I get to ask some questions, we’ll see how the story sticks. I mean, if in fact I have a chance to ask questions. You know that’s why grand juries…

DIMOND: And I hear your clients have some documents to back up their side of the story right Joe?

TACOPINA: I’m sorry…I’m sort of losing my hearing here.

NORVILLE: That you clients may have…

TACOPINA: No, no Debra. I heard it. I was trying to be politically correct and police. We won’t—we will not be confirming or denying. We’ll wheel it out when there are 12 jurors in the box and we’ll see how that works.

……….

NORVILLE: John Dolan?

JOHN DOLAN: I think the people out there in Santa Maria have common sense and I don’t think its gonna make a big difference.

But may I mention something about this conspiracy count? If Joe is right, and I have every reason to believe that he is, if the source of this is the complaining witness, this may backfire on the district attorney because it undermines the credibility of that witness again. So it could be a real big problem.

NORVILLE: We’re gonna let that be the last word then…

Transcribed by MJEOL (excuse any typos) However in June 2005 a few days before the verdict his lawyer said on tv: “We offered our testimony with the same protection everyone would get during a grand jury, which is called immunity. We were not given immunity, we were offered limited immunity which is basically what they call a use of immunity for that particular proceeding, that grand jury proceeding which did us no good.” (go to 1:30) [video=youtube;KnFwxToajmk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnFwxToajmk[/video] However Has Frank Cascio come to the lame extreme of using the very fact that the fans despise Sneddon so bad to manipulate them and make them eat all the garbage in his book? Is Frank Cascio capable of manipulating facts to make him look good? Has he done that in his book when talking about Michael? Check this out. In an interview in Paris, Frank Cascio claims that Sneddon offered him the immunity which would protect him from doing any jail time if he testified against Michael. However his lawyer said that no such immunity was offered. In Paris Cascio said: " I was facing, separate from Michael, two to six years in Jail. I was also offered immunity from Tom Sneddon. If you don’t know what immunity is, it means if I cooperate with them, I will see zero jail time. No jail for me." (go to 17:24) [video=dailymotion;xrd8vb]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xrd8vb_interview-de-frank-cascio-fnac-des-halles-06-06-2012-a-paris-1_music[/video]



Tacopina had also mentioned the fact that no transactional immunity was offered back in 2004.
Here is the transcript:

Partial Transcript: Norville Tonight
Air date: April 30 2004
Guests: Joe Tacopina, John Dolan, Diane Dimond

DEBRA NORVILLE: …I’m gonna ask you both to stand by for just a second because we’re gonna now bring in Joe Tacopina, criminal defense attorney, who is representing two of the people we may well have been alluding to earlier in our conversation. Mr. Tacopina as you know, there’s been wide speculation that those names that were blacked out on the public part of the indictment was released today may well be clients of yours. Can you verify that that’s the case?

JOE Tacopina, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I can’t. I wish I could. I can’t I can speculate with everyone else in this, and speculate that it may in fact be them based on the allegations, which I think are clearly baseless. But based on the allegations that I’ve heard bantered about regarding Frank and Vinnie, these acts that are listed in this indictment would sort of fit these allegations. So it would make sense according to the allegations anyway that their names would be in the redacted names.

NORVILLE: Your clients being Frank Tyson and Vincent Amen. They were, I understand, invited to appear before the grand jury. Is that correct?

TACOPINA: Yeah. They were invited to appear before the grand jury.

NORVILLE: And they declined?

TACOPINA: Right. We declined an invitation. Not, it’s not sort of like getting an invitation to a birthday party, Debra. It’s a little different. You know a grand jury is a one-sided proceeding. In my opinion the district attorney in this case sort of had his position set in stone. And I don’t think, quite frankly, my clients going in there giving them a sneak preview of what our defense will be, if in fact they’re charged, would really bode well for them down the road.

If we’re invited into this foray, if these two really terrific young kids who are very intelligent and sweet people, are dragged into this mix, I will do everything in my power to make sure the person who made that decision will regret it and regret it but good.

