Latest on MJJC

‘Rich and Acquitted’,

^ Yup watched it after my post.. It was a piece of sh**... the commercials totally drew in MJ fans by showing Tom Mez and others defending Michael but when you watch it was totally tilted against Michael...
 
KOPV said:
^ Yup watched it after my post.. It was a piece of sh**... the commercials totally drew in MJ fans by showing Tom Mez and others defending Michael but when you watch it was totally tilted against Michael...
Click to expand...
I house/dog sat late last month and watched a bunch of trashy Reelz shows. One on celebrity deaths like Sal Mineo and Robert Crane. Sad that's how they are remembered but it did tell the true stories behind the salacious stuff.
I go back over later this month so guess I'll watch this. They had 3 different Michael ones on during Christmas and they were all like what you described. A few good guests along with a bunch of trash.
 
terrell said:
Spending has nothing to do with showing facts so this guy sound crazy..
Click to expand...

Exactly. Tupac, Martha Stewart, Wynona Ryder, Mike Tyson were all rich celebrities and were convicted. It's just
not true that if you have money you get acquitted.
And MJ's money had nothing to do with Gavin Arvizo's testimony which the jury wanted to be read back.
Nothing to do with Janet Arvizo's and Jason Francia's erratic performance, nothing to do Star Arvizo's lies.
The things which acquitted MJ mostly came for free right from the mouth from his enemies.

Then there were Mark Geragos and his people making MJ pay tons of money for the big fat nothing.
Just because a lawyer is expensive does not mean he is good.
His 1993 legal team sucked and there you have Carl Douglas bragging that he bought a car with the money he made
from that case. For what? For telling him to settle?
 
I don't even understand how this is 100% legal.... it's def not moral!
 
David Edwards reviewed the doc. Sounds exactly the lame, fallacious, one-sidedly biased BS that I thought it would be. It has Ron Zonen as its main talking head all through it, so it is of course his biased narrative. Presenting allegations as if they were facts even when he and his team of prosecutors never proved them to be facts in a Court and in fact they were refuted. But all that is of course excluded from this "documentary".

One interesting info that the "legal analysit" this doc used (of course, again, very one-sidedly biased against MJ) is a Robin Saxs who already talked about the Robson case in the media, so he might have something to do with Robson's team.

"What the victims are trying to claim here is that Michael Jackson shut people up -- not just one or two or three but many many people," legal analyst Robin Sax told ET.
Click to expand...

http://www.etonline.com/news/162324...ns_hush_money_to_alleged_molestation_victims/


Tuesday, 13 September 2016

Michael Jackson - Rich & Acquitted - AND INNOCENT!!



​

​
Part of being an advocate for Michael is ensuring I am always fully informed in order to separate fact from fiction. That's why this evening; I decided to watch the program "Rich and Acquitted - Michael Jackson."


From the outset; this program absolutely reeked of bias against Michael. It was clearly yet another attempt to smear him and it is of course no coincidence that the Wade Robson civil suit was brought up towards the end of the program. I'd even go so far as to suggest that Robson's team had a hand in this; such was the tone throughout.


The program began with suggesting that the ONLY reason Michael was acquitted in 2005 was because he was rich and therefore could "make his problems go away." They cite this in the fact that "Michael paid off his alleged victim" in 1993. In fact; Prosecutor Ron Zonen repeatedly references the fact that Michael settled the suit, in his attempt to suggest Michael was guilty.


This is the first lie I'm going to debunk. Michael himself DID NOT pay off Jordan Chandler. Michael's INSURERS settled the civil case against Michael. Michael had no say in the matter as detailed in the document below. And the settlement had nothing to do with Michael being guilty. It is a fact that insurance companies will routinely settle such cases in order to protect their interests. To suggest that the settlement was an indication of Michael's guilt is completely unjust; especially since such settlement was beyond his control:


​

​
Throughout the program; Legal Analyst and former Prosecutor Robin Saxs repeatedly makes claims that Michael's friendships with young boys are part of a "grooming process" and in particular the case with Jordan Chandler; thus profiling Michael as a paedophile - yet several other analysts who provided reports about Michael during the trial and all allegations expressed an opinion that Michael didn't "fit the profile" of a paedophile. This leads me to believe that Ms Saxs' narrative is completely biased, having not seen the evidence in Michael's favour.



