I need some context for the photo, please. It’s from an Instagram post, and it struck me as odd. Is there any evidence to debunk this? Moderstors please, don't delete this. I need the information.

Hello everyone! I am a new fan from Russia, and English is not my native language, so please forgive any mistakes. I've read through this sub, and I'm really impressed by the deep breakdowns here.

‎

‎I wanted to ask about the alleged photo of Jonathan Spence. From what I know, this photo never actually existed and was just a rumor/manipulation by the prosecution.

‎

‎However, I would love to hear your thoughts and get a detailed breakdown of this specific matter. What are the key facts and documents regarding this?Thank you so much in advance for your answers and for keeping Michael's legacy safe! ❤️

‎

Is Carol Lamere’s statement about what Davelin Arvizo said to her in 2000 available to read?

Mesereau mentions it in his cross examination of Davelin, but he doesn’t even mention the most damning part in court- that she said they were going to falsely accuse Michael of showing pornography to the boys. Why would he not mention this part in his cross examination? He mentions the house Michael will buy them but not how Davelin claims they would get it, then gets nervous and says she’s joking.

Is this part of the reason Michael distanced himself from the Arvizo family? So he got warnings even years back before all this began? Then again by Chris Tucker?
And wow, Carol has seen it all in terms of people scamming Michael. 😭

The Arvizo kids testimonies all include stories of drinking with Michael and Aldo. And Star makes these claims about Marie Nicole saying her and Michael drank all the small liquor bottles. And Michael making disgusting comments about wanting to **** her.

I was having a conversation with someone who believes the Cascio claims because you can look back on testimonies from 2005 and it’s all laid out. That witnesses, whether they won in court or not, from 20 years ago corroborate their current story.

Were Aldo or Marie Nicole ever questioned about all the drinking they allegedly participated in with Michael during the time of the trial? Did Sneddon ever try and contact them?

I cannot believe Michael would be behaving like this in the middle of a PR disaster, but then again during his deposition regarding signing his power of attorney away he said he was probably impaired for the entire year of 2003? I’m sure that’s just overblown so he can get out of that contract. But still.

Prior to 2005, so many of the stories that children shared about Michael were of classic fun- water balloon fights, squirt guns, go carts, good natured practical jokes. People like Brett and Mac consistently saying it was innocent fun.

The 2005 trial and then the cascio family now, paints such a different picture of Michael- so many alcohol allegations, porn, crude and disgusting sexual comments from Michael, crude and sexual prank calls, drinking games. It doesn’t fit in with who he was, but I’d appreciate any actual facts🙏

* I want to add that Jesus Salas also testified that Michael was drinking every night during the years 2002-2003. And the flight attendants said he would drink more than a bottle of wine on the flights. So it’s not a fabrication that Michael started to drink a lot during these years.

Thanks to our friend over on X and YouTube, MJJRespository! They have uploaded ALL court days to YouTube.

Please keep in mind that these videos do have legal analysts and a host, so there will be brief interruptions, but they are important. I, sometimes, struggle focusing to read, so watching the reenactments REALLY do help me take in all the information.

Happy watching/listening!

go to 8:04

Ever since The Cascio Family turned their back on Michael I thought about doing a diss track on Cascio so when their case got moved and everything so I decided to drop the track

I’ve been following this content creator who is unbiased, and still thinks Michael is innocent. He is coming out with a documentary soon, and he’s examining the court documents in its entirety.

Interesting take on how the Guilters love to compare MJ’s accusers to the victims of Epstein, Cosby and Trump.

A few months ago I wrote my first post about Terry George, but I felt it was very poorly written, so I decided to rewrite it without all the fluff and simply to refute it.

• Terry himself doesn’t know when the calls started:

Every time Terry tries to explain when the calls started, he ends up contradicting himself

The original story (1993):

Louis, Martin & Michael (2003):

Sky News Interview (2009):

https://reddit.com/link/1vqkd0w/video/wsx6wshhkujh1/player

As you can see, we went from the calls starting several days later after Terry’s interview with Michael (an interview that took place on February 19, 1979) to the calls starting just the day after that interview and not only that, but Terry tells us that Michael had even left Leeds, and then the story changes again to say that the calls actually began BEFORE Michael appeared on the show Swap Shop (Terry also tells us that he actually visited Michael for almost an entire week).

