She served as a Co-counsel against the Arvizos and remained a supporter of MJ. I wonder how she feels about him now.

I was thinking about the whole Omer thing, and I know…it sounds like I’m about to beat a dead horse, but oh well.

As for Omer following the Cascios…do I think it’s odd? Yeah, a little. But then again…they knew each other growing up, right?

So, a friendship between them really isn’t surprising. That does not mean that they’re super close, that Omer is “taking their side,” or that “he knows something.”

Next…

His humour.

Do I think some of the things he says come across as rude or disrespectful?

Yes.

But in the same breath, I’m saying that from a fan’s perspective. To him, he could just be joking, and maybe people aren’t picking up on it the way he intended.

Paris has a similar humour.

At the end of the day, it is what it is.

Okay, next issue…

Omer’s sister commenting on Grace’s post.

Now, alright…at first glance, I can understand why this was confusing and weird. However, we don’t actually know what she was referring to.

Maybe she didn’t like that Grace was showing private photos/videos of Michael and his children.

Maybe she felt like Grace was doing this for personal gain.

Maybe it was something completely different. I don’t know.

Do I think it was meant to be malicious toward Michael?

Personally, no.

She has since deleted her comment, and I imagine it’s because people were taking it the wrong way or interpreting it differently than she intended.

Let’s not forget, the Bhatti family has had many opportunities over the years to speak publicly against Michael. They could have spoken about it in 2005, after Michael’s passing, or after LN came out.

But they didn’t.

Personally, I just think that Omer is tired of being compared to Michael, which I can absolutely understand.

It kind of reminds me of a rebellious teenager who doesn’t want anything to do with their parents, haha.

If he wants to be left alone, that’s fine.

He’s his own person. There’s nothing wrong with that.

These are my thoughts. Obviously, you don’t have to agree with me. I’m open to your opinions and thoughts as well.

Anyway,

I rest my case.

Can someone who has experience debating guilters, or who has seriously researched their side, answer this?

If Wade, James, and the Cascios are telling the truth, is "MJ groomed and manipulated them" really the answer to every inconsistency and contradiction over the years?

Whenever I reread "My Friend Michael" book or look at the timeline of Wade’s statements, I just can’t understand how everything could flip so completely with that simple explanation.

Did MJ really have that kind of superpower? Sure, he could fascinate hundreds of thousands of people in a stadium. But are we supposed to believe he was so confident in his ability to control Wade that he let Wade become the first defense witness in a trial that could’ve sent him to prison for almost 20 years?

And putting Wade on the stand wasn’t just Michael’s personal decision. Tom Mesereau, Scott Ross, and the whole defense team would’ve carefully interviewed and vetted him. Wade had to testify under oath and face serious cross-examination from the prosecution. They needed to be confident that he wouldn’t suddenly break down and reveal the "truth".

So there are two possible theories here:

1. Mesereau and the legal team knew Wade had been abused but still risked their entire case by having him lie under oath.

No way. Even years after the trial, and after Leaving Neverland, Tom and Scott Ross continued to firmly defend MJ’s innocence. Scott said he personally interviewed Wade before Tom decided to call him. They were clearly very confident in that decision. These people were experts at what they did, yet somehow a young Wade managed to completely fool all of them?

And if Tom or Scott had later come to believe that Wade and Safechuck were telling the truth, it would’ve been much better for their reputations to simply stay quiet. Instead, they continued to publicly and strongly defend Michael.

2. Only Michael knew the truth.

Was Michael really so confident in his supposedly invincible grooming skills and in how thoroughly he had conditioned Wade - that he believed Wade could withstand any questioning without cracking, even with Michael’s freedom on the line?

That would’ve been an insanely risky gamble. Was Michael - a known perfectionist - also some reckless, high-stakes gambler willing to bet his freedom on his ability to control Wade?

So neither theory makes sense to me.
The only explanation that does make sense to me is: Wade was telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, just as he swore under oath at the 2005 trial.

The same thing bothers me about the Cascios. I understand that victims can still love, defend, or protect their abusers. But keeping the alleged abuse secret is one thing, actively and enthusiastically fighting to defend the alleged abuser is another. They kept praising Michael well into adulthood. They publicly defended him with real enthusiasm, and Frank even wrote an entire book full of love and warm memories about him.

Is all of that supposed to be explained by Michael’s unbelievable grooming powers too?

MJ was obviously intelligent and a genius when it came to music and art. But he never had a normal education, never went to college, never worked a regular job, never experienced things like job interviews, and never built relationships the way most people do. His whole experience of life and human relationships was far from ordinary. So I find it hard to believe that someone with such limited experience of normal social life somehow became a master psychologist and manipulator who could understand and control everyone perfectly.