Rather laughingly; they cover the fact that Evan Chandler was able to get an outcry from Jordan as a result administering a hypnotic drug or a "truth serum" if you will. While Evan may have chosen this method in order to obtain information from his son, various studies have shown that those under the influence of such drugs are also highly open to suggestion (see link below). All Evan had to do was feed Jordan the loaded question in order to get the response he desired. Therefore; it would be fair to say that such an "allegation" under the influence of drugs would be inadmissable in a court of law.


http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4375&context=jclc


It is during that same segment of the program that they talk about statements from other young friends of Michael including Brett Barnes and Wade Robson - BOTH deny any molestation took place. Also visited are the allegations made by LaToya Jackson in which she claims she has seen countless checks paid out to Michael's victims. Of course we all know that her statement was later retracted; having been bullied into saying such things by her then husband, Jack Gordon.


What the program failed to address however; was the fact that Evan Chandler had demanded money from Michael BEFORE any civil action was made against him and BEFORE any allegations made their way to the authorities. They also failed to mention the annexe Evan Chandler wanted Michael to build and wasn't happy when Michael refused. They also failed to play the damning evidence against Evan Chandler in which he reveals his plans to extort Michael.




After covering the 1993 allegations, the program talks about the next 8 years; with Ms Saxs adding more venom by suggesting Michael's continued friendships with young boys was more "evidence of grooming" I will point out here that yes; Ms Saxs has had dealings with the Wade Robson case - as you can see from the link below:



http://www.etonline.com/news/162324...ns_hush_money_to_alleged_molestation_victims/


As they move on to Michael's marriage to Debbie Rowe; Debbie is described as a "besotted fan" who was in love with him. Incorrect. While yes; Debbie was indeed fond of Michael; she was his friend and nothing more. She met him through Arnold Klein's office and provided him with plenty of much-needed support after Michael was diagnosed with vitiligo. This enabled them to forge a friendship outside of Dr Klein's office which would lead to their eventual marriage. Debbie agreed to have Michael's children NOT because she was in love with him. She agreed because she saw how desperate Michael was to be a father. His failing marriage to Lisa signalled he would not be having a child with his wife; so Debbie offered to be his surrogate.


Let's be honest about this. That is what Debbie Rowe was - a surrogate. It is only because she was betrayed by a "friend" that the truth was revealed about her identity. Had that not have been the case; it is likely Debbie would have remained as unknown as BiGi's mother is.


Yes Michael married Debbie - purely to give his child a name - after the sins of his father; he was not about to have a child out of wedlock; neither would his mother allow that to happen.


Of course the documentary HAD to visit the "baby dangling" incident as it led up to the Martin Bashir documentary. That's when the real trash started...


First of all; it was suggested that because Michael was rich, he was able to "get his team of fixers" to provide his own documentary - "Living With Michael Jackson - The Footage You Were Never Meant To See." If it was indeed a case of him getting his "fixers" to sort the problem; why then did Michael have his own team filming as well as Martin Bashir? Quite imply; it was to safe-guard against any clever editing and untruths as we saw in Martin Bashir's version of events - and insurance policy. He's letting a journalist in his life so of course he's going to ensure he's fully prepared in case he isn't shown in a favourable light. His business advisers and legal team are going to ensure that is the case.


Then comes the ridiculous claim by Ron Zonen that during the time of the second documentary and before any allegations were made by the Gavin Arvizo's; the Arvizo family were to be shipped off to Brazil in an attempt to "shut them up". Why then were the Arvizo's in the documentary defending Michael if they were about to be "shipped off" to Brazil? At the same time; there's a claim that Michael was "holding the Arvizo's captive." Obviously this is where the infamous Janet Arvizo claim of them going to be "kidnapped in a hot air balloon came about." Like Tom Mesereau asked in the 2005 trial; if the Arvizo's were being held captive; why then did they escape Neverland only to go back again of their own free will?



Following the Arvizo's sudden change in their story and the subsequent allegations; the program covered the events that led up to Michael's arrest. During this section; they pointed out that a recent change in the law allowed them to force a child molestation witness to testify despite an out of court settlement. In short; Sneddon wanted Jordy Chandler on the stand. They failed to mention a) Jordy refused and b) at the time of the trial, Jordy was legally emancipated from his parents as a result of what transpired in 1993.