NORVILLE: Well that’s why you’re regarded as a very effective criminal defense attorney. It’s been reported that your clients may have been given a promise of immunity from prosecution if they did participate in the grand jury proceeding. Can you confirm that?

TACOPINA: Well they were given a promise of ‘use immunity’, not ‘transactional immunity’. Use immunity is very different than transactional. ‘Use’ simply means they can’t use that statement, that testimony in the grand jury against them in their direct case. It doesn’t give them immunity for anything they say. The immunity that really means something is transactional immunity, which means basically you testify truthfully and you’re immunized for all your conduct. That’s the immunity that comes with the bells and whistles. The use immunity is sort of a Hyundai compared to a BMW.

NORVILLE: I sit conceivable that a broader form of immunity would be attractive to you and your clients and encourage them to participate? Or can you see absolutely no way in which you would want to be a part of the prosecution’s going forward in this case against Michael Jackson?

TACOPINA: Well, here’s the thing. Certainly transactional immunity, if offered, is something I would speak to my clients about and consider. You know, we’re not looking to be cavalier here.

But on the other hand, they’re not gonna go in there because they’re offered a promise of—a clean slate of transactional immunity and make things up. And I just do not believe that the story that they would tell—the truth as they tell it to me and I believe it to be based on evidence I’ve seen—would jibe with what, you know, the other side, the prosecution thinks the truth is.

And therefore, you know, I don’t think it would work out where they would become embraced as witnesses. So if they give us transactional immunity, it’d be something we consider but there’s not gonna be any situation here where they come in and admit to wrongdoing. They committed no wrongdoing. And if someone alleges that they did so, we’ll meet it head on.


NORVILLE: What do you think the prosecution’s case is with respect to your clients? If indeed they are past of the conspiracy that’s being alleged by the prosecution, what role do you suspect they believe your clients might have played in that?

TACOPINA: Well I think what they believe and what they’ve said anyway is that they think Vincent Amen—24 year old Carnegie Mellon educated, terrific kid, and by the way he was about 5 foot 5 [inches] and hardly intimidating looking—was someone who held the family against or participated in holding the family against their will at Neverland. Which, aside from defying common sense, does not factually seem plausible for a host of reasons that I know. And they think Frank for the most part—who is really one of Michael’s closest friends and was his personal assistant. They claim through one of the doctors apparently, Stanley Katz, made a threats to one of the sibling of the alleged victim that if he revealed any information about alcohol being distributed, he will kill them. Another allegation that is just utterly baseless.

NORVILLE: Well, but this will all be presented in evidence presumably there will be testimony this happened. Diane you wanna follow up on that?

DIMOND: Well I agree with everything Joe has just said. But I will just add this. There was a secret grand jury impaneled here. 12 other people have agreed that there was enough evidence here to include some names in this indictment. And if what Joe thinks is true and I think is true—that it’s Vinnie and Frank—that there must be something to these allegations.

TACOPINA: Except this, Debra and Diane. Diane I respect what you say but here’s the thing about that. I didn’t get to ask any questions in that little proceeding over there in Santa Maria. When I get to ask some questions, we’ll see how the story sticks. I mean, if in fact I have a chance to ask questions. You know that’s why grand juries…

DIMOND: And I hear your clients have some documents to back up their side of the story right Joe?

TACOPINA: I’m sorry…I’m sort of losing my hearing here.

NORVILLE: That you clients may have…

TACOPINA: No, no Debra. I heard it. I was trying to be politically correct and police. We won’t—we will not be confirming or denying. We’ll wheel it out when there are 12 jurors in the box and we’ll see how that works.

……….

NORVILLE: John Dolan?

JOHN DOLAN: I think the people out there in Santa Maria have common sense and I don’t think its gonna make a big difference.

