Latest on MJJC

Mark Geragos on His Client Frank Cascio vs Michael Jackson

MsAshley said:
You know, this just makes me sad. I never for once thought this case would be in the Cascio's favor, but it's doing immense reputational harm to not only Michael, but his family and fans. Someone said it earlier, but the allegations really are apart of his legacy as much as the music, and it just really sucks when we know he was innocent. A lot of these Hollywood men are absolutely guilty, from Kelly to Cosby. But Michael is different, he's the clear scapegoat for the Epstein class. He's not the child rapist Donald Trump, he's not the sex trafficker Jeffery Epstein. Yet, he's become the face of child sex abuse. We live in a topsy-turvy world, and I hate it. You know what's ultra interesting? R. Kelly had wanted to work with Michael in the late 00s, even saying they were going to and he had all these demos ready. But Michael refused, he distanced himself from the guy. Clearly, MJ did not want to be around real predators. I imagine if he was around for when they found the video evidence of what he did a decade ago he would denounce him for sure. You would have a better time arguing Michael was asexual and childlike than anything even remotely close to a predator. It gets old having to defend him so much. I have so many stories of just talking about MJ, usually his music, and someone bringing up Leaving Neverland. It's soured so many potential friendships online. I feel this will only get worse now, even if that melting cottage cheese of a man Frank loses in court over and over.


What he saw was money. That's all it ever is. If there was no money to Michael Jackson, nobody would bother with the accusations.
Click to expand...
Money is one hell of a drug to these people. Why can't they let him rest in peace ?!!!
 
Lightbringer said:
Amen says he took a bag that Cascio handed to him back to his house because he was suspicious, then found a publication inside it that appeared incriminating: a naturist magazine with a page of adverts for videos for sale, several of which, featuring “naked kids”, had been circled “to be ordered”. (The original magazine is shown in the documentary.) After seeing it, Amen says he came to the conclusion that he had been lied to about Jackson’s blamelessness. “Finding that, I realised, ‘Something is going on here’,” he tells me, “Where there’s smoke, there is fire.”
Click to expand...
So... adult Frank Cascio gives him a magazine with pictures of naked children and somehow his conclusion is that Michael Jackson is the pedophile? Like, Frank Cascio is the one who gave you the magazine, have you considered that it might be HIS magazine?

Lightbringer said:
Today, Amen says he has in his possession “a Polaroid of Frank and Michael” from 1996 that he understands was taken when the former “was smashed drunk”, at 15 or 16 years old. That was, to him, “an indication of, really, what’s occurring here, of sex abuse”.
Click to expand...
Italian Frank looks drunk on a picture = Michael sexually abusing him
That's some strange logic!
 
Vincent Amen was a friend of Frank Cascio. He worked 2003 for a month at the Neverland Ranch, where he drove the Arvizos everywhere, among other places. Amen was one of the five co-defendants in the Michael-Jackson-Prozess von 2005. You can read the whole story here: Vincent Amen und Frank Cascio (Tyson): https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2023/03/31/whats-wrong-with-vincent-amen-a-one-time-associate-of-michael-jackson/

The following is very interesting; Vincent Amen's wife is Rinah Oh. She was allegedly an "agent" of Epstein. :Hoppla:
 
etoile 37 said:
So... adult Frank Cascio gives him a magazine with pictures of naked children and somehow his conclusion is that Michael Jackson is the pedophile? Like, Frank Cascio is the one who gave you the magazine, have you considered that it might be HIS magazine?

Italian Frank looks drunk on a picture = Michael sexually abusing him
That's some strange logic!
Click to expand...
I am not the one that needs convincing. Its the general public that are saying these headlines and will watch this 4 part documentary that is going likely buy it. Obviously we have not seen the documentary and how they will present it. But if they let the prosecution & police along with witnesses like Amen run loose and others it surely is going to some damage. Especially as they will weave this together with Leaving Neverland which has never been done before. Its much easier to distort what happened in 2005 if you start to poison it with Wade Robson & Safechuck.