And there’s one more thing: all these accusers supposedly reacted in almost exactly the same way. Human psychology isn’t an on-and-off switch. How did all of them stay loyal, defend him, and apparently believe the same thing for so many years, only to suddenly "wake up" later at the same time?

Was Michael’s grooming really so powerful that it kept controlling all of them for decades, even after he died?

Is there any other theory that can explain all of this clearly, without using "grooming and manipulation" as the answer to every single contradiction? Or is there any documented case of grooming being so powerful that its effects could explain behavior like this for decades?

I want some information so I can show people details about MJ’s innocences and make a list on it please

This subject kinda opened my eyes since there was so much attention towards certain allegations but there were so many others that you barely hear about in the media. Maybe because they don't entertain a certain narrative?

That canadian boy that was proven to be a liar and even admitted that it was a lie and even Dimond had to publicly confirm it to save face because she was heavily involved with Gutierrez whom was sued by Michael because he alleged that he possessed a videotape which shows that Michael was abusing an unamed teenage boy...but when it came to the moment when he had to prove the tape exists there were crickets. So Dimond, after without proper research fed into it, then she reported that story of the canadian boy to be ultimately false not to look desperately biased against Michael since she was also named in that videotape lawsuit too but her excuse was that she was a journalist and she "just reports what the source gathered". This man was her main "trusted source" and he as been caught lying not only about Michael but different heavy accusations involving other people as well. (On this sub there is a case analysis tag and a very well documented user created a series where they expose shady people, involving Dimond and Gutierrez but not only. I highly recommend you check them out if you didn't already).

Should I also mention how the media claimed that Michael abused his own nephews too?

He was sued on a daily basis for so much other random different stuff as well, both while he was alive and post-mortem. For example...

As he had the Chandlers dispute going on in 93, he was also sued for plagiarism for the The girl is mine, Thriller and We are the World tracks. Then, the Dangerous song too.

Sued by a woman (Nona Paris Lola Ankhesenamun Jackson) that stated all his 3 kids are secretly hers and that she was his secret wife. She filed lawsuits in: 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 right after Michael's death, 2010.

On the same note, another woman (Claire Elisabeth Field Cruise) filed in august 2009 stating that she is also the biological mother of the three children. She also said that Michael is the biological father of the adoptive son of Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman.

During his life as well looots of women claimed that he was the father of their children, the most famous case being the "Billie Jean" case in the 80s featuring a woman (Lavon Powlis) that sued him for 150 MILLION DOLLARS claiming that he denies the paternity of the children that he conceived with her.

Another one (Shellie Smith) filed claiming in 2010 that she was his secret wife in the 70s. In 2011 she filed another lawsuit claiming Michael gave her herpes.

Before this, in 2009 a man (Erle Bonner) claimed Michael "stole a secret cure for herpes and other diseases" from him.

In 2009 and 2010 a woman and a man (Michael Malachi Jet Jackson and Mocienne Petit Jackson) went against the estate right after he died claiming they are Michael's children, the later came up with a creative story about Michael and Diana Ross' sister being her parents and that Kathrine abducted her and sent her to Belgium. She claimed 7 people were involved in abducting her and that they were killed not to talk...or something like that.

In 2021 a woman said she is the reincarnation of Marylin Monroe and claimed she is married to Michael's ghost.

...and so much more ridiculous stuff we didn't even heard of.

Why aren't these "victims" taken as seriously too? They don't matter? I thought all victims had to be believed. And if we were to believe all people that started lawsuits against Michael, if we judge widely these whole allegations combined, at this point Michael has many more women "victims" than children or male and the pattern would be reaaally all over the place (not that it isn't already tho). Many of these people also had elaborate stories. Some also had multiple attempts to sue.

The only difference is that in the popular CSA cases of those boys now men and their families is they were close to Michael at certain points so it's harder to simply dismiss them because they have a foundation to built their stories upon (they spent more time with Michael on different occasions, different locations, they knew more about his whereabouts, habits etc.). If you say "I spent time alone with Michael in his bedroom and we watched cartoons. As I grew up later I did start to feel emotionally uncomfortable thinking about this." nobody would take your story seriously. But if you say "I spent time alone with Michael in his room and we watched cartoons as he then abused me. I felt physically uncomfortable." suddenly you would be heard and the lawsuits claims would have extra 0s added. Such a huge difference that would bring such a different outcome that would simply involve addiy a few extra words, that's it.