Also during this section; we also have the claims by Jason Francia; yet no mention of the fact that the Francias had sold their story to tabloids BEFORE their testimony. How interesting that the documentary should leave that detail out....


When Michael's home was raided in 2003; some 70 law enforcement personnel were present. This is VERY unusual and Tom Mesereau touched on this. Even high profile murder cases don't have that many officers raiding the premises. Not even Charles Manson had that many officers investigating! So why so many investigating Michael? As Tom Mesereau explained - because it's Michael Jackson. Rather like the bail set after Michael's arrest - $3 million - excessive in real terms. To put it into perspective; Phil Spector, who was convicted of the murder of Lana Carson, was bailed at $1 million. Michael was bailed at $3 million purely because he's Michael Jackson.


Following Michael's arrest and indictment; the program then suggests Michael was able to hire Tom Mesereau because he was "rich and could make his problems go away." While the program covered the gag order imposed on both parties to prevent them speaking to the media; what they failed mention was that Michael's previous legal team were focusing less on their client and more on the media spotlight. Michael fired his previous legal team simply because they would not shut up when it came to standing in front of the camera and talking about the case. It was already painfully obvious Michael was enduring a "trial by media". Spotlight-hungry lawyers were the last thing he needed!


In addition and at the time of Michael's trial, Mark Geragos was heavily involved in the Scott Peterson case and therefore was stretching himself too thin. It is only natural that Michael would want somebody giving his case their full attention - this is his life, his liberty and his reputation at stake!


As the program covers the trial; it covers various other inflammatory remarks from Ron Zonen - for example when they talk about the allegations of Michael plying Gavin Arvizo with alcohol before molesting him; Zonen suggests Michael also drugged the youngster. If that was the case; why did Zonen not order toxicology reports in order to prove that case? Indeed; hair strand drug tests can go back as far as 360 days in some cases. Surely if Zonen wanted to demonstrate Gavin had been drugged; he would have chosen to go down this route? Or did he save that little "omission" specifically for this program? My thoughts are with the latter.


Also out of the mouth of Zonen is the accusation that Chris Tucker's testimony for the defence was "false," Why has this not been brought up before? And indeed; why did the prosecution not question that? Again - another claim Zonen has saved for this documentary.


Perhaps the most ridiculous claim by Zonen is that "the jury wouldn't have convicted if they saw Michael doing it on video." No; the jury weren't swayed by any "opinion" of Michael. They considered their verdict based on the evidence presented before them, and in particular the lack of evidence presented by the prosecution. To suggest they "didn't want to convict" Michael, simply demonstrates Zonen's continued contempt at the fact that the case he believed he would win; was completed obliterated by Tom Mesereau. Mr Zonen cannot hide from that fact. Neither can he hide from the fact that his star witness; Janet Arvizo proved to be more of a favour for the defence than the prosecution. Janet Arvizo took that stand and made ridiculous claims about Michael - and allowed her mouth to run away with her in the process. All Tom Mesereau had to do was let her keep talking - despite Zonen trying to go for an adjournment. Demonstrating her complete lack of credibility, was probably the only honest thing Janet Arvizo managed to accomplish since the outset of the allegations against Michael.


The whole program was geared up to scandalise Michael, rather than to portray an accurate account of events. It attempted to deliver the message that Michael was able to buy his innocence by employing hard-nosed lawyers; acquiring "evidence" against this accusers and "paying of victims". What the program failed to deliver were the full facts and certainly NONE of the well documented facts in Michael's favour.


We have already talked about the facts surrounding the 1993 settlement. But there are even more facts to consider.


It is a fact that there was not one scrap of evidence in the case against Michael. Let's not forget that 70 law enforcement personnel were involved. Tom Sneddon was a man who was determined to nail Michael and even set up a website to invite further allegations against the man he had relentlessly pursued since 1993. He employed the best forensic experts, the best private investigators, the best criminology teams and yet still found absolutely NOTHING to prove Michael's guilt.


In addition; he attempted to falsify evidence by allowing Gavin Arvizo to handle a piece of evidence AFTER the allegations had been made - this particularly was the case with a pornographic magazine found at the Neverland raid. The magazine was heterosexual porn and NOT anything to suggest child porn.


Then there is the fact that the photos the investigators took in 1993 DID NOT match the description made by Jordy Chandler. Of course; that wasn't mentioned in the program either - rather just skated over in the suggestion that Michael was "lucky to have such a forensic photo examination in his own home" rather than in a police cell.