Especially as Amen is around now speaking about the Cascio allegations in public, which is exactly what the Estate wanted to avoid. And here we are 2 months before the biopic with a 4 part possible hit piece being released while the Estate is fighting 2 different sets of molestation allegations "in court".

Of course the timing of this TV-series is obviously to get maximum attention and release it close to the biopic. As soon as the general public hears 5 new accusers, evidence of "child porn" and previous MJ-defender as Amen changing sides its going to be bad, regardless if we as fans think that Amen is full sh**.
-
And yes obviously the picture of a drunk Frank that on top of that Amen is not going to show to anyone is not an important piece of evidence, its nothing at all!

But its like the naked picture that was supposed to exist (but does not) of the dude now helping to direct Tajs documentary, what is his name again? Jonathan Spence? It creates this "notion" that evidence exists and the more different type of such evidence is making it easier for people to be overhelmed and figure this is to be much for everything to be fabricated.

Its in that light I am thinking of it.
 
Last edited:
Lightbringer said:
I will just post the entire article here some everyone can read and judge for themselves and also not have to give the UK press more clicks:


Michael Jackson’s former PR: ‘I absolutely believe he is guilty of child abuse’

"A new documentary on the ‘trial of the century’ shows how insider Vincent Amen had a change of heart about allegations against the star
“I absolutely believe that Michael Jackson is guilty of child abuse and molestation,” says Vincent Amen. “I believe there was a cover-up for so many years.” At this point, unless you are a close follower of events in the life of the late pop star Michael Jackson, you may well be wondering: who is Vincent Amen? Well, in 2005, Amen was considered by California state prosecutors to be a key part of what they saw explicitly as that “cover-up” in one of the trials of the century, in which authorities attempted, unsuccessfully, to convict Jackson of sexual abuse.

The trial was the second occasion on which the world had turned its gaze on Jackson and the possibility that he was a paedophile, rumours of which had been circulating since the 1980s. Back then, tabloids had begun noticing his friendships with child actors such as TV sitcom star Emmanuel Lewis and, later, Home Alone star Macaulay Culkin, whom Jackson had met and befriended in the early 1990s. But the first time that reports of an actual allegation emerged was in 1993, when it became known that a 13-year-old boy, Jordan Chandler, had been paid off to the tune of $20-30m, with no admission of guilt on Jackson’s part.

This time, however, allegations – from another boy, Gavin Arvizo – had come to trial and posed a far greater threat to Jackson’s career and reputation. The trial would end in exoneration. But Jackson, ever frailer, appeared a broken man from then on, releasing no new original songs, although a much-touted comeback live show for London, This is It, was announced in March 2009 to general astonishment. Jackson died of a prescription drugs overdose in June 2009 before the tour could begin.

Though musically in steep decline by the 2000s, the “King of Pop” was still the one of the biggest stars in the world when the trial took place. He faced multiple counts related to child molestation as well as conspiracy to commit child abduction and false imprisonment. The four-month trial ended in June 2005, with Jackson acquitted by the jury of all charges.

Arvizo was 15 when the trial began, but had been 13 when the offences were alleged to have happened. Amen was a PR for Jackson at the time and a close friend and business partner of a confidant of Jackson’s: his “PR manager” Frank Cascio. Cascio is currently battling in the American courts to be allowed to make public his own claims of sexual abuse as a child by Jackson. This would make him the fifth person close to the singer about which the same incendiary claim has been made, beginning with Chandler and then Arvizo, followed by James Safechuck and Wade Robson, who gave interviews with detailed accounts of sexual abuse to director Dan Reed in Channel 4’s powerful 2019 documentary Leaving Neverland.

I’m speaking to Amen (via video call from the US) because he is a contributor to a new four-part Channel 4 documentary, Michael Jackson: The Trial, starting on Wednesday, which focuses on those four months of 2005.

Amen has valuable insights into Cascio, the man who brought him into Jackson’s orbit, and tells me about the moment that his own suspicions became impossible to ignore, when he found a magazine that seemed to link Jackson to an interest in minors; how he confronted Cascio about it; and how Cascio, who had assured him there was no substance in earlier rumours, later had a change of heart. “From what I know now,” Amen says, “sex abuse victims reveal information about their abuse, piece by piece, over the years.”

