Latest on MJJC

Mark Geragos on His Client Frank Cascio vs Michael Jackson

How do they bring up Vincent Amen and Frank Tyson (Cascio) without acknowledging these guys were accused of grooming the Arivizo boys and introducing them to porn in an effort to make it easier for Michael Jackson to molest them in a later stage? It always amazes how that part is always left out as its simply impossible to explain away without Cascio or Amen outright saying the prosecutions claims were totally false and thus would hurt the credibility of the prosecutions case - and of course they would not want for the viewers watching their show.

Also, in the Amen interview they spend a total of 10 seconds of the prosecution falsely accusing Vincent Amen and the Jackson camp of holding the Arvizos kidnapped at Neverland. Stuff that are important context gets totally ignored and instead we get this Palanker women and Stacy Brown talking about nothing.

This is always the problem, they leave out crucial things about the investigation & trial for puppet head drama from the wrong people!
 
Last edited:
Lightbringer said:
"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....
Click to expand...
That is such a bizarre leap of logic


And I don't think this talking point will land the way she thinks. Times have changed. It's not 2003 anymore. These people are still stuck in the past.

Millennials LOVE going amusement parks. Most visitors to all the major parks are adults now. So I think younger people watching this will be scratching their heads at this comment and maybe even will be offended by it.

All the things Michael loved like amusement parks, video games, comic books, disney, marvel. ect are all things that are normal for adult men to like now.

This is why I think the pedo narrative about MJ will die off with boomers. Younger generations relate to Michael and the things he was interested in a lot more, so trying to convince them that he must have been a pedo cause he liked amusement parks will NOT work.
 
Episode 3 was a complete and utter disaster - it is so biased against MJ that any claim that its a balanced documentary goes out of the window.

They had Ray Hultman speaking as the only juror of course just echoing prosecutor Zonen pretty much. They bring up the 1993 case and fail to mention Evan Chandlers extortion, the drugging of Jordy, the way Evan Chandler used the accusations to get custody of Jordan etc.

Some detectives from 1993 said the criminal case died when the civil case was settled even when the investigation continued for another 10 months and ended up at two separate grand juries who both declined to indict Jackson.

This episode neglected all the evidence that happened in court and instead let Zonen, Hultman and a few others just speak freely to convince the viewer that MJ was guilty. Before episode 3 I still think this show was not good, but not terrible. Zonen says for example, we established there had been a settlement paid out to Jordy Chandler as it was a sign of 100% guilt and of course as the show does not explain why MJ settled thats the way it seems to not educated regular viewer.

They also built the narrative of Pellicano silencing all the kids the police interviewed in 1993-94 because they claim Pellicano spoke to the kids first. One of them was Brett Barnes of course. Basically they are allowed to just spin everything to kind of point to MJ being guilty and do not take up any counter evidence to weigh up against that.

Brian Oxman is featured in a few short clips, but he can not undo the narrative of the documentary and he also mostly says generic stuff like that he was going to prove MJ guilty, it was all a scam etc. As there is little evidence presented in the docu his defense falls flat when the others talking is part of a general narrative that the documentary has. Oxman was never a brilliant lawyer and Mesereau is sorely missing, he should have been in it and given just as much time Zonen.

Maybe Mesereau declined to take part, or they just felt that it was better if he was not in it to make their case that MJ was guilty. I should add that I do not think even T-Mez could have saved this as the agenda is already set against MJ. They just pop in a few pro MJ statements from time to time to be able to claim its a balanced program, which it clearly is not.
---
I will have to suffer through episode 4 just to make it to the end. But I do not recommend anyone to watch episode 3, it brings nothing new to the table and its not objective or neutral at all, its a slaughter. That episode was almost as bad as Leaving Neverland.

Thus far I will give the show maybe a 2 of 10 rating on IMDB.
 
Last edited:
Palanker’s demeanor is disturbing. The way she looks and speaks comes across as emotionally detached and obsessive, which many people interpret as unhinged rather than analytical. It feels less like rational argument and more like fixation.

What is especially troubling is the complete absence of critical distance toward the Arvizos. She does not question their inconsistencies, motives, or documented credibility issues at all. Instead, she appears to accept their narrative wholesale and builds everything around it, which undermines any claim to objectivity.

That combination, an intense, almost manic presentation paired with zero skepticism, makes her commentary feel unsettling rather than persuasive.
 
Finished part 4, which was kind of nothing much at all.

Some final reflections:

Stacy Brown has no role in the documentary expect to react to every accusations and development against MJ and say: "oh my god that was really bad" "It really moved me" "This accuser is so believable".

The guy said on live TV after the verdict that he was sure MJ was going down for something, which is telling you he do not understand or even followed what happened in court. This guy had nothing to contribute to the program or no role that should have qualified him for the program.