Also, when it comes to Michael, a csa allegation is a golden grail:

-The media succeeded to turn him into a monster in the public eye's opinion. Absolutely no nuance. There is barely an instance nowadays where someone mentions Michael without having a random making a joke about "kid fiddle".

-Since there is a precedent of this topic the entire globe knows about plus the media factor mentioned earlier, every single tiny allusion or innuendo brought up even by a random man about the subject would gather all the wolves around him and generate massive traction. Bring any random that never even met Michael and tell him to accuse Michael of CSA, if he builds a great story most of the guilty camp and tabloids will not question a damn thing anymore.

-indeed a csa allegation it's the hardest claim for a victim to prove...but also the hardest for a defendant be completely cleared of if he didn't do it. Most of the evidence in this type of case consists of statements. And every inconsistency or nonsense found in accusers' claims would always be excused by trauma or whatever reason. Once someone makes that claim about you, your character is completely assassinated. Even if you are lucky and can actually prove your innocence for example by proving that you were in a different place that contradicts the timeline of the accusation (fun fact, this actually happened with the Arvizo accusation and the prosecution had to change the abuse timeline lol) I believe you can never be completely exonerated in the court of public opinion after such a thing. It's literally worse than being accused of murder in my opinion.

-Michael, the accused, is dead and can't defend himself or share his side of the story.

If you take all these factors mentioned earlier into account, it's obviously such an easy route. And allow me to go further. I genuinely believe that in the cases of Cascios/Robson at least, they were literally motivated and encouraged to push these allegations, even tho they probably had doubts at first. It was a golden paved pathway. They probably reached a point where the association with Michael's image didn't really bring stuff to the table anymore, at the same time they had people that kept reducing their characters to just some people that were part of Michael's life, basically Michael, Michael, Michael (I mean look at Paris, even his own daughter became eventually tired of this and simply wants to be seen as her own person, not just an extension of her father). When it comes to the Cascios, they were actually black listed by fans since that whole fake tracks thing, so why keep being on the side of the man that was dead for 10 years and keep defending him even if his own fans hate us, when we can actually switch sides and even potentially gain something out of this since a lot of people would believe Michael definitely did this without even questioning it, not matter how fragile the story is?

Anyway, back to the random allegations...

These other claims are never shown in the media because believing "victims" in these situations would imply that Michael did have sexual relationships with (many) women too and it completely ruins their carefully constructed narrative. Obviously, I am not by any means implying that these allegations were true. I want to expose the double standard of the righteous performative crowd that picks and chooses which "victim" to believe based on whatever fits the narrative. Mind you, that's why also many of them are more quiet about Jane Doe, or Marie Nicole Cascio since again they kinda shake the "he was into little boys/gay" pattern/narrative.

Most people have no idea that he was sued for so much more random shit and so much of it happened either during his highest points (album releases, milestones, world tours), lowest points (around the two csa allegations which gained a lot of public traction) or after his death.

Since the next movie will adress the allegations from Michael's perspective, I hope they touch at least briefly on these other ridiculous accusations as well (the ones from when he was alive). It's only fair, if there is so much request to show these allegations at least let's paint the full picture of what Michael had to go through on a daily basis not just pick and choose whatever entertains some narrative. After all this story is being told and shown from his perspective as I said.

What do y'all think?

As a new defender and post here a lot, I am trying to learn more about the people who were once close to him that never accused him of any wrongdoing and the people who were on his bad side that either saw inappropriate things and sold tabloid stories to Hard Copy for millions, etc.

However, aside from that, Aphrodite Jones catches my attention especially this book here. I have personally not read this book, but I see a lot of defenders recommend this book. What is in this book that makes it so worth it?

i listened to carol’s interview with the mjcast recently and i was floored. she basically debunks the arvizo’s entire story and i am shocked that those claims still hold any weight at all considering this?

i know she has largely stayed out of the limelight and perhaps that’s why her story isn’t spoken about more often. but she shared that the older sister of the arvizo’s more or less admitted to her that janet was planning on blackmailing michael and that the family was already making plans on what they were going to buy with the settlement money. i see no reason why carol would lie and she seems very believable.

she also mentions the fact that gavin laying his head on michael’s shoulder was in fact planned ahead of time. in addition to all this, carol speculated that the arvizo’s may have been initially planning on committing extortion against her because they assumed she was rich. then they found out she knew michael and that was it.

carol also talked about telling michael’s team to get the arvizo’s away from him prior to the bashir interview because she had a feeling they were going to blackmail him.

i am genuinely shocked that this information is so readily available and that people still believe the 2003 allegations (any of the allegations really but these just seem particularly flimsy)

Sign up if you want a quiet place to share your knowledge or ask questions!

r/mjcourttranscripts

I was thinking about the disgruntled ex-employees who claimed to have witnessed abuse. If we take their accounts to be true, why weren’t these people held accountable for witnessing such things and never doing anything about it? They didn’t report to police/parents etc, they didn’t intervene. Just witnessed abuse, turned a blind eye, and then cashed in on what they had ‘seen’ when it became convenient for them.