When Jackson had first befriended Arvizo in 2000, the boy was 10 years old and being treated for cancer; he and his family had spent time at Jackson’s Neverland ranch in California, and the singer had paid for some of his treatment. Gavin had recovered. But when he appeared on camera with Jackson in Martin Bashir’s infamous Living with Michael Jackson documentary on ITV in February 2003 (shown in the US three days later), the footage provoked intense scrutiny. The two were shown holding hands, with the teenager leaning his head on Jackson’s shoulder as the singer talked of sharing his bedroom with the boy. Jackson told Bashir: “I have slept in a bed with many children… The most loving thing to do is to share your bed with someone.”
It’s now possible to see how Bashir’s film led inexorably to the trial. The conspiracy charges against Jackson related to what happened soon after the documentary aired – Jackson was accused of conspiring to abduct Arvizo and his family and hold them prisoner so that they couldn’t speak to the press. Amen and Cascio were accused of being his co-conspirators, but not charged.

Amen talks about those events in the documentary. In 2003, the then-22-year-old business graduate of the prestigious Carnegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania had joined the Jackson entourage as a PR adviser to help with “damage control” after the Bashir film.

After the documentary had aired and the ensuing furore began, Arvizo and his family had been flown to Miami, where, Gavin’s sister, Davellin, claimed in court, they were told to stay in their hotel room. Amen says he believes the plan had been to hold a press conference there, which didn’t happen. But after the Miami sojourn, plans were made for a trip to Brazil, which also formed part of the conspiracy charge. It had not been Amen’s idea, he insists, but the notion was “everyone’s going to Brazil… Michael’s going to be a part of it. And this is the trip that was organised”. He was involved in getting passports for the planned excursion: “There was a to-do list, you know, ‘Get passports and visas’.”

Was the Brazil trip intended to keep the Arvizos from the press? “That’s what I believed,” Amen tells me, acknowledging the cover-up. “It was never discussed to keep this family from the press, but it was a part of the process.”

The Arvizos’ apartment in Los Angeles had been broken into, Amen says, and the plan was to move them to a new home when they got back from Brazil.
Was the family being forced to go? “I noticed in [Janet Arvizo, Gavin’s mother], she was pushing it off… I figured it out. I said, ‘Janet, do you still want to go on the Brazil trip?’ She replied, ‘I don’t want to go anymore.’” When he reported that back, he says, the trip was cancelled.

Six months later, the Santa Barbara district attorney would file charges against Jackson on the Arvizos’ behalf alleging child molestation (conspiracy charges were added in April 2004). When charges were filed against Jackson, he says, he saw from the inside how panic took hold. “The prosecution was accused of many things – one was physical abuse of Michael Jackson [by police], which I know was fake. They put make-up on him.”
Amen describes in the film how “devastating” it was to hear that the sheriff’s office wanted to speak to him in relation to “kidnapping, hostage taking”. He recalls those days. “I was scared. I was 22 years old.” And he tells how he and Cascio were worried that they would “get searched” and decided to bring any “business items” they had relating to Jackson to an attorney.

Amen says he took a bag that Cascio handed to him back to his house because he was suspicious, then found a publication inside it that appeared incriminating: a naturist magazine with a page of adverts for videos for sale, several of which, featuring “naked kids”, had been circled “to be ordered”. (The original magazine is shown in the documentary.) After seeing it, Amen says he came to the conclusion that he had been lied to about Jackson’s blamelessness. “Finding that, I realised, ‘Something is going on here’,” he tells me, “Where there’s smoke, there is fire.”

He describes “approaching Frank and [saying], ‘Why do you have this?’ And him saying, ‘this is a phase that Michael and I went through and we watched these videos. And he circled the ones that he wanted to watch’”. It was a “crossroads moment [that] put it all together for me”, Amen says – and he made a decision: “I need to go and speak to the prosecution.” (His video interview was ultimately not used at the trial and he was not called as a witness.)