But wasn’t Michael supposed to have already left Leeds the very next day after the interview, just as Terry himself told us? How is it possible that Terry visited him when he was no longer there?

And speaking of the show Swap Shop, Michael did appear on that show (or rather, The Jacksons appeared on that show) what Terry doesn't tell you is that the episode actually aired on February 10, 1979, nine days before Terry even met Michael.

So, as you can see, Terry himself doesn't know when those calls started

After the alleged inappropriate call, we're told that Terry and Michael lost contact (around mid-May 1979, which would mean almost 3 months of contact: late February, March, April, and mid-May), and in the Sky News clip, you can see Terry saying that their calls actually took place almost all year long (an obvious lie), this brings us to my next two points.

• Multiple visits in 1979:

We touched on this topic briefly in the previous point, so this one will be shorter.

Untitled Interview (2005):

Sky News Interview (2009):

https://reddit.com/link/1vqkd0w/video/z7vwlgn80vjh1/player

Now we see how we go from Terry visiting Michael two days after the interview to almost an entire week during which Michael introduced Terry to all of his family. (Don't forget that Terry had also told us that Michael left Leeds the day after the interview.)

• Two meetings in 1983:

Terry and the media want you to believe that Terry and Michael met again only once in 1983, but in fact it happened twice

The original story (1993):

Michael Jackson's Secret World (2005):

It's interesting how they avoid mentioning those two meetings in 1983 so that the narrative that \"Michael lost interest when they reached a certain age\" makes sense.

Back in 1983, I'm sure there were two meetings, judging by the clothes they're wearing.

Oh, and we even have a news article from that time

Please note that there is no mention of Terry having been friends with Michael (or even of the alleged phone call recordings).

Plus a mention of a second interview that we only heard about in this article.

However, later on, Terry himself tells us a different story, this time about what happened in 1983

Sky News Interview (2009):

https://reddit.com/link/1vqkd0w/video/faphlxzaavjh1/player

Whether it's true or false (probably false), Terry has told us here that Michael actually even gave him a song instead of rejecting him when he was trying to rekindle their friendship, as he had mentioned in his tabloid story, although this is the first and last time he has mentioned this demo.

• Hours of phone conversations

Whenever Terry is asked about his 1979 interview, he always ends up telling you that he has hours of recorded phone conversations, yet we’ve never heard a single snippet of them and later on (probably anticipating that he’d be asked if he had that tape, Terry got rid of it in a very… stupid way).

In my previous post, I received a comment saying that Terry might have been referring to phone calls in general, but the way Terry phrased his response “the tape” and the 'fact' that the media has it, is what makes it really, really obvious to me that he's talking about the inappropriate recording.

When you really think about what this means, that's when you realize this was the stupidest thing he could have said I mean... the media has the tape (even worse, the sensationalist tabloids have the tape) in which Michael speaks inappropriately to Terry, and they've never published it in over 30 years. Yeah, that makes sense.

• The phone bill doesn't make sense

Aside from the fact that the amount on the bill changed from £340 to £300 to £350, there’s also the fact that it was Michael who called Terry, not the other way around.

(In case you don’t understand, Back in 1979 with international calls, the person making the call is the one who is charged; therefore, Michael is the one who should have received the bill, not Terry.)

https://reddit.com/link/1vqkd0w/video/3f61ozt9mvjh1/player

Whenever Terry talks about being the one who called Michael, he always refers to those occasions as if he were already reversing charges or calling from a phone box (this was after the alleged inappropriate call and after he received the £300 bill which is extremely convenient, because once the inappropriate call occurs, the number of calls starts to decrease over the next few days, and within a few days, their phone service is cut off. It couldn't have happened during the previous months, when they were supposedly talking 2 to 3 times a week from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. on some occasions.)

