Latest on MJJC

New one episode special to premiere on Oxygen about the trial. [MERGED]

Slightly OT - I remember how some posters on this site would spin themselves in a tizzy when the prosecution was questionining a witness. It was pure drama - alot of hand-wringing and doubts and questions. And then TMez would dissect those same witness with ruthless efficiency and fans would calm down. It was rinse and repeat every day of the trial and got pretty tiring tbh. I don't know how we would have coped if we did not get those court transcripts. So I can't really fault the general public who was only getting one side of the story and based their opinion on that.

And to an earlier point about good tv drama, in reading about that Tucker Carlson interview with OJ's prison guard, I now have a real clear sense of the cottage industry that would have developed if Michael had been convicted. Can you imagine the horror of the stories that would have sold by guards and all the rest of it. Lawd it does not even bear thinking about.

What I will say is that there will always be people who think that Michael was guilty. Some feel they have the facts about the case and don't need a delusional fan trying to 'spin things'. Others just 'know', cause ya know he was weird and sh*t. As a fan I deal with those who are willing to let me present my case and who can consider the possibility that they got it wrong. The lady, Pauline, is the kind of person I can connect with. Ray not so much.

Thankfully people like Ray have little to no impact on Michael's legacy, as Terrell said.
 
KOPV said:
well IF there would be any negativity from a jury member - I'm glad it is from an alternate.. and if Robson case is the bases on it, it shows that it's not based on facts - just the look of possibilities.
Click to expand...
And he id not know anything yet he claim he thought MJ was guilty. That alone is scary to our system. This is why innocent people are locked up.
 
TheChosenOne said:
Slightly OT - I remember how some posters on this site would spin themselves in a tizzy when the prosecution was questionining a witness. It was pure drama - alot of hand-wringing and doubts and questions. And then TMez would dissect those same witness with ruthless efficiency and fans would calm down. It was rinse and repeat every day of the trial and got pretty tiring tbh. I don't know how we would have coped if we did not get those court transcripts. So I can't really fault the general public who was only getting one side of the story and based their opinion on that.

And to an earlier point about good tv drama, in reading about that Tucker Carlson interview with OJ's prison guard, I now have a real clear sense of the cottage industry that would have developed if Michael had been convicted. Can you imagine the horror of the stories that would have sold by guards and all the rest of it. Lawd it does not even bear thinking about.

What I will say is that there will always be people who think that Michael was guilty. Some feel they have the facts about the case and don't need a delusional fan trying to 'spin things'. Others just 'know', cause ya know he was weird and sh*t. As a fan I deal with those who are willing to let me present my case and who can consider the possibility that they got it wrong. The lady, Pauline, is the kind of person I can connect with. Ray not so much.

Thankfully people like Ray have little to no impact on Michael's legacy, as Terrell said.
Click to expand...
I remember this as well on the board.
 
^is that the full epiode??? i tried to look everywhere i can find it but no avail :( Help!
 
terrell said:
And he id not know anything yet he claim he thought MJ was guilty. That alone is scary to our system. This is why innocent people are locked up.
Click to expand...

Thats what i thought excatly when i saw the snippet
 
I thought the show was fair.. I can get annoyed and upset at those who think he's guilty but the show itself was not was not edited or narrated in a negative way.. in fact it was more pro if anything.
 
barbee0715 said:
It's over.
The big surprise was the young black guy, who was an alternate, and didn't say much at all got to vote this time and he actually voted guilty.
Why? He believed Gavin.
​
Click to expand...

I am shocked.

After the trial in 05, this dude took part in a BET interview about his time as a juror AND WAS IN FAVOUR of Michael and a Not Guilty verdict!!

WOW.

Can anyone locate his name and google BET show... damn I hope that I can locate it!!
 