So who was Cascio to Jackson, and why were they watching videos of naked children together?
Cascio had known Jackson since the mid-1980s. His father, Dominic, had struck up a friendship with Jackson while an executive at an upmarket hotel in Manhattan where the star regularly stayed; Frank was around five at the time, and Jackson 25. The singer began regularly visiting the family at home and became close to Frank and his siblings, including his brother Eddie. Jackson eventually invited Frank to travel with him as a teenager, making him part of his inner circle.

Cascio, Amen believes, was for a time “the closest world traveller to Michael”.
Amen himself had been a friend of Cascio since they were teens, and had met Jackson as a result. He recalls a moment when, “[Jackson] had come by Frank’s house and kind of whisked him away on a birthday trip to Euro Disney. So when Michael came over, Frank invited us up to his room to meet Michael and another friend.”

The Jackson he met was just as he would be in the future when he went to work for him, Amen recalls – “Very nice, very cordial, very outgoing with the people that worked for him. I can remember being respectful to him because he was older than us. I said, ‘Hi, Mr Jackson, nice to meet you.’ ‘No, no, don’t call me Mr Jackson; I’m Michael.’” Yet the present US court battle suggests that Jackson may have been abusing Cascio at this stage in their relationship.

Amen had been working in the hedge fund industry after he graduated, but later got involved with Cascio, working on “entertainment deals with celebrities”. “Frank ended up getting in touch with Michael, and he was so interested in [what we were doing in the period before the Bashir documentary] that he wanted us to come out and explain it to him. He wanted us to work there because we were young, we had energy. There were a lot of people in entertainment that he didn’t trust. So he felt very comfortable with us.”

Amen says that, knowing of the 1993 allegations, he always speculated whether something could have happened to Cascio, but that he trusted Frank unconditionally. “I asked him straight out, ‘Did anything occur?’” In the documentary he says that Frank assured him, “Vin, you know me, I’m the closest person to him. Never would happen.” He tells me now: “The words that Frank used were, ‘It’s all BS’ [bulls---], so I believed him.”
When Amen flew out to Neverland after the Bashir documentary, he says, “I was working with [Jackson’s official] spokesman, Stuart Backerman, documenting all the press calls. The phone was ringing all throughout the day. It would only stop around 3am in the morning and then pick up again at around 8am. So we were busy.”

He was also involved in putting together the “business aspect” of a video that the Jackson camp shot in the weeks after the Bashir documentary to counter the narrative that Bashir had put to Jackson in the film – “Is it really appropriate for a 44-year-old man to share a bedroom with a child that is not related to him at all?” Amen organised the foreign rights deals with “the territories who were going to broadcast this”, he says. “I still have the spreadsheets.”
During that early period, he recalls, “they were trying to get Jordan Chandler to issue a retraction”. Arriving on the scene, he remembers thinking, “Wow, there’s going to be a retraction.” But he notes, “it never happened”.

Soon, he was being asked to drive “Janet and the kids” – Gavin Arvizo, his mother and Gavin’s two siblings, Star and Davellin – back and forth between Neverland and their home in LA. “I became more of a therapist-type figure,” he says, “just listening.”

In the trial, the defence was successfully able to paint Janet Arvizo as out for financial gain. Did Amen see it that way? “I don’t feel like she was fully out to exploit it for money,” he says. “But I think there was an aspect of, you know, recouping money and them recouping their reputations.”
His own role has been mischaracterised, he believes, and he says he was “falsely accused” in the trial. “I really cared about the family and Janet.” He helped her to get increased child support from an abusive ex-partner, he tells me, although he has had no contact with her since the trial, or indeed from the time when Janet Arvizo stepped away from all contact with the Jackson family.

It wasn’t until many years later, Amen says, “when Frank and I – I can maybe call it ‘reconvened’ – prior to Leaving Neverland coming out, where he said, ‘You know, I’m very sorry for bringing you into this.’”

Allegations of decades-long grooming and molestation


Today, Amen says he has in his possession “a Polaroid of Frank and Michael” from 1996 that he understands was taken when the former “was smashed drunk”, at 15 or 16 years old. That was, to him, “an indication of, really, what’s occurring here, of sex abuse”.

