Latest on MJJC

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

Twit D L Hugley show and send as much info about MJ's case from 1993 to 2005 as you can. He was trying to compare MJ's case to R Kelly case. His co hostes were telling him it is not the same. Do it now while they are still on the air. I know some of you have even more of the info put away than me. Send it and explain to him. https://twitter.com/DLHughleyRadio/with_replies and https://twitter.com/RealDLHughley
 
Last edited:
OK so I have the MJ special set on my DVR for Sunday.. There are two specials actually that day on Reelz!

MJ: Fame and scandal & MJ: Not Guilty


Now bad news for me.. My Dish package does not have Oxygen! sooo.... agh
 
^^the family I sit for over Christmas has Reelz and the Fame and Scandal show is just trashy gossip. Like most of their shows. I'm curious about the Not Guilty one since they ran a show called Rich and Aquitted which implies rich celebrities buy their acquittals.
 
^ that last highlighted paragraph is another hint to positive! A member of the jury that regretted his/her vote would not hope well for that person in that way!
 
. It was difficult for me to understand why somebody, now that he had his life back, wasn't living it to the fullest."


That is what happens when you are lied on and beat down.
 
"For the Jackson case, the testimony of Martin Bashir, the journalist who made the documentary that led to the child sexual abuse charges, was the most memorable—his lawyer invoked his First Amendment privileges and objected to almost every single question from the prosecution."

If I'm remembering the testimony correctly it was the questioning by the defense he was objecting to, not the prosecution.
 
To me, what is the point of this? What is done is done and now leave it alone. This shows how sick we are as a society always trying to use cases to make money. The jury has spoken, the evidence proved MJ's innocence, leave it alone. We have cases in the system going on now YET none of these programs show those CURRENT cases. Even the O J Simpson case I am tired of hearing. What is done is done. People are murdered everyday but these folk only focus on the OJ case. Give that a rest.
 
You are right Terrell what done is done this jury did the right things their have no reason to question they verdict.
 
Nancy Glass, the executive producer of this series, is live on Reddit right now answering questions. Two people have asked about the Michael Jackson episode so far.


First question:
Hi Nancy,
Will the episode on Michael Jackson be biased and show him in a negative light, or will it discuss the actual facts of the trial without sensationalism? When Michael was on trial in 2005, the media reported a lot of false information that was misleading to the public about what was really happening in the courtroom. Will MJ's episode shed light on this and show the case for what it really was (extortion)?
Thank you.
Click to expand...
Nancy Glass:
Excellent point. You are right, the public got a completely different view of Jackson than the one presented in court. It was clear to the jurors that the witnesses were not credible. And, the prosecution had no evidence. Some people won't like the information presented in this episode but, it is a real look at what happened not, what some people wish had happened.
Click to expand...

Second question:
What is this "new perspective" you speak of? On behalf of all Michael Jackson fans, we hope it is code for the truth- that Michael is and always was innocent. Michael was crucified while he was alive, and continues to get crucified in his death by the media spreading lies in an effort to tarnish the legend/beautiful man he was and is inside and out. Hopefully this is all a misunderstanding, and Michael will be shown in a positive light while at the same time providing actual facts and the truth rather than evil myths.
"It is completely irresponsible to pass comment on a criminal investigation that you know nothing about and even more irresponsible to make a criminal accusation and then support it with non-existent evidence.".
"Even if the media refuses to print the truth about Jackson, they should compromise by not printing the lies either. At least that way he can rest in peace.".
Click to expand...
Nancy Glass
The new perspective is the fact that the family who helped the DA bring charges were a bunch of grifters who went to several celebrities trying to get money and favors. On the stand they had no credibility. I am saying this as a person who went into this show thinking MJ might have been guilty but, after hearing the jury and looking at the evidence, I have a different opinion.
Click to expand...

Sounds promising.
You can follow the thread here: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/6oi7fn/hi_reddit_i_am_nancy_glass_executive_producer_of/

EDIT: She is offline now, but you can still read the thread.
 
Last edited:
annnnnnnnd thank you! for those who were optimistic from the beginning (Thumbs up / high five)
 
#MJforever57 said:
We will see.
Click to expand...