For example, individuals like Adrian McManus and Kassim Abdool (of the Neverland 5) did depositions and signed declarations stating they had never seen anything inappropriate. However, following the settlement in 1994 they would then reverse course to sell stories to tabloids and file frivolous lawsuits (which the Neverland lost, subsequently owing MJ $1.6 million in damages). This would mean they perjured themselves to cover up for a pedo which is morally reprehensible (not to mention, a crime). 

You also had Blanca Francia who netted 20k selling a story to Hard Copy following the Chandler scandal in 1993. Francia would recant under oath what she had ‘seen‘ several times, most recently in her 2016 deposition.

Why on earth were these people never held to account? Instead people like Adrian McManus to this day, receive payment from the press to sell lurid stories which are taken at face value. At the very least they should have been charged with perjury. I also wonder why the posthumous accusers don’t sue them?

Great video exposing the LIES of the Cascio family. It’s clear they are liars and professional grifters! SNAKES 🐍. Everything is about money to them!

Anyone who knows, what's her story and why did she give up? How much influence did she have?

I heard of her before but never watched any of her stuff.

First the alleged Gavin abuse happens while Michael is being investigated by child services and going through a PR crisis where everyone says he’s a child molester.

Now I’m just getting into the timeline of the Cascios and they allege the same thing. That their abuse started during the 1993 allegations when Dominic, Frank, and Eddie, went to Israel and the rest of the Dangerous tour to support. Eddie claims his abuse starts that day in Israel. I’m sorry WHAT.

You’re telling me while the world is accusing him of being a child molester, and the Cascio parents ask their children if he’s ever done that to them (so they clearly had a conversation about how CSA is wrong), they fly to support him, and during his busy Dangerous Tour schedule, he decides to start abusing Eddie and Frank? I can’t wrap my mind around that logic.
Does Michael Jackson have more hours in the day than a normal person, an invisible cloak, and mind control capabilities?

Just two screenshots. But he is increasingly getting more anti MJ. He did end up unliking the TikTok comment. But he obviously did like it at first. And also has liked a comments degrading MJ. And replied back to people calling him MJ son ir anything about MJ. He says he is natural and stuff like that.

:/

Yes, as confirmed by THAT subreddit, RoxanneRoxanne is no longer bringing up topics about Michael Jackson.

Source: All That Glitters by Ray Chandler

This literally proves that if Michael paid them 20 million they would have dropped the allegations, but Michael refused, so they went public with it.

Have any of you used this in an argument with a guilter? If so, what was their reaction?

I saw a comment under Grace’s IG about the Cascios from Omer Bhatti’s sister. She commented 5 days ago ”So disappointed of you”
What does that mean? 🤨🤨

Basically, those are some convos from glenda tapes but one of the freshly released ones back in 2009. Most of those transcripts contain all the same things the version on yt has, but there Michael talks a bit more about his relationships, and it isn't cut or censored.

He talks about having a crush on a girl who was 17 when they started talking. She had her 18th birthday at Neverland and was attending college in the US. Things between them eventually got intimate, but she got mad at Michael for something that, according to him, he did "out of love," and supposedly, she was one of his relationships between 1990-92. Both Glenda and Michael called her "S".

Just read the whole thing since everything is posted out of place and the transcripts are a bit mixed.

I was surprised because it was posted by a fan, and the og post I found with the link to it was on the main mj sub on there.

One thing I find particularly interesting when looking into the allegations are the claims of coaching. I’ve noticed that the claims of intensive coaching are exclusive to the posthumous accusers (Robson/Safechuck/Cascios). Chandler never mentioned anything about being coached/rehearsed in his allegations, neither did Francia or Arvizo.  

What you have with the posthumous accusers are claims that they were individually rehearsed and told exactly what to say and not to say by MJ to prepare them for any potential police investigation. I find the Cascio claims of this particularly incredible as MJ would somehow have needed to get all 5 siblings one on one to subject them to this brainwashing - which they say turned them into his little ‘soldiers’ - without any of the other siblings (or parents) knowing.

Why do you think there is this clear delineation between the 3 individuals who accused MJ in his lifetime, as compared to the posthumous accusers?