Earlier this month, it was reported that Cascio and his four siblings are alleging that Jackson “groomed, manipulated, and molested them for decades, from the late 1980s, until his death in 2009”. They are seeking to overturn a financial agreement with the Jackson estate that was made in 2020, which their lawyer has argued “included illegal non-disclosure provisions”. A California judge has yet to rule on whether they must settle the case in private arbitration. Howard King, another lawyer for the Cascio family, told a reporter for Rolling Stone after the hearing that he has 10 hours of sworn testimony, on video and audio, “of all five family members talking about the horrific abuse, in detail, that they suffered at the hands of Michael Jackson”.

“My opinion of it is, when one sex abuse victim comes forward, others tend to,” Amen says. “Leaving Neverland changed the minds of the Cascios. That’s where the process started. I feel by anyone coming forward in any sexual abuse case, it really brings strength to the other victims, by saying ‘It’s OK.’” He has long figured out that what he was seeing before then “was bits and pieces revealed to me”. He says: “I don’t want to really go into it, but my wife is a victim of Jeffrey Epstein, so I live the process of a sex abuse victim.”

I want to know if Amen believes those closest to Jackson knew there was an issue surrounding his contact with children. “I do feel that. And I feel that, by being there and learning on a daily basis, that they used children to profit. There’s people in entertainment that were around him that used children to get Michael to do things, to go to events.” He believes that “there needed to be intervention by an associate to come forward”.
Amen believes those closest to Jackson knew of problems relating to his contact with children, and that they ‘used children to profit’

Of his own actions, he says, “I do not have any regrets – when I saw something that was concerning, which I believe would indicate child sex abuse, I did the right thing and I came forward.” And of the impact of this early period of his career, he notes, “I don’t want to say, necessarily, it ruined my life, but it changed my life and put it on a different course.”

Meanwhile, a new biographical musical film, Michael, directed by Antoine Fuqua and starring Michael’s nephew, Jaafar Jackson, is set to be released this year. The Jackson estate is acting as producers on the project. I wonder how Amen feels about the fact that the Michael Jackson show rolls on. “I feel they’re trying to recreate his image,” he says. “But truth be told, there needs to be a day of reckoning.”

Michael Jackson: The Trial starts on Channel 4 on Wednesday Feb 4 at 9pm
Click to expand...

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but theres no way that its a coincidence that at the same time that the Epstein files drop and MJ is noticably absent from anything to have to do with Epstein Island or the Lolita Express, the actual rich powerful pedos then go and try to sully MJ's name again by rehashing all of this old information that's been long debunked as a distraction. I mean its absolutley ****** ridiculous.

Same thing happened with the Harvey Weinstein exposee in 2019, around the same time that was about to drop, all the sudden theres Leaving Neverland convienently appearing to distract from the Weinstein case.
 
Last edited:
fraroc04 said:
Call me a conspiracy theorist but theres no way that its a coincidence that at the same time that the Epstein files drop and MJ is noticably absent from anything to have to do with the Epstein island and the Lolita Express, the actual rich powerful pedos then go and try to sully MJ's name again by rehashing all of this old information that's been long debunked. I mean its absolutley ****** ridiculous.

Same thing happened with the Harvey Weinstein exposee in 2019, around the same time that was about to drop, all the sudden theres Leaving Neverland convienently appearing to distract from the Weinstein case.
Click to expand...
Maybe look.at who commisions theese michael so called docs on channel 4 theres a lot of hatred there
 