I'm still optimistic. There's appears to confirm it will have a mostly positive conclusion which would be nice for once. I'm sure there will be inaccuracy too but if the outcome is good I won't mind too much.
 
MJTruth said:
I'm still optimistic. There's appears to confirm it will have a mostly positive conclusion which would be nice for once. I'm sure there will be inaccuracy too but if the outcome is good I won't mind too much.
Click to expand...

The big question is how they will handle Hultman's idiocy and the Robson/Safechuck allegations.
 
redfrog said:
The big question is how they will handle Hultman's idiocy and the Robson/Safechuck allegations.
Click to expand...

This is what I'm wondering and I hope he is pressed really hard on it.

The Robson allegations shouldn't even be a factor in this special if they are focusing on the jury from the 2005 trial. This is what still makes me somewhat leary about this. A good majority of the public isn't really aware of what is going on with Robson and this will only bring more attention to it, which isn't needed. The 2005 jurors have nothing to do with those allegations and they should not be asked about them.
 
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...n-case-would-still-vote-not-guilty-today.html


Michael Jackson trial juror reflects on child molestation case: 'I would still vote not guilty today'

[FONT=&amp]By Stephanie Nolasco<time class="date" pubdate="" datetime="2017-07-21T05:00:00.000-04:00" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; clear: none; float: left; position: relative;">Published July 21, 2017</time>Fox News

[/FONT]




[FONT=&amp]Juror Paulina Coccoz is shocked many people still believe Michael Jackson was found not guilty on all charges of molesting a 13-year-old boy he befriended as the child recovered from cancer in 2003.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The then-46-year-old King of Pop walked free in June 2005 after a nearly four-month trial. While the jurors said at the time they wanted to “return to our lives as anonymously as we came,” some, including Coccoz, have spoken about their experience for Oxygen’s four-night special, “The Jury Speaks,” in hopes it will set the record straight.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]“It’s really important for me to share my story because when I talk, even in my daily life to people that I don’t know or even with people I know, everybody still thinks he was guilty,” Coccoz, known as juror #10, told Fox News. “And I find it hard to believe that it’s still going on. That’s not what happened… he was accused of some horrible, horrible things and it’s a sad thing that we lost such a wonderful human being on this planet.[/FONT]
<section class="related-image" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; margin: 0px 0px 32px 32px; padding: 24px 0px 0px; border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: initial; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: rgb(215, 215, 215); border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: initial; border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: medium; line-height: inherit; font-family: &quot;Helvetica Neue&quot;, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline; width: 300px; clear: right; float: right; color: rgb(17, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(244, 244, 244);">
1500568063926.jpg
Expand / Collapse
Paulina Coccoz (Courtesy of Oxygen)