Despite what the program tries to convey; you cannot deny the facts. A man determined to nail Michael; many years of investigations by various officers; lack of credible witness testimonies, lack of concrete evidence and an acquittal on ALL charges by unanimous verdict.


Michael wasn't acquitted because he was rich. He was acquitted for one reason and one reason only. He truly was innocent - and always will be.


But why bring about this documentary now? As I've already touched on; there is certainly a connection to the Wade Robson case. At the end of the program; they talk about Robson's allegations yet take it no further due to the impending civil suit.


Look at the evidence however. We have a very biased documentary AGAINST Michael; with one of Robson's legal team appearing in a very large portion of it. Is this simple something which "just happened?" Nope - this is the Robson camp stepping up their smear campaign; as predicted by many other advocates. And I guarantee this is just the beginning. More stories will come out both on TV and in the media - and tabloids like Radar Online already have their pens poised over the paper.


This is yet another demonstration of the huge fight we have on our hands in order to protect Michael. Be vigilant, be informed and above all; be strong in supporting Michael. He's about to need us more than he's ever needed us before.
Click to expand...

https://defendingmichaelslegacy.blogspot.hu/2016/09/michael-jackson-rich-acquitted-and.html

Funny how Zonen never tells in this documentary that all of these claims were completely and utterly destroyed in court. Eg.

Then comes the ridiculous claim by Ron Zonen that during the time of the second documentary and before any allegations were made by the Gavin Arvizo's; the Arvizo family were to be shipped off to Brazil in an attempt to "shut them up". Why then were the Arvizo's in the documentary defending Michael if they were about to be "shipped off" to Brazil? At the same time; there's a claim that Michael was "holding the Arvizo's captive."
Click to expand...

Really? Was he holding them captive?

Here is a list of the Arvizo family’s excursions during their alleged captivity between February 7 and March 12:

Receipts showed that on February 11 the mother, Janet Arvizo went to a beauty salon to get a leg wax. On the stand she claimed that this was the idea of Jackson’s people, “the Germans” (Ronald Konitzer and Dieter Wiesner) as PR for Michael Jackson. During that trip she never mentioned being kept captive to anyone. [3]

Some time between February 12 and 15 first Janet Arvizo then her children too leave Neverland (characterized later as their second “escape” – see above). They stay at the home of Janet Arvizo’s boyfriend, Jay Jackson. Jay Jackson was an army officer, a major, and had no relation to Michael Jackson. While staying at her boyfriend’s house for several days, neither Janet Arvizo or her boyfriend contacted authorities or anyone to report that they had allegedly been held captive at Neverland. In actuality recorded phone conversations showed that during this time Janet Arvizo was on the phone with Michael Jackson’s personal assistant, Frank Cascio several times and the conversations were very friendly – Janet Arvizo even called Cascio’s family her family. From Janet Arvizo’s cross-examination at the 2005 trial:
Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, you’re telling Frank that you love his family, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You’re telling Frank that, in effect, “We’re all family,” right?
A. Yes. Because of Michael’s initial lovey-dovey meeting.
Q. Just please answer my question, Miss Arvizo. The prosecutor will then ask you whatever he wants. I just want direct answers to my questions, all right? Is that all right with you?
A. If you could simplify the questions, that would be easier for me.
Q. I will try to make them as clear as I can. And if you don’t understand, don’t answer me. Just ask me to try and restate it. Okay?
A. Okay. That’s fair enough.
Q. You told Frank Cascio in this conversation,
“We’re all family,” true?
A. I said, “It’s like we’re family.” True.
Q. Did that mean in your mind that your family, Frank’s family, and Mr. Jackson’s family were all united?
A. Let me see. It says right here, “I love you so much. You don’t know how much I love your little sister and your little brother.” That’s what it said.
Q. And then later on, it says, “It’s like we’re family, you know, Frank?”
A. Yeah.
Q. Okay.
A. “Like we’re family.”
Q. And when you said that you meant it, true?
A. Yes, I believed what he said in the initial meeting in Miami. [4]