Amen is only saying those things to help Frank and his family out, in my opinion. This is absolutely ridiculous. They sat through the years where the worst things were said about Michael during his lifetime. They didn’t even speak up in court in 2005 to save their own gluteus maximuses about being abused when they could’ve put Michael in jail for life while Sneddon was breathing down Frank’s neck and calling him a co-conspirator.. I’m so sick of these accusers come lately. And any excuse will do for them not speaking up when they should have. This isn’t about justice anymore. It’s about bandwagon mentality. If everybody thought Michael was innocent, you wouldn’t hear anything like this about him year after year. Michael has been dead for almost two decades. And we’re still hearing the same old garbage sprinkled with extra crap for shock value. And anybody can manufacture so-called “evidence” at this point like that stupid dirty magazine order claim. These people may be in a position to make a lot of noise. But that doesn’t mean they’re telling the truth. They had their time to put Michael away if he was really guilty, especially during the 2005 trial. They didn’t speak up then and that’s on them. So they can shut up now. The whole lot of them. I don’t believe for one second that they couldn’t say anything in courtroom proceedings when they should have. That’s just an excuse to cover their rears. The Chandlers used that. Robson used that. Safechuck virtually used that. And I’m sure the Cascios will use it as well if any of the few objective media personalities have the backbone or the pair to ask them the tough questions. Like what the heck do they think they’re doing after all these years? Full stop. These people make me sick. Everybody gets the benefit of the doubt except for Michael. A man who was found not guilty in a court of law. To hades about celebrity justice. They’re not doing right.
 
Last edited:
Just watched all four parts of the documentary (skimmed through the middle a bit, when they bring up the Chandler case and interview Adrian McManus as wasn't much interested in whatever she had to say).

The main contributers on MJ's side are Rabbi Smuley (who shared taped chats with him), Christian Robinson (his videographer) and Brian Oxman (defence lawyer) and on the other side are prosecutor Ron Zonen, former Jackson family friend/traitor Stacy Brown, and Arviso family friend Louise Palanker.

It's not the complete hatchet job that Leaving Neverland was, as there are people standing up for MJ. But difficult to say it's neutral and balanced either. Oxman gets plenty of opportunity to defend MJ but just doesn't come across very well, whilst it sort of feels like Zonen is given the role of the "truthful" narrator of what happened during the trial. Palanker comes across as very credible too.

There's a lot of context and build-up as you'd expect, with less than half of the time dedicated to coverage of the actual trial, and some important bits missed out. They kind of glossed over Gavin and the other kids' testimony, unlike in the recent Channel 5 documentary which showed how they struggled to get their stories straight. They did touch on Janet and the JCPenney thing, though again didn't portray her as negatively as the other doc did.

Whether it'll change many minds I'm not sure, but I wouldn't blame people for thinking he was guilty after watching it. Will be interested to see what people come up with in terms of debunking the claims in it.
 
DavidZanyar said:
Just watched all four parts of the documentary (skimmed through the middle a bit, when they bring up the Chandler case and interview Adrian McManus as wasn't much interested in whatever she had to say).

The main contributers on MJ's side are Rabbi Smuley (who shared taped chats with him), Christian Robinson (his videographer) and Brian Oxman (defence lawyer) and on the other side are prosecutor Ron Zonen, former Jackson family friend/traitor Stacy Brown, and Arviso family friend Louise Palanker.

It's not the complete hatchet job that Leaving Neverland was, as there are people standing up for MJ. But difficult to say it's neutral and balanced either. Oxman gets plenty of opportunity to defend MJ but just doesn't come across very well, whilst it sort of feels like Zonen is given the role of the "truthful" narrator of what happened during the trial. Palanker comes across as very credible too.

There's a lot of context and build-up as you'd expect, with less than half of the time dedicated to coverage of the actual trial, and some important bits missed out. They kind of glossed over Gavin and the other kids' testimony, unlike in the recent Channel 5 documentary which showed how they struggled to get their stories straight. They did touch on Janet and the JCPenney thing, though again didn't portray her as negatively as the other doc did.

Whether it'll change many minds I'm not sure, but I wouldn't blame people for thinking he was guilty after watching it. Will be interested to see what people come up with in terms of debunking the claims in it.
Click to expand...
Is there any new footage of Michael or new audio tapes from Shmuley?
 
DavidZanyar said:
Just watched all four parts of the documentary (skimmed through the middle a bit, when they bring up the Chandler case and interview Adrian McManus as wasn't much interested in whatever she had to say).