But may I mention something about this conspiracy count? If Joe is right, and I have every reason to believe that he is, if the source of this is the complaining witness, this may backfire on the district attorney because it undermines the credibility of that witness again. So it could be a real big problem.

NORVILLE: We’re gonna let that be the last word then…

Transcribed by MJEOL (excuse any typos)
 
I think Frank was just trying to explain that he didnt betray MJ by not testifying to the grand Jury and whether full or limited immunity was offered or not the fact still remains he didnt. I think the fans would have still embraced him there even if immunity was mentioned as being limited. Frank may have understood the immunity as Zero time for his testimony. But even if it was limited I dont get why some are out for vengence against Frank over this issue when Tom Messerou himself recently spoke to this issue and explained the co-conspiracy charges and stated Frank didnt betray Michael.

If Tom Mez didnt see a problem why are somelooking for something to attack him over .. I dont get that ? or even the reason WHY? Is it becuase some fans have an agenda that Frank doesn't support. He is certainly is not an enemy of Michael's or the fanbase. Someone liking or disliking his book wont change that fact.

IMO Franks book is not full of garbage .. Its his perception of events as he rememebers them. There is nothing sinister, evil or harmful to Michael in his book. In fact most who read it say it makes them love Michael even more. Some things were not 100% accurate and some things I would rather not know but nothing harmfull to Michael . It's actually a very positive, loving look at Michael and the relationship Frank had with him. There is no hate in this book at all .. Interestingly that also comes from elsehwere.



I dont have probs if others dont like Franks book. but Its very scary to me the lengths some fans will go to try and harm Frank becuase of that. He is NOT an enemy. whether you like his book or not.

Im sure someone can find the interview Tom Mes did not long ago defending Frank over the issue of the co-conspiracy charges.
 
Twitter Ivy MJJ Community

First of all this was a very complex, confusing, terrifying situation. What Sneddon did , the DA who was after Michael as everyone knows, What he did was he brought these conspiracy charges for many different reasons. One of them was to terrify away witnesses that can help Michael Jackson.

And what he did was and it was very strange, he had the grand jury indict Michael on various counts the first one being conspiracy. But the only one in the alleged conspiracy charged was Michael. He called everyone else an unindicted co-conspirator which is a give away right away that he had a nefarious purpose for bringing a conspiracy charge.

So Michael was charged with conspiracy. Remember a conspiracy is an agreement among various individuals to commit a crime. the agreement can be in writing or it can be not in writing. It can also be an understanding. But nevertheless conspiracy involves more than one person and it requires a form of agreement to commit a crime. But the only one charged was Michael Jackson. So that ought to tell you something right there something is wrong.

Everyone else was called an unidicted co-conspirator. Frank Cascio, Vinnie Amen, Dieter, Konitzer, Marc Shaffel. What I think he did was he wanted to scare the daylights away from these potential witnesses for Michael Jackson because they were there when Arvizo's was around. And to do that he sort of hang the possibility of charging them over their heads, he forced them all to get lawyers and he terrified them. Let's face it.

As I said in other discussions there were other technical reasons he brought that charge. It would allow the Arvizo's to testify about Cascio, Shaffer, Amen, Dieter and Konitzer and at the same time scare them away so Michael couldn't bring them in to contradict or refute what Arvizo's said. It was very very sinister in my opinion.

So Frank Cascio and the rest all got lawyers, you would expect them to. They were looking at the possibility of felony charges of conspiracy and years in prison. We were sort of preparing our defense and trying to figure out who everyone was and what they can contribute to our defense and what they had to say and what they said to other people, have they talked to Sneddon and company. You know this is what criminal defense is. This was a huge case, everything was magnified a million times.

So Frank Cascio got a lawyer and I did not want Michael talking to him or him talking to Michael because this would open up the door to types of examination by the DAs in the trial. Although I believe they were talking anyway because they were friends for many years.