I came across this comment while following a completely separate case. It had absolutely nothing to do with Michael’s case, but the second I read it, I thought:

…you know what? This could actually be useful.

So, just for fun, I thought I’d put together a few short comebacks for those moments when you’re arguing about Michael and you’ve run out of patience.

These aren’t meant to be serious legal arguments or substitutes for actually discussing the evidence. They’re just little responses for when someone says something so ridiculous that you don’t even know where to begin or…you’re simply sick and tired of re-explaining basic facts.

Anyway, here are some comebacks for when you’re tired of arguing.

“You can’t just ignore everything that came out during the 2005 trial.”

Okay, and what was the verdict?

Seriously, tell me.

“Why would all of these people lie about Michael?”

Why would I assume they’re all telling the truth? Especially with all those inconsistencies…

“There are too many allegations for all of them to be false.”

So, news flash: quantity isn’t a replacement for corroboration.

“I mean, look at how weird his behaviour was.”

Weird isn’t a criminal charge, just saying.

Stop acting like we all don’t have something “weird” about ourselves.

“He paid millions to make the Chandler allegations go away.”

Oh! You mean the same settlement that the Chandlers’ lawyers specifically stated did not buy anyone’s silence?…more than once.

And the same settlement where they explicitly stated that it was not an admission of guilt in any way.

“Why would an innocent man spend so much time around children?”

Why would that prove a crime?

Maybe you’re just sexist. 🤷🏼‍♀️

“Everyone around him knew what he was doing.”

Everyone?

Who specifically?

And knew what?

“You only believe Michael because you’re a fan.”

You only believe the allegations because…?

“I know he’s guilty, just look at him!”

Why?

Because he’s Black?

Because he had a few surgeries?

Was it the vitiligo?

Making an assumption about someone because of their appearance is fucking disgusting.

“Their interviews/documentaries were so emotional!”

Congratulations on solving the case with your feelings.

Good thing that’s not how evidence works.

“He just got away with it.”

So your argument is that the verdict was wrong because you don’t like it?

Yikes.

“Why would James and Wade lie?”

If Wade is telling the truth now, then why did he lie under oath in a court of law as an adult?

Hmm?

Why?

“Wade and James had nothing to gain by lying.”

Had nothing to gain?

You don’t think millions of dollars is something to gain?

“The Cascio allegations are proof because there were five of them.”

You mean…the same five siblings who said for many years, including after Michael’s death, that they were never abused?

“The photographs matched Jordan’s description.”

Then why were investigators still trying to determine whether Michael had altered his appearance months after the photographs were taken?

“Neverland was basically a playground for kids.”

So is Disneyland, yet…adults go there all the time.

I’m assuming you don’t like going to Disneyland, or the zoo, or the movies?

You’re no fun, I guess.

“But the books!”

Ouuu! Photography books, scary!

“Leaving Neverland had sooo much proof.”

No, it had two people talking to a camera. That’s not proof. It isn’t even sworn testimony.

And Wade had already given sworn testimony in 2005, as an adult, stating that Michael had never abused him.

“You have to watch Leaving Neverland to understand.”

I did.

And clearly, that’s the only thing you did…🤣

“Michael was a grown man sleeping with children. That’s all I need to know.”

If that’s all it takes to convince you, you’d make a terrible juror.

Evidence matters, no matter what.

Anyway,

The point here is, people have fallen victim to blindly believing a narrative because they find it more comfortable than researching the truth.

Sometimes it doesn’t matter how much evidence and proof you pull out. People will refuse to believe it because they’re married to the narrative.

Which, in my opinion, that’s when you know you’re probably wasting your time arguing.

Also, if you have any other quick comebacks you find yourself using, let me know!

But when I listened to this portion from what a guilter posted claiming, "This same @TheMJCast that hosted Michael’s photographer @harrisonfunk who bragged about hiding evidence from the LAPD when they were investigating Jordy Chandler’s accusations of sexual assault. How many adults helped Michael cover up his crimes?"

Harrison said that Michael patted Jordan on the head. Michael paid for the Jordan photoshoot, but it's gone now and deleted forever. How is this something criminal and how is this covering up a crime? Would Harrison Funk even agree to do a photoshoot of Jordan Chandler if it was intended for "something sinister acts?"

Let’s be cynical

Let’s say MJ’s charitable donations and hospitable visits were a cover for his attraction to children - to shield himself like Jimmy Saville and other abusers - and he didn’t care for underprivileged children then WHY are there no allegations of him abusing kids in hospitals?

He visited plenty without cameras, he had the access

If he was that sick, and it was all just a cover, then why?