The main contributers on MJ's side are Rabbi Smuley (who shared taped chats with him), Christian Robinson (his videographer) and Brian Oxman (defence lawyer) and on the other side are prosecutor Ron Zonen, former Jackson family friend/traitor Stacy Brown, and Arviso family friend Louise Palanker.
Click to expand...
Did they mention that palanker married someone on the prosecution team?

DavidZanyar said:
It's not the complete hatchet job that Leaving Neverland was, as there are people standing up for MJ. But difficult to say it's neutral and balanced either. Oxman gets plenty of opportunity to defend MJ but just doesn't come across very well, whilst it sort of feels like Zonen is given the role of the "truthful" narrator of what happened during the trial. Palanker comes across as very credible too.

There's a lot of context and build-up as you'd expect, with less than half of the time dedicated to coverage of the actual trial, and some important bits missed out. They kind of glossed over Gavin and the other kids' testimony, unlike in the recent Channel 5 documentary which showed how they struggled to get their stories straight. They did touch on Janet and the JCPenney thing, though again didn't portray her as negatively as the other doc did.

Whether it'll change many minds I'm not sure, but I wouldn't blame people for thinking he was guilty after watching it. Will be interested to see what people come up with in terms of debunking the claims in it.
Click to expand...
The 2005 case has already been debunked, what more needs to be done?? Nothing it's just the media refuses to report the facts.
 
kelley said:
Did they mention that palanker married someone on the prosecution team?


The 2005 case has already been debunked, what more needs to be done?? Nothing it's just the media refuses to report the facts.
Click to expand...
Wouldnt bother giving it any time,just adding to any viewing figures it may get
 
kelley said:
What's funny is for decades the Guilters have ignored the Cascios and never created any pedo fanfiction or fantasies about them being abused

But they been obsessed with Brett for 30+ and have harassed him none stop and created all kinds of fictional lore surrounding him.

That's just more proof that the guilters are all pedophiles and project onto Michael.

They ignored the homely looking Cascio boys and fixated on Brett because Brett is the one they find attractive.

It's also the same reason they largely ignore Gavin.
Click to expand...

I TRULY believe guilters think everyone is BRETT. They can't diffrenciate nor will they ever bother to check anything.
 
Arckangel said:
From 31:12 (in regard to the two reasons to settle):

Harvey: Okay, I don't have a dog in the fight, but there are two reasons why people settle. One, to bury the truth. And the second is because even an allegation becomes so damaging and so expensive to, uh, defend that it is cheaper and more, you know, just smarter to settle it, and you know, and you know that there are two different reasons why people settle.

From 33:19 (in regard to the two reasons to settle):

Harvey: I'm not taking the position. You just said to me there's only one reason, and I said there are two!

Mark: There's only one reason; you and I both know.

_______________________________________________________________________


If I understand correctly, Mark Geragos therefore believes that the Estate tried to keep the allegations secret for "one reason only": because the allegations are true.

How can Mark be so convinced the allegations are true? As Harvey explained to him, some allegations are false but so damaging w/ possible long and costly litigation that it may be best to just settle.
Click to expand...

In the American justice system, the vast majority of cases—approximately 95% or more—settle before reaching a trial. Only about 2-5% of civil cases (such as personal injury) and under 2% of federal criminal cases go to court.

The 2003–2005 criminal investigation into Michael Jackson, centered on his Santa Barbara County "Neverland" Ranch, was one of the most expensive in California history.
 
Don’t know if it’s just the algorithm but this shit is everywhere on my timeline at the moment. On FB I mean.

These audio recordings from Shmuley and articles about the channel 4 doc
 
Blues_Away2023 said:
Don’t know if it’s just the algorithm but this shit is everywhere on my timeline at the moment. On FB I mean.