​
On February 16 Bradley Miller, a private investigator working for Jackson’s lawyer Mark Geragos, conducted and tape recorded an interview with Janet Arvizo in Jay Jackson’s home. On the tape Janet Arvizo does not mention she or her children being “kidnapped” or being held captive by either Jackson or his people, nor any other wrongdoing by Jackson. In fact she says nothing but nice things about him. In Court in 2005 Janet Arvizo said of that interview:
Q. All right. And you said nice things about Mr. Jackson, did you not?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And did you believe those things at that time?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You would have said those things even if he hadn’t rewound the tape-recorder?
A. That’s right. [1]

​
On February 20 the Arvizos got a visit from the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS, also mentioned as Child Protective Services – CPS). They interviewed Janet Arvizo and her children because a teacher from Gavin’s school filed a complaint over the claim in the Bashir documentary that Gavin had slept in Jackson’s bed. Again, the Arvizos said nothing but positive things about Jackson. They denied molestation and never claimed that they had been supposedly “kidnapped” or held against their will. The interview took place in Major Jay Jackson’s home. [3]

The next day, on February 21, while her children went back to Neverland, Janet Arvizo visited a civil case lawyer William Dickerman who was offered to her by Jamie Masada. Janet Arvizo denied meeting Dickerman on February 21 in her testimony, but Dickerman in his own testimony stated they first met on February 21. Then they met again on February 25 – on this both testimonies agreed. During none of these visits Janet Arvizo mentioned to the lawyer that they were supposedly kidnapped or being held captive at Neverland, nor did the lawyer report any such thing to any authority. According to Janet Arvizo she contacted Dickerman because she wanted him to stop the media from using her children’s likeness and photos in their publications and on their programs. [3] [5]

On February 25 Gavin had a doctor’s appointment and the Arvizo family also went to visit Jamie Masada at the Laugh Factory. Again they never mentioned to the doctor or anyone that they had allegedly been held captive at Neverland and no one reported any such claims to authorities.[3]
Between February 25 and March 2 the Arvizo family stayed at a hotel in Calabasas with Frank Cascio and Vinnie Amen. During this period and also during their stay at Neverland, as receipts show, they went shopping several times. During these shoppings they never alerted anyone that that they had allegedly been held captive. [3]

Some time during this period in February-March, while allegedly being held captive, the Arvizos also went to see a dentist to have the braces removed from Gavin’s and Star’s teeth. Again, they never mentioned to the dentist or anyone that they were allegedly being kept against their will at Neverland. [3]

On March 11 the Arvizos appeared in a Court regarding a child support debate with Janet Arvizo’s ex-husband David Arvizo. They were accompanied by another one of their lawyers, Michael Manning. They never reported to either the lawyer or the Court that they were allegedly being kidnapped and held against their will at Neverland. [3]

So as you can see the Arvizos had several opportunities to report their alleged captivity to authorities, a court, lawyers, doctors, relatives, friends and shop assistants, but they did not. In actuality, they went shopping, to doctors, to a lawyer, to a court appointment, stayed in Major Jay Jackson’s home and so on – all during their alleged captivity at Neverland.
Click to expand...

http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/the-conspiracy-charge/

Why was that not told by you, Mr. Zonen? Shameless liar. Sleazy, National Enquirer level "documentaries" are exactly where you and your so called "case against MJ" belong to.

This whole communist anti-rich narrative is a fallacy and an extremely lame "argument" for someone's guilt. Just because someone has a good lawyer it doesn't mean he is guilty - what kind of lame fallacy is that? But these type of fallacious arguments are all they have. And BTW, the Chandlers and the Arvizos too had top lawyers - isn't Larry Feldman one of the countries' top lawyers? And does Zonen not consider himself and Sneddon good enough prosecutors? What is it that Mez did that depended so much on money? That they outspent them is ridiculous when Santa Barbara spent more on building a case against MJ than on any other case in its history. The prosecution even hired a PR firm, for God's sake! Their officers travelled all over the world to find "victims". But they didn't have enough money to be successful. Nice excuse Mr. Zonen. What is it that you would have needed more money for to succeed? I see you are still unable to admit that you simply did not have a case.

As for the settlement, if MJ wasn't rich we would never have such allegations against him in the first place. It were the Chandlers who demanded money from the get go, not MJ offering it. Again, why wasn't this told in this "documentary"? Wealth can create false accusers for money and all of MJ's accusers wanted money (yes, on contrary with Zonen's claims also the Arvizos, it is another matter that they did not succeed). So if this "documentary" wanted so talk about money so much why did they fail to mention this little inconvenient fact about the accuser's relationship with MJ's money?