Yes he's changed his mind because he heard of the Robson allegations.
To most people, the higher the number of allegations the greater the chance of them being true and to be honest that opinion is difficult to fault. Take Jimmy Savile for example, he was never convicted in court but after his death a large number of victims came forward and alledged he abused them. Few people would seriously argue he was innocent. Even his own family consider him guilty now. People like to compare MJ with the 'profile' of an abuser, but the contrasts are clear to see. Now compare MJ, even 9 years after death only 3 new allegations have been made (if you include Jane Doe), all with the same lawyer and all with the same credibility issues. In fact Jane Doe has disappeared into the woodwork once again and will probably never be heard of again (except when trolls use her as 'evidence' in online debates). If MJ had abused kids over many years I'm sure there would have been a swarm of credible accusations within months of his death. In MJ's case we know the Robson/Safechuck allegations are difficult to be considered credible for a whole host of reasons that the alternate wouldn't have been told about I'm sure. Sadly they will always be considered victims by the trolls who will say that the only reason they didn't go to court is because of a technicality.
 
MJTruth said:
Yes he's changed his mind because he heard of the Robson allegations.
To most people, the higher the number of allegations the greater the chance of them being true and to be honest that opinion is difficult to fault. Take Jimmy Savile for example, he was never convicted in court but after his death a large number of victims came forward and alledged he abused them. Few people would seriously argue he was innocent. Even his own family consider him guilty now. People like to compare MJ with the 'profile' of an abuser, but the contrasts are clear to see. Now compare MJ, even 9 years after death only 3 new allegations have been made (if you include Jane Doe), all with the same lawyer and all with the same credibility issues. In fact Jane Doe has disappeared into the woodwork once again and will probably never be heard of again (except when trolls use her as 'evidence' in online debates). If MJ had abused kids over many years I'm sure there would have been a swarm of credible accusations within months of his death. In MJ's case we know the Robson/Safechuck allegations are difficult to be considered credible for a whole host of reasons that the alternate wouldn't have been told about I'm sure. Sadly they will always be considered victims by the trolls who will say that the only reason they didn't go to court is because of a technicality.
Click to expand...

You know, Michael's treatment has led me to become extremely neutral when it comes to very public sex allegations. In no way am I drawing parallels between Michael and any of the people who were investigated as part of Operation Yewtree - I'm only indicating that I'm not immediately ready to join any bandwagon as a result of one, or many, mere accusation. As a result it bothers me that Saville never had a chance to defend himself or have a fair trial. And I found it irksome that some persons who were so afraid to speak out for decades were suddenly queuing up to speak on television in gory detail about their experiences.

I'm not suggesting Saville was innocent nor am I suggesting any one of those people are liars - I don't know I haven't read into those cases enough to establish a well grounded opinion.
 
Fair enough. I too am very sceptical about any media reporting. Political, celebrity, environment. Anything. but I think it's true that there must be a 'critical mass' of allegations where the weight of evidence becomes compelling.
In Saville's case it's not as if the accusers were all appearing on TV, nor did they try to sue anybody for money. They didn't appear to be making claims to sell a book or make money from other revenue streams. I don't believe there was any motive other than to expose their abuser.

In MJ's case there are relatively few accusers, though by now the number is starting to sound significant. I don't believe the accusations but with Wade, Safe**** and Jane Doe added to the tally, trolls have a far easier time making against MJ. It's important to note that in EVERY case the accuser has been targetting MJ or his Estate for money. It could be the unhealthy litigation culture that exists in the USA but from a UK perspective their thirst for money devalues the allegations IMO.
If Wade, Safechuck and Jane Doe had simply appeared on a TV show, made the claims and then gone back to normal life they would have been more credible. But to shop a book deal before the allegations are made public (Wade), or to join a civil case against the estate for the only reason of getting paid (Safechuck and Doe) raises serious credibility questions to anybody willing to scrutinise the allegations.
 
for those who did not watch.. the only reasoning any jury member wanted to vote guilty was off of 'feeling' and believing Gavins + the video of him being questioned.. No actual physical evidence!

Honestly it's a good show, anyone that were to watch it would side more so on MJ side than anything.. the only people that would take the guilty vote serious are those who are already fueled to hate on him.. and because it is JUST a vote of guilt by a feeling, it is easily dismissed.
 
respect77 said:
I think it is notable that whenever the media tries to stir negativity around MJ regarding the allegations they never really use Robson or Safechuck, let alone Jane Doe. It's always some false story about "child porn" of a false story about "FBI files" or, as recently, name dropping Jordan Chandler. To me that is very telling of how (non)compelling the Robson/Safechuck allegations are even to the general public. If anything rather than adding more credibility to the allegations I think, in actuality, they add more cyncism and scepticism in the general public. Numbers aren't everything.
Click to expand...