These audio recordings from Shmuley and articles about the channel 4 doc
Click to expand...
I haven’t seen it everywhere, but on the ones I have seen, people in the comment have been very pro-MJ. They are more disgusted by people (especially a rabbi) secretly taping him and don’t see how MJ talking about kids and wabting to help kids in any way is evidence of any wrong doing. And everyone is TIRED of all the false allegations. People are more pissed off and outraged about gold diggers still trying to use MJ to make money even when MJ’s been DEAD for over a decade.
 
summer said:
I haven’t seen it everywhere, but on the ones I have seen, people in the comment have been very pro-MJ. They are more disgusted by people (especially a rabbi) secretly taping him and don’t see how MJ talking about kids and wabting to help kids in any way is evidence of any wrong doing. And everyone is TIRED of all the false allegations. People are more pissed off and outraged about gold diggers still trying to use MJ to make money even when MJ’s been DEAD for over a decade.
Click to expand...
Yeah a lot of the comments I seen on the articles did appear to be people getting tired of it all and saying let Michael rest and he’s no longer here to defend himself etc
 
Lightbringer said:
Does Channel 4 get money for random Michael Jackson channels on youtubes views? How does that work?
Click to expand...
I think Youtube can detect copyrighted content automatically (also manually) and then the right owners can allow ads if they want. I'm not saying that has happened now but if it gets ads that might be the case.
 
Last edited:
"It felt uncomfortable watching it, a grown adult having a picnic with a 10 year old" (Videographer Chris Robinsson about MJ sitting by the water on a blanket on the grass with Gavin Arvizo."
---
Can someone explain to me how its uncomfortable watching an adult having a picnic with a terminally ill 10 year old kid in a beautiful nature surrounding with a camera rolling and a videographer present? Basically caring for an innocent child that is going to pass away from sickness. To that is a wonderful thing and not uncomfortable in the slightest.

Thats one of these things I will never understand.
 
"Michael Jackson built an amusement park in the middle of nowhere, I do not think that is the behavior of somebody that is not sexually attracted to children" - Louise Palanker, friend of Janet Arvizo and working at the Laugh Factory where Chris Tucker met the Arvizos for example.
---
Some real geniuses included in part 1....
 
DavidZanyar said:
Just watched all four parts of the documentary (skimmed through the middle a bit, when they bring up the Chandler case and interview Adrian McManus as wasn't much interested in whatever she had to say).

The main contributers on MJ's side are Rabbi Smuley (who shared taped chats with him), Christian Robinson (his videographer) and Brian Oxman (defence lawyer) and on the other side are prosecutor Ron Zonen, former Jackson family friend/traitor Stacy Brown, and Arviso family friend Louise Palanker.

It's not the complete hatchet job that Leaving Neverland was, as there are people standing up for MJ. But difficult to say it's neutral and balanced either. Oxman gets plenty of opportunity to defend MJ but just doesn't come across very well, whilst it sort of feels like Zonen is given the role of the "truthful" narrator of what happened during the trial. Palanker comes across as very credible too.

There's a lot of context and build-up as you'd expect, with less than half of the time dedicated to coverage of the actual trial, and some important bits missed out. They kind of glossed over Gavin and the other kids' testimony, unlike in the recent Channel 5 documentary which showed how they struggled to get their stories straight. They did touch on Janet and the JCPenney thing, though again didn't portray her as negatively as the other doc did.

Whether it'll change many minds I'm not sure, but I wouldn't blame people for thinking he was guilty after watching it. Will be interested to see what people come up with in terms of debunking the claims in it.
Click to expand...

I need to ask why you think Palanker comes across as very credible? She has never met Michael Jackson, she has never been to Neverland, she is biased as she was friends with Janet Arvizo. She is making blank statements that if you build a place like Neverland you have to be a child molester. She is sitting on prime TV talking about the Arvizo family being held against their will at Neverland for 3 weeks despite that narrative being absolutely crushed in court. And her source for her claims? Janet Arvizo, a known scammer and manipulator who everyone observing the trial or studying all the evidence agees is a lunatic with zero credibility.

How do you assess all these facts and come to the conclusion that Palanker comes across as very credible? She might come across as neither credible or not credible if you have no previous knowledge about the court case before the documentary. But if you know the case Palanker is looking silly and dumb!

And she certainly is biased as she is a personal friend of Janet Arvizo while also marrying someone on the prosecition team. Thus she has multiple reasons to be anti-Michael Jackson without bringing anything factual to the table!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top