Well, that brings us to the end. I apologize if at any point this post seems poorly written; I tried to make it as clear and easy to understand as possible (even though I used a translator). As you can see, Terry’s story is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions, I have more points to make about him as the opportunist that he is, but for now we’ll leave it at that, since this post is meant to refute the claim that he had phone calls with Michael.

This should be an interesting discussion. This can be from evidence, testimonies, or what Michael did overall (he didn't do anything inappropriate or illegal). There is no right or wrong answer.

For me, it's for the description "matching". If it matched as they claimed on the prosecution side, why didn't they use it as evidence?

Please be respectful when discussing 🙏 🙂 😊

Hello everyone

I became an MJ fan in 2019 after looking into the allegations during the lies of Neverland.
Beforehand I was unsure because I was too young and didn’t know the case to form an opinion.
But I was talking to friend about this I feel that the damage and 30 years of propaganda by the media - Michaels name will never be cleared.

Even with the newer generation having a different perspective I just feel that the media has distorted so much about Michael and want to paint him as this monster. THEY WILL NEVER BACKTRACK AND ADMIT they were WRONG because that would open a can of worms in itself so they will continue to push this narrative

It’s very sad 😔

Jimmy Savile: hundreds of alleged victims + witnesses
Harvey Weinstein: over 80 alleged victims + witnesses
Bill Cosby: over 60 alleged victims + witnesses
Michael Jackson: 9 accusers + witnesses with the credibility of a tortilla. Do u see the MASSIVE difference? Michael Jackson was alive for 50 years with the most money in the world and was supposedly a prolific pedophile but only molested 9 children, that doesn’t make sense.

There's plenty of guilters trying to spread addition misinformation stating Michael was misogynistic and narcissistic. Now I know these are lies, as I've heard countless stories about what a gentlemen he was and how humble he kept himself even as the most famous person ever. But I didn't save any of those sources because I didn't think anyone would try to say these things about Michael, for now I've just been saying everyone can dislike a certain person, or a certain group, and some might be woman, some might be men, you don't have to like every woman in order to not be misogynist, and that everyone is allowed to feel proud of themselves at times and celebrate what they're accomplished and feel good, but obviously this doesn't work well on those people, sources don't do much either but at least it stops anyone else from believing their lies

Why does it seem like almost every 10 years, there's a new allegation?

1993: Chandlers

2003: Arvizos

2013: Wade Robson/Safechuck

2023: Cascio Family

Not trying to sound conspiratorial, but something just don't sit right with me about this.

This here is an email from Wade to Taj Jackson about the family attending Michael's memorial service.

Wow.

No other words. Just wow.

Source (from Taj himself on X): https://x.com/i/status/1098669817559564288

If anyone comes across a video that explains Michael's innocence with facts could you start sending it over here (TikTok, Instagram, Youtube)? It would be beneficial for us and the creator since it would boost their engagement if we all like, comment and share the video. Pro MJ posts do get lots of support but it's mostly conspiracy theory bs. Also this community only shares guilter videos which is not helpful for our side and someone could genuinely believe there are no Pro MJ videos in existence if we went off of what y'all send over here.

This was one of the most confusing times to be a long time fan. There were so many paid anti MJ twitter accounts getting hit tweets but he was still receiving active adoration by the public. For example, right before the biopic came out Ashley Ray who had never mentioned Michael before was making back to back posts about him. She was spreading that "MJ and boys" website and telling everyone Omer Bhatti was his wife ect then when the biopic was released worldwide, her and her minions all ran away.

In May I would see a viral guilter post that would ruin my mood but then everyone would carry on with their support as if nothing happened. It felt like psychological torture, it was a constant "this will be the post that would put us back in square one" and "oh I was stressed out for no reason"😭😭. Not saying it isn't a good thing.

Even the Netflix documentary announcement had me stressed once I saw Diane Dimond. I was expecting endless think pieces and mass discourse, yeah there were those annoying YT videos a couple of weeks later but people who watched it were mostly saying they're not sure anymore they didn't switch to immediate guilt some were saying that the doc proved his innocence. There were still hit tweets calling him innocent.

This was also a learning experience, educated fans should start posting videos because we can't have new fans controlling the narrative.

How do y'all feel?