I agree. Robson shot himself in the foot with this one. It is much easier to see through him because he already testified under oath that nothing happened and is on record numerous times praising Michael. When Robson's allegations are reported on, I've noticed they almost always mention how he testified in 2005 that MJ didn't molest him. That kills the credibility of his current allegations immediately.

KOPV said:
for those who did not watch.. the only reasoning any jury member wanted to vote guilty was off of 'feeling' and believing Gavins + the video of him being questioned.. No actual physical evidence!

Honestly it's a good show, anyone that were to watch it would side more so on MJ side than anything.. the only people that would take the guilty vote serious are those who are already fueled to hate on him.. and because it is JUST a vote of guilt by a feeling, it is easily dismissed.
Click to expand...

Also agree. The show was decent and fair. As someone mentioned previously, the narration even seemed pretty "Pro-MJ." The way they presented the prosecution's evidence and then discussed how the defense invalidated them was a great way to execute the story. That might be the most information the public has gotten about what happened on the defense's team. I also was very impressed with the amount of background information they provided about Janet Arvizo. I was not expecting them to go that far. I think the show got the point across that she was a scammer. The discussion and reenactment of Gavin's interview with the police was a pivotal point of the show as well.

Regarding Ray Hultman's "gut feeling": It's funny because he still agrees with their verdict and would still vote not guilty. I wonder if this guy hears himself when he speaks?


Overall, good program, but there is room for improvement. I didn't think it was fair to cite Wade's allegations without any background information. But most of the jurors seemed to dismiss it anyway, which was nice to see. Also liked how they debunked the "porn" stories from last year.
I've seen all of the ones that aired so far up to the George Zimmerman one and they all have been fairly interesting. If any of you haven't watched them yet, I recommend it!
 
Last edited:
MJTruth said:
Fair enough. I too am very sceptical about any media reporting. Political, celebrity, environment. Anything. but I think it's true that there must be a 'critical mass' of allegations where the weight of evidence becomes compelling.
In Saville's case it's not as if the accusers were all appearing on TV, nor did they try to sue anybody for money. They didn't appear to be making claims to sell a book or make money from other revenue streams. I don't believe there was any motive other than to expose their abuser.

In MJ's case there are relatively few accusers, though by now the number is starting to sound significant. I don't believe the accusations but with Wade, Safe**** and Jane Doe added to the tally, trolls have a far easier time making against MJ. It's important to note that in EVERY case the accuser has been targetting MJ or his Estate for money. It could be the unhealthy litigation culture that exists in the USA but from a UK perspective their thirst for money devalues the allegations IMO.
If Wade, Safechuck and Jane Doe had simply appeared on a TV show, made the claims and then gone back to normal life they would have been more credible. But to shop a book deal before the allegations are made public (Wade), or to join a civil case against the estate for the only reason of getting paid (Safechuck and Doe) raises serious credibility questions to anybody willing to scrutinise the allegations.
Click to expand...
And do not forget, these guys DEFEND Jackson for YEARS Wade DEFEDNED MJ even in COURT OF LAW. And anyone who to dismissed that is only a fool who just want to believe MJ is an abuser which makes them sick, NOT Michael. It is just wishful thinking.
 
Angel of Light said:
I agree. Robson shot himself in the foot with this one. It is much easier to see through him because he already testified under oath that nothing happened and is on record numerous times praising Michael. When Robson's allegations are reported on, I've noticed they almost always mention how he testified in 2005 that MJ didn't molest him. That kills the credibility of his current allegations immediately.



Also agree. The show was decent and fair. As someone mentioned previously, the narration even seemed pretty "Pro-MJ." The way they presented the prosecution's evidence and then discussed how the defense invalidated them was a great way to execute the story. That might be the most information the public has gotten about what happened on the defense's team. I also was very impressed with the amount of background information they provided about Janet Arvizo. I was not expecting them to go that far. I think the show got the point across that she was a scammer. The discussion and reenactment of Gavin's interview with the police was a pivotal point of the show as well.

Regarding Ray Hultman's "gut feeling": It's funny because he still agrees with their verdict and would still vote not guilty. I wonder if this guy hears himself when he speaks?