</section>[FONT=&amp]"We need to all look at things for what they were instead of saying, ‘Oh yeah, he was a freak. He was guilty because he was a freak.’ Everybody’s different and God forbid we should all be judged in a courtroom because we’re a freak and we’re guilty.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Coccoz didn’t always feel that way about the pop star. When the mother of three boys first heard the accusations, she was ready to find him guilty if they proved to be true.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]“For me, it was a real sensitive spot,” she admitted. “I took it kind of personal in a way that you would never want something like that to happen to your children. So I really didn’t think or care that he was Michael Jackson. If he was doing these things that he was being accused of, I didn’t feel that I had any problem finding him guilty if that was the case.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]<iframe id="vm-ts2WWZG9I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="1" title="YouTube video player" width="612" height="342" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/svjtofa-Xds?enablejsapi=1&origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com&widgetid=1" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: initial; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%;"></iframe>[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The case first arose after a February 2003 broadcast of the British documentary “Living with Michael Jackson,” in which the entertainer said sharing his bed with children in the Neverland Ranch was a non-sexual act of affection. He was shown holding hands with Gavin Arvizo, a cancer patient Jackson wanted to help, which immediately sparked outrage.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]While the family originally insisted no inappropriate contact occurred between the two, Jackson was charged later that same year. Prosecutors claimed at the time the singer gave Arvizo alcohol in order to abuse him.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]“I do remember looking at his face and his body language when Gavin Arvizo took the stand,” recalled Coccoz. “It was very obvious he was deeply hurt. You could see that his head was down and there was no eye contact whatsoever. He was taking in all of the testimony and his body language really showed his sadness.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]<iframe class="instagram-media instagram-media-rendered" id="instagram-embed-0" src="https://www.instagram.com/p/BWvtitqAUz9/embed/captioned/?cr=1&v=7&wp=610#%7B%22ci%22%3A0%2C%22os%22%3A2133.165%7D" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="539" data-instgrm-payload-id="instagram-media-payload-0" scrolling="no" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1px 1px 12px; padding: 0px; border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: rgb(219, 219, 219); font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 658px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); width: calc(100% - 2px); border-radius: 4px; box-shadow: none; display: block;"></iframe>[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The jury found the testimony of Arvizo’s family to be not credible. Some jurors even noted Arvizo’s mother would stare down at them and even snapped her fingers at the bewildered group.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]“There were a lot of moments where you felt... ulterior motives was money,” she explained. “And it appeared that they were imposing themselves on everyone that they could and they used different opportunities and a ‘feel sorry for me’ scenario. There were a lot of moments, really.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]"There were several people, several stars that indicated they really needed something from them. It was very strange that they talked to an attorney and said he was molested. And ironically, it was the same attorney that had something to do with the Jordan Chandler case. So, I don’t know, that raised some eyebrows. It just seemed really, really far-fetched. And unfortunately, the family’s credibility was just horrible.”[/FONT]
<section class="related-image" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; margin: 0px 0px 32px 32px; padding: 24px 0px 0px; border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: initial; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: rgb(215, 215, 215); border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: initial; border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: medium; line-height: inherit; font-family: &quot;Helvetica Neue&quot;, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline; width: 300px; clear: right; float: right; color: rgb(17, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(244, 244, 244);">
1500568648717.jpg
Expand / Collapse
(Courtesy of Oxygen)


</section>[FONT=&amp]In 1993, Chandler's father accused Jackson of sexually abusing his 13-year-old son. While Jackson always denied any wrongdoing, they reportedly settled the caseout of court for $20 million and both parties signed a confidentiality agreement.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The mother also noticed something she thought was peculiar about Arvizo.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]“Because I have boys, I guess that’s my experience I’m using to refer to,” she said. “Boys are pretty obvious in their mannerisms. [And] he didn’t seem upset…when you put kids in a situation where they’re suddenly surrounded by adults, you see a different person…when it comes to talking about being molested, I would imagine that’s a very difficult, difficult thing to talk about, especially in front of a lot of people in a courtroom setting. So I can see how it’s something that would be upsetting. [For him], it’s something where it would come across as ‘no big deal, just another day in the courtroom.’[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]"But also, the emotions that go with a moment that causes trauma or impact on you, especially if you cared about someone or were so enamored with someone who totally let you down. I would think that would be a little more intense…not even a tear or a moment of choking up arose. And that was kind of strange, too.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The jury delivered the verdict in California Superior Court on their seventh day of deliberations. Coccoz revealed she will never forget Jackson’s reaction.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]“I remember looking and I could see that there was a tear running down his face…we were all very emotional. It was a very emotional moment," she revealed.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]And while the courtroom drama came to an end, Coccoz believed the trial haunted Jackson since then. The singer passed away at age 50 in 2009 from cardiac arrest.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]“[It] painted a picture of him being this monster when he spent all his life trying to do good things for children, that had to have just crushed him,” she said. “I know it would have crushed me. To rob him of the joy of what he worked so hard (for) in his life was just so, so wrong. I can only imagine for him, that was probably the reason why he had a hard time with finding that spark again. I imagine that spark was just taken away.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Coccoz added that if the trial were today, she would still stand by her not guilty verdict based on the evidence presented to the jury.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]“It was pretty obvious that there was no molestation done,” she said. “It was pretty obvious that there were ulterior motives on behalf of the family. And the mother, she orchestrated the whole thing…that’s my opinion. B[/FONT]ut there wasn’t a shred of evidence that was able to show us or give us any doubt in voting guilty. It was pretty obvious there was no other way to vote other than not guilty.”[FONT=&amp][/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]"The Jury Speaks: Michael Jackson" airs Sunday, July 23 at 9 p.m[/FONT]
 
barbee0715 said:
who confuses Barbara and Diane? You lost me.
I'm talking about her Michael episode that she did for the ID channel this year. She still doing that series? I haven't seen any others.
Click to expand...