And Cascio's lawyer Joe Tacopina from NY started calling me and asking me what was going on and what I thought. I would tell him what I could and I would ask him what Frank was up to. My impression was Frank was listening to his lawyer. His lawyer was going very carefully, very professionally, very delicately through the evidence and trying to find out how to protect his client. That was what his job was. So his lawyer wasn't right away saying "he'll do whatever you want", he was being careful about it and I think Frank was listening to his lawyer. I don't know what he said to Michael or what Michael said to him. I know his family members were talking to Michael , I wasn't privy to those conversations. You know they are all very close friends.

At some point a perception that Frank was not being cooperative had developed. I'm not so sure why it might have developed. It might have been just his lawyer being cautious and careful. But I can say this in the end he was willing to testify. His lawyer told me he was willing to testify , he had a lot of conversations. What I think happened was he was scared, he was listening to his lawyer , his lawyer was being cautious that may have been construed as him not being cooperative but I will say this in the end he was willing to come in and testify. That's what I think really happened with Frank Cascio.

Now you know I can't blame him for being terrified. He does say in his book that I have to point out that Sneddon offered him immunity from prosecution. What that meant was if he came forward and cooperated with Sneddon and the DA's office he could not be prosecuted. He also had to be willing to testify against Michael and he refused it. Even though that would have been a very safe way to go to make sure that you aren't charged. You gotta give him credit for that. Gotta give him credit for that, gotta understand how terrified they were about being charged with felony conspiracy going to prison. You gotta appreciate he was listening to his lawyer who was going on cautiously and carefully to figure out how to best protect his client. So I don't think anyone should blame Frank. Really don't.

Now other people weren't as terrified as he was. For example Chris Tucker and Maculay Culkin were not unidicted co-conspirators. They were never facing charges. So they came right out and told their lawyers and agents and managers and advisers "we are testifying for Michael whenever he needs us. You know there's no doubt about it". And they did that. I sat with Maculay Culkin and his entertainment lawyer and his entertainment lawyer was scared to death. Where as Maculay was cool as can be said "when Michael needs me I am there". I met with Chris Tucker and his lawyer at his lawyers home and his attitude was exactly the same "When Michael wants me I don't care what I'm doing I'm there". But they weren't also facing the possibility of a conspiracy charge. So I'm not hard on Frank, I understand the whole situation, in the end he was willing to testify.

And as he correctly said in his book , and I read it and I enjoyed the book, I decided that I didn't need to call him. I wanted to get this case to the jury , I actually shortened our witness list, we initially expected the trial to last a few more months. But I wanted this to get to the jury, I thought we really rocked their world so to speak and I thought this case was ready for an acquittal. That's what happened fortunately.ue at Podcast by Positively Michael
 
"in the end he was willing to testify." this is said twice. So obviously, until the end, he was not willing to testify, as Mez says, b/c he was listening to his lawyer, and he was facing the chance of being indicted. Mez says he is not hard on Frank, and that is fine. But Frank was in the room when the Arvizos slept over, and Michael faced a death sentence. 22 years in jail away from his kids would kill him. Mez said so too. Michael was facing a death sentence. So I am disappointed that Frank, who was the only person in the bedroom and invited by Michael to be there as a witness, wasn't willing to stand up for Michael until the end of the trial when he decided he was 'willing to testify."
 
But Frank was in the room when the Arvizos slept over, and Michael faced a death sentence. 22 years in jail away from his kids would kill him. Mez said so too. Michael was facing a death sentence. So I am disappointed that Frank, who was the only person in the bedroom and invited by Michael to be there as a witness, wasn't willing to stand up for Michael until the end of the trial when he decided he was 'willing to testify."

There were no arvizo accusations or charges related to that night in 2001 that frank was in the bedroom with mj and the arvizo boys. Gavin and star just mention that they were shown porn websites on the computer by frank, but frank was never charged with showing adult stuff to a minor, and neither was mj. Frank's testimony would only relate to the conspiracy charge which tmez had well under control and had plenty of witnesses and evidence to show it was a load of nonsense.
 
Back
Top