Overall, good program, but there is room for improvement. I didn't think it was fair to cite Wade's allegations without any background information. But most of the jurors seemed to dismiss it anyway, which was nice to see. Also liked how they debunked the "porn" stories from last year.
I've seen all of the ones that aired so far up to the George Zimmerman one and they all have been fairly interesting. If any of you haven't watched them yet, I recommend it!
Click to expand...
Well, there are plenty of people whose "gut feeling" told them Michael was innocent and all of this was a set up". So who is right? based on the evidence, it is the people who "gut" told them MJ was innocent. Look at George Zimmerman. His "gut feeling" told him to bother Trayvon Martin due to the steerotype about black men. He was WRONG and killed that teen and then LIED about it. When something is the truth, there bare no needs for lies or coverup. Same with that MJ juror. He was shopping for a book deal (I believe he has some "issue" in his private life. It never fail when people judge like this.
 
terrell said:
Well, there are plenty of people whose "gut feeling" told them Michael was innocent and all of this was a set up". So who is right? based on the evidence, it is the people who "gut" told them MJ was innocent. Look at George Zimmerman. His "gut feeling" told him to bother Trayvon Martin due to the steerotype about black men. He was WRONG and killed that teen and then LIED about it. When something is the truth, there bare no needs for lies or coverup. Same with that MJ juror. He was shopping for a book deal (I believe he has some "issue" in his private life. It never fail when people judge like this.
Click to expand...
Sure, my gut feeling told me that Michael was innocent back in 93, and that's because I had watched him grow up, felt like I knew him, and loved him unconditionally by then. I never doubted him for a second-ever.

But I wouldn't try to argue with anyone with a gut feeling. Or try to prove his innocence. It's all the evidence that's been presented and researched by fans and more fair journalists and documents released that has proven that he was innocent. That's the only thing I'll argue on-gut feelings just make people think you are a rabid, deluded fan.
That's why I like this site so very much-mature, responsible people armed with facts-not emotion.
 
Angel of Light said:
Also agree. The show was decent and fair. As someone mentioned previously, the narration even seemed pretty "Pro-MJ." The way they presented the prosecution's evidence and then discussed how the defense invalidated them was a great way to execute the story. That might be the most information the public has gotten about what happened on the defense's team. I also was very impressed with the amount of background information they provided about Janet Arvizo. I was not expecting them to go that far. I think the show got the point across that she was a scammer. The discussion and reenactment of Gavin's interview with the police was a pivotal point of the show as well.

Regarding Ray Hultman's "gut feeling": It's funny because he still agrees with their verdict and would still vote not guilty. I wonder if this guy hears himself when he speaks?
!
Click to expand...


I think he feels had Sneddon had shown more evidence to prove his case he wouldve voted guilty for sure and one of the lady jurors said too the same thing.

=Thats what i find so arrogant bout sneddon he truly thought with just by the "living with mj " vid and the video of gavin's police testimony alone was gonna convince the jury of mjs "guilt" og boyy was he mistaken lol. By the time all that was shown he knew full well his case was gobe thats why he got gavin to touvh that magazine
 
Agree the show was a a step in the right direction...to really drive home the fact that the case was a shame and not at all believable (contrary to media reports) the show would really need to be a two hour special. This would be too long for many people, so it would have to be split over two nights IMO. I hope that one day somebody will do it.

I think this show was the FIRST one that really started to scratch the surface and provide an honest portrayal of the case (although it was tainted by the unfair inclusion of Wade's allegation).
 
respect77 said:
I actually think a 4-5 part docu series should be made if someone was to represent the cases (not just Arvizo but also the Chandler case and the rest).
Click to expand...

There's a balance between being detailed enough to get the point across but not too detailed or long that people stop watching.
 
8701girl said:
I think he feels had Sneddon had shown more evidence to prove his case he wouldve voted guilty for sure and one of the lady jurors said too the same thing.
Click to expand...

Well of course, that makes perfect sense. Of course if there was evidence MJ molested Gavin, then they would have had to convict. I would convict too if there was evidence. Point being, there wasn't any evidence.

I honestly don't think Ray cares if MJ was guilty or not. The guy was offered a book deal and he saw dollar signs. He will say anything. It seems that he is still holding out hope for that book deal, hence why he was so "in your face" about believing MJ to be guilty on this program. He knows "not guilty" was the right verdict, but he will continue to publicly say MJ was a child molester in hopes of some financial profit. That's my impression of him.
 
respect77 said:
You said it yourself that alone for the fair representation of the Arvizo case two parts would be needed. I think that's the same for the Chandler case which is even more complicated. Now do the math.
Click to expand...