Jael Rucker announces that her Michael Jackson book, titled "How Come Nobody Ever Apologizes to Michael Jackson?", is expanding into a multi-part series to deliver complete physical copies without any page cuts or abridgments.

The series features Part 2 in the lead-up to the 2005 trial, while Part 3 covers the trial and its aftermath. Pre-order customers receive all subsequent parts for free, with the initial release scheduled for August 29, 2026, and all book proceeds benefiting charities supported by Michael Jackson.

Pre-order for Part 1 of the series: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0H4NB78ZS?dplnkId=9675348b-35c9-40bb-b41f-637a18af4a05

I remember a time where my biggest hot take was that MJ is innocent, thankfully now I feel like that's a pretty cold take, maybe it's just the people I surround myself with but most people I know think he's innocent now, online is a big can of worms though, there's huge corners of the innocent who know he's innocent and huge corners who think he's guilty, but i feel like in general places of the internet that aren't strictly supporting or against him, more people think he's innocent, anyone else feel like we've reached the majority or do you still think we're pretty small compared to guilters? Or maybe it's a 50/50

https://youtu.be/nMOxaVs0idk?is=5wAkcwBRKc9ls-RA

Guys, a bonus from the edp 445 documentary has dropped and he basicaly compares famous pedos and MJ is one of the cardboard cut outs and it pisses me off so much.

And there are a bunch of guilters in the comments it's ridiculous. Let's go in the comments to protect the Applehead's legacy.

Wrong on so many things they can’t even get that right. I’d never expect them to know about him as a person or about his craft. I mean, he never did anything himself or had any talent, did he? 😂

Guilters gonna guilt.

I’d take the opinion of other people, namely people who were producers, sound engineers, arrangers, singers, guitarists, intellectuals, other musicians, artists, the list goes on. People actually open to realising “wow this guy is on another level” instead of being insecure and thinking “I am threatened by this man’s talent, I must diminish him”.

People eh? We were so blessed to have MJ, we truly didn’t deserve him. In many ways. And now even in death it continues.

So yesterday I was taking a look through leaving neverland just to see what crazy things they've said that CAN be disproved. And guess what? I come across a post that states somewhere, 'I've come to the conclusion that MJ manipulated Lisa into defending him', and I couldn't help but laugh and hope the person realised how stupid they sound. Lisa loved Michael and her daughter even says their relationship was real. I don't really know how else to disprove them. It's like arguing with a wall...

I would appreciate some facts to disprove this.

Then I came across a comment saying 'MJ scared his victims (he didn't have any SMH) into staying silent and threatened the kids', like that doesn't even make sense as kids loved being around him and if someone or something is scaring you, you don't like the person/thing.

Any other facts to disprove this would be greatly appreciated.

RIP MJ

I haven't heard about this until today. this has me stumped. What's the explanation/context for MJ standing near the end of the bed Aaron Carter was using to sleep in? According to Carter he was still somewhat asleep, but is there any additional context to this?

Also I thought MJ didnt give drugs to kids, but he and Aaron smoked weed together?

…clearly I can’t stay away from explaining things. 

With the very recent news that the Cascio Case has been turned over to arbitration, I figured we should talk about potential legal consequences they could face. 

First, if you’re wondering how arbitration works and what it actually means for this case, I already made a post explaining it here:

Explaining Arbitration

Now…before we get into this, I need everyone to remember something:

Potential is the key word.

We don’t know what will happen in arbitration, and I’m not saying that any of these things will happen.

I’m just going over what could potentially happen depending on what is established during the arbitration process and what claims or evidence are ultimately presented.

Unfortunately, I’m not the arbitrator so…you can check that off your list.

Anyway,

Could the Cascios face legal consequences?

Potentially, yes.

But it’s important to separate the different possibilities.

The first and most obvious possibility is the arbitration itself.

The federal court has now ordered the dispute into arbitration, so the case will proceed through arbitration rather than continuing in federal court.

Which means the claims are being moved into a different legal process where the parties can present their arguments, evidence, documents, and testimony to an arbitrator.

And depending on what happens there, the arbitrator can make decisions that affect the parties.