What has Barbara Walters said about MJ that was bad enough for you guys to be that surprised when she did a rather positive special for MJ last year? I've never heard something extremely negative from her that would make me so shocked. Did I miss anything?
 
Barbara was kind of rude to him when she interviewed him, not to the level of that hag Sawyer but she was.

I'm skeptical about the Oxygen show because they published the RO child porn BS some days ago.
 
Last edited:
InvincibleMJ said:
What has Barbara Walters said about MJ that was bad enough for you guys to be that surprised when she did a rather positive special for MJ last year? I've never heard something extremely negative from her that would make me so shocked. Did I miss anything?
Click to expand...
Just little nasty comments thru the years-not talking about her official interview with Michael although I didn't think that was so great.
Maybe I just don't care for her-she's like Oprah to me. At one time I used to really like her and now I despise her- and it has nothing to do with Michael.
 
I like what Paulina said if there is no proof or evidence there to show that Michael is guilty the only verdict that this jury can come back with is not guilty plain and simple. There was no way this jury was going to find Michael Jackson guilty there verdict was basic on the fast of the case.


After reading this i feel alittle better and just maybe this may be positive .:yes:
 
"Juror Paulina Coccoz is shocked many people still believe Michael Jackson was found not guilty...."

Is it me, or does that not make sense (in the context of the whole article)?
 
Snow White luvs Peter Pan said:
I'm skeptical about the Oxygen show because they published the RO child porn BS some days ago.
Click to expand...

They also made it clear that no child porn was found despite the media reports.
Problem is they will report what that scum Hultman has to say too and we don't
know about the other three who were interviewed they might have been fooled
by Robson Safechuck.

SmoothMJ said:
"Juror Paulina Coccoz is shocked many people still believe Michael Jackson was found not guilty...."

Is it me, or does that not make sense (in the context of the whole article)?
Click to expand...


Why the article says nothing about he horrible media coverage which is the reason why most Americans
still believe he was guilty.

respect77 said:
Anyone who claims the jury should have voted "guilty" should explain how on Earth this case did not have a reasonable doubt
Click to expand...

And why they believe the Arvizos were abducted, kidnapped, falsely imprisoned because
that's what people always forget that the DA argued MJ could commit the molestation
because he could keep the Arvizos in Neverland against their will. They always forget that count 1 was not molestation
but conspiracy. So do they believe all the other guys the Arvizos accused were guilty too?
 
Last edited:
"Some people wont like the information presented in this episode". What does she mean by this? All long as she is presenting the TRUTH, this should not matter. If she is talking about somebody who may not like the fact that the evidence show MJ as innocence, that is those stupid ill sick people's problem.
 
SmoothMJ said:
"Juror Paulina Coccoz is shocked many people still believe Michael Jackson was found not guilty...."

Is it me, or does that not make sense (in the context of the whole article)?
Click to expand...
I think she is judging some people around her. I DO NOT think most American think MJ was guilty (I do not know no one who think he was guilty). When MJ died, MJ was loved and people grieved.
 
respect77 said:
At least Paulina Coccoz sounds reasonable. Let's hope the whole show will be reasonable.

Anyone who claims the jury should have voted "guilty" should explain how on Earth this case did not have a reasonable doubt - at the very minimum. Of course, they can't because they do not have any deep knowledge about the case. Usually these people have some misinformed tabloid soundbites which are usually wrong, and they think they know it all. Or utter bias and prejudice against MJ, like Ray Hultman.
Click to expand...
That is the thing. People who think he is guilty can NOT give you one fact that hat prove such a thing only name calling and tabloid bull but those who know he is innocence can give you FACTS from COURT documents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top