Hmm, do I detect some conflict in your tone? I'm not interested in arguing.

Anyway, back to Ray. My impression was that he DOES believe MJ was guilty, possibly based on some pre-conceived bias or other influence, but that he can't actually point his finger to any definitive, adequately compelling, evidence. He suggests the police interview is the key, but as others have said Gavin's behaviour caused others to be suspicious. He seems to discount every other piece of counter evidence that strongly supports the notion that nothing happened. Taking everything as a whole Ray decided to came down on the side of not guilty. He's a grown man and if he truly believed MJ was guilty beyond reasonable doubt then he should have stuck to his vote of guilty. By his own admission there WAS enough reasonable doubt to vote not guilty. It's a pity that he can't be man enough to stand by his decision with dignity. If he voted for an outcome he doesn't believe in then he's admitting he failed to do his job properly, but if he does believe in the outcome then he should stop undermining the criminal justice system by openly contradicting the jury's decision.

By saying he does believe Gavin was molested by MJ, but that there was indeed sufficient reasonable doubt to vote not guilty, then that is very close to being a total contradiction IMO.
 
Last edited:
MJTruth said:
There's a balance between being detailed enough to get the point across but not too detailed or long that people stop watching.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Making a Murderer on Netflix was unmissable TV but I've recently started The Keepers and after 2 episodes it already feels too long.
 
about a 4-5 part docu-series, that may be somewhat what the A&E thing they mentioned a while back could be.. no?
 
^ I'm gonna guess it's still on, we just heard a mentioning fairly pre mature so the wait for us is long... It could have been in pre production state at that point! we shall see.
 
KOPV said:
^ I'm gonna guess it's still on, we just heard a mentioning fairly pre mature so the wait for us is long... It could have been in pre production state at that point! we shall see.
Click to expand...

Well it's as good a guess as any. ?
 
respect77 said:
I found it interesting that he profiled himself as someone who, in his view, the defense wouldn't want (white conservative educated man). It's BS of course because the defense never had any problem with the racial makeup of the jury and I would think a Santa Barbara jury isn't exactly made up of raging liberals either. And I don't know what his education is but it sure didn't make his arguments stronger. He basically based his opinion on "gut feeling". Anyway I found his self-description interesting as that could also be Sneddon's and the other prosecutors description too. And if he felt that identification so important that might be another reason why he would want to take the prosecution's side by any means. Sneddon and Co. were the people he identified with.

Let's not forget also that the Arvizos deliberately tried to play on conservative sensibilities, such as emphasizing how religious they were, Gavin made sure to mention it was Jesus who healed him not MJ etc.
Click to expand...
Yeah but the CON job to that was Garvin's behavior. He claimed he wanted to be a priest YET he was a bad@$$. That is a dead giveaway this family was CON artist. When teenagers are that "spritiural", they are well behave and honor students because their thinking is beyond their years. NOT this brat even putting a knife in the maid's back. Conartist talk 101. And he did not have to say Jesus healed him and MJ did not. DUH even MJ would have told him that.
 
KOPV said:
I thought the show was fair.. I can get annoyed and upset at those who think he's guilty but the show itself was not was not edited or narrated in a negative way.. in fact it was more pro if anything.
Click to expand...
I agree. And on show like that, there is always going to be ONE I do not care what it is and what is stupid bout this nut juror, he tried to get a book so at least his motive is revealed if he speak.
 
barbee0715 said:
Sure, my gut feeling told me that Michael was innocent back in 93, and that's because I had watched him grow up, felt like I knew him, and loved him unconditionally by then. I never doubted him for a second-ever.

But I wouldn't try to argue with anyone with a gut feeling. Or try to prove his innocence. It's all the evidence that's been presented and researched by fans and more fair journalists and documents released that has proven that he was innocent. That's the only thing I'll argue on-gut feelings just make people think you are a rabid, deluded fan.
That's why I like this site so very much-mature, responsible people armed with facts-not emotion.
Click to expand...
I agree. And that comment make that juror look like fool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top