And LOL @ them having a problem with MJ's ability to produce the Take Two documentary in reply to Living with MJ. They do not seem to have the same problem with the gazillion fallacious "documentaries" about this case which were all one-sided propaganda for the prosecution (including this one). The tabloid media had significantly more money and energy to keep producing such anti-MJ stuff, but somehow that is not a problem. Somehow it is MJ's one Take Two documentary that is the problem and that makes him aquitted "because he is rich". LOL, these people cannot be serious.

Like I said, such joke, sleazy, low-brow tabloid "documentaries" are exactly where Zonen and his so called case belong to. That's the kind of audience he can hope to convince of his case, not a Jury that actually gets to see both sides of a case - unlike the tabloid audience who draws its conclusions from such one-sidedly manipulated "documentaries".
 
Last edited:
respect77 said:
Like I said, such joke, sleazy, low-brow tabloid "documentaries" are exactly where Zonen and his so called case belong to. That's the kind of audience he can hope to convince of his case, not a Jury that actually gets to see both sides of a case - unlike the tabloid audience who draws its conclusions from such one-sidedly manipulated "documentaries".
Click to expand...


Don't you want to help make that A&E documentary Raven talked about? She was looking for MJ researchers and their contact info.
I heard that Mike Parr contacted the producer trying to brainwash them. I think people like you should do that too to counter their bullshit.
 
redfrog said:
Don't you want to help make that A&E documentary Raven talked about? She was looking for MJ researchers and their contact info.
I heard that Mike Parr contacted the producer trying to brainwash them. I think people like you should do that too to counter their bullshit.
Click to expand...

Raven knows me. If she wants my help she can approach me.
 
How much is Zonen being paid for these new docs? He was the main commentator on the 3 I saw in December.
 
You know when I watch these type of documentaries or shows.. it makes me wonder how much do I believe about others that are SOOO Off!! I know I have HAD to made poor judgement about others by documentaries/shows I've watched.. I really try to be fair with my judgement about people but sometimes you only know what you are fed.
 
If anything about Michael airs on this channel, you can be sure it's garbage, trust me. Pretty much anything on this channel concerning celebrities is a joke. Right after this "rich and acquitted" show they started in with programming about Prince's death. :smilerolleyes: Not worth paying any attention to at all.
 
Well, I can already predict how Michael's episode will go. I was dog and house sitting at a place with Reelz and watched another "Life and Death of Michael Jackson" (another garbage piece but with people we like and respect added in there) and then two episodes of "Rich and Acquitted." The first one was about Snoop Dog and the second was about R. Kelly. Both mentioned Michael a few times.
I honestly don't know much about either case (just the basics), but the jist was that they were both guilty and there was actual evidence, which they talked a lot about, but their very well paid attorneys pulled a few stunts that put "doubt" in the jurors minds. They also had family members of the victims talking about them, which made it pretty sad.
 
barbee0715 said:
Well, I can already predict how Michael's episode will go.
Click to expand...

The MJ episode was already aired. It did not create any interest in the general public. Honestly the only place I see people keep mentioning it and still giving it attention is here.
 
respect77 said:
The MJ episode was already aired. It did not create any interest in the general public. Honestly the only place I see people keep mentioning it and still giving it attention is here.
Click to expand...
You're right-I guess it just hasn't played here yet. There won't ever be any interest from the general public on the stuff on this channel-I don't think anyone I know has even HEARD of this channel. I think it started out as a place for all things Hollywood-Access Hollywood had their show there and Leonard Maltin has a show where he talks about old movies.

Their "scandal" shows remind me of the old book "Hollywood Babylon"-full of scandalous, salacious stuff that was proved to be not true, but still made its way to common urban folklore. One nice thing I can say about it, is that not one of the shows I have seen have been 1/16th as bad as the shows that were on back on mainstream media in 2003-2005. I'm thankful that I didn't watch any of those at the time-only ran across some of them on YouTube in the last few years after I knew about the real evidence, etc.
 
It was a stupid show, and what's "funny" is the commercial for it made it looked between natural to pro MJ.. than you watch it and was total BS... The commercial showed clips of Tom Mez and various peeps that you know defend Michael... than you watch and it's like 70% anti / 20% neutral and 10% pro..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top