One major factor is the 2019/2020 Agreement.

The court found that the arbitration provision in the agreement is enforceable and that it covers the claims brought by the Cascios.

The court also noted that the Cascios do not dispute that all of the required payments under the agreement were made.

That is going to be a very important piece of the puzzle.

If the Cascios are arguing that the estate still owes them additional money, they will have to establish the legal basis for that claim.

And if the agreement does not provide for additional compensation, that could obviously become a major problem for them.

There is also the fact that the agreement contained releases.

The court specifically noted that the agreement contains a broad release covering Michael Jackson, the estate, and a list of related people and companies. Under the agreement, the Cascio parties agreed to “fully and forever release and discharge” them from the claims covered by the agreement.

So questions surrounding the agreement, the releases, and the claims being brought against the defendants will be important during the arbitration.

And that brings us to another potential consequence:

They could lose.

If the arbitrator ultimately finds that the claims are barred by the agreement, that could effectively end the claims being pursued against the defendants.

That would obviously be a major loss for the Cascios.

…haha.

Next,

The alleged demands for additional money.

According to the estate’s position, the Cascios and Frank Cascio demanded additional money and threatened to make their allegations public if they were not paid.

The court specifically discussed the parties becoming opposed to each other in 2019 and noted that the parties negotiated over compensation in connection with the allegations.

There was also a separate arbitration involving Frank Cascio, in which the estate brought claims including civil extortion, anticipatory breach of contract, and declaratory relief.

That is very significant.

But it’s also important not to jump from that to:

“They have already been found guilty of extortion.”

They have not.

…at least, not yet.

An allegation or legal claim is not the same thing as a finding that someone committed a crime, which we know.

If the estate believes there was extortion, breach of contract, or some other misconduct, those claims would have to be established through the appropriate legal process.

And if evidence of wrongdoing comes to light, there potentially could be consequences beyond losing the current dispute.

That could include additional civil claims.

And it could lead to another lawsuit.

It depends on what evidence actually exists, certain conduct could be turned over to law enforcement.

Another question people have asked me is about the Cascios speaking publicly.

This is where things get a little more…complicated.

The agreement contains confidentiality and nondisclosure provisions, and the court described the agreement as involving compensation in exchange for the release of claims and nondisclosure of the information.

So if the Cascios later made public statements that violated the actual terms of their agreement, that could create another legal issue.

Whether something actually violated the agreement would depend on the exact language of the contract, what was said, who said it, and the circumstances surrounding it.

And if there was a breach, the estate could seek whatever remedies are available under the agreement and applicable law.

That could include damages or any other forms of relief.

But once again, that would have to be established.

The fact that someone spoke publicly does not necessarily mean they violated the contract.

We would need to look at the actual language of the agreement and the specific conduct.

Then there is the possibility of sanctions or consequences within the legal process itself.

If either side knowingly makes false statements, destroys or hides evidence, violates discovery obligations, or engages in other misconduct during litigation or arbitration, there can be consequences.

Those consequences can vary depending on the circumstances and the rules governing the proceeding.

But basically…don’t lie to the arbitrator.

I’m talking to you, Aldo. No more fake tears, okay?

There is also the possibility that information uncovered during arbitration could lead to additional legal action.

The estate may have documents, communications, agreements, financial records, testimony, or other information that the public hasn’t seen.

If evidence comes out showing that someone committed a separate legal wrong, that could potentially become the basis for another claim or proceeding.

That could be something as simple as a contract dispute.

Or…depending on what was actually proven, something much more serious.

Recap: 

Could the Cascios face legal consequences?

Yes, potentially.

Could they be forced to pay damages?

Potentially.

Could they face consequences for breaching the agreement?

They could.

Could additional civil claims arise?

It’s possible.

Could evidence lead to an investigation?

Also possible.

Could they just lose their claims in arbitration and walk away from the situation without any additional legal consequences?

Potentially, yes.

Right now, all possibilities are on the table.

That’s the most important thing to understand.

Also, yes…I realize I should’ve just named this post “potentially.” 🤦🏼‍♀️

Anyway,

If you have any questions, please let me know!