This TV-series spent a lot resources and came up with pretty much nothing. All the hype and build up of new evidence did not materialize to anything of relevance at all. They failed to mention the problematic timeline, Stars impossible testimony, the Arvizos getting drunk and destroying property while MJ was not at Neverland while getting access to alcohol and MJs room unsupervised. Its a 4 piece documentary and it fails to investigate the actual case beyond the surface which is a huge failure.

Brian Oxman mostly praised himself for saving Michael, it was clear back in 2005 that he was in conflict with Mesereau and Oxman always looked to pat himself on the back, pretty much saying he was the key to MJ being vindicated. I do not think he was the right man to defend MJ in this program. He did not do a terrible job, but it was barely OK. He is just not a very clever man and does not come across that well. If he had been in charge instead of T-Mez of the defense it would have been a mess.

Rabbi Shmuley is actually the person defending MJ the best in this film, yes he is a kind of flimsy and crazy sometimes, but he also does say some good things. Though I think he defended MJ better in the good morning britain interview a week ago better than in the docu. Of course the docu has hours of interviews with every person and then they select what they want from it.

And finally, to see Vincent Amen changing his mind completely about MJ because of allegedly some circlings in a magazine about a possible order of some nudist magazine is pretty laughable and of course it was rejected as evidence in 2005 and has no relevance today at all.

My advise to anyone in here that has not watched it is to not watch it all, it really has nothing new to bring to the table. Its even worse than the last documentary that was called "The People Vs Michael Jackson". I would give that one a 4 of 10 stars and this one a 2 of 10 stars. And stay away from episode 3 at all costs, that is a train wreck!

Hopefully most people are so bored with these so called "docus" that they dont want this sh1t :D I am glad I am done with it. Its insane there is allegedly going to be a Netflix TV-series about the trial. Hopefully its not as bad as this one!

The key to doing a good show on the trial is to focus on the actual trial and the evidence, timeline, testimony etc - and waste less time on meaningless talking heads! If you are going to bring the 1993 settlement you have to study both sides of it, not just use it as proof of guilt without investigating it. They could easily have removed Stacy Brown entirely and some other talking heads and spent time doing that, but choose not to.
 
Last edited:
Louise Palanker did not just marry anybody on the prosecution side she married Ron Zonen, the biggest player from them except Tom Sneddon. And this documentary gives Ron Zonen and his wife Louise Palanker the same time of air time, whoever made this documentary is really a real piece of sh1t!

@DavidZanyar Would you agree this hurts her credibility?


That even MJ-fans think Palanker is very credible shows that you make anyone appear credible to someone that does not have detailed information about the case and people involved! I am actually glad it happened as its good to be aware of that!

​

 
Last edited:
Lightbringer said:
Louise Palanker did not just marry anybody on the prosecution side she married Ron Zonen, the biggest player from them except Tom Sneddon. And this documentary gives Ron Zonen and his wife Louise Palanker the same time of air time, whoever made this documentary is really a real piece of sh1t!

@DavidZanyar Would you agree this hurts her credibility?


That even MJ-fans think palanker is very credible shows that you make anyone appear credible to someone that does not have detailed information about the case and people involved!

​

Click to expand...
Ummm wasnt ron apart from the prosecution?
 
Lightbringer said:
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!
Click to expand...

What I meant was that objectively, she came across well, i.e. genuine, well-meaning, not a crackpot - and that's what most casual viewers would take from it. Whereas Oxman came across as unlikeable and weird, which is unhelpful.
 
Last edited:
DavidZanyar said:
What I meant was that objectively, she came across well, i.e. genuine, well-meaning, not a crackpot - and that's what most casual viewers would take from it. Whereas Oxman came across as unlikeable and weird, which is unhelpful.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. Indeed, there is something off about Oxman and I know people have felt this way back since 2003. He just does not come across as very humble and sympathetic.

The maid was the only one that came across a bit erratic in the program imo. And people believe her as well as they have no background information, that is the problem with these programs. People do not have time to do the research and thus its on the program makers to make a fair show and that never happens! They had 4 parts and still blew it :D
 
Last edited:
Lightbringer said:
Gotcha. Indeed, there is something off about Oxman and I know people have felt this way back since 2003. He just does not come across as very humble and sympathetic.

The maid was the only one that came across a bit erratic in the program imo. And people believe her as well as they have no background information, that is the problem with these programs. People do not have time to do the research and thus its on the program makers to make a fair show and that never happens! They had 4 parts and still blew it :D
Click to expand...
Alex mahon head of channel 4 does not like michael,she is moving to sky in April was she pushed or quit i dont know
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top