We the Jury in the above-entitled case, find the Defendant [Michael Jackson] NOT GUILTY of Conspiracy as charged in Count One of the Indictment.
DATED: 13 June, 2005
SIGNED: Foreperson #80
COUNT 2 - VERDICT:
We the Jury in the above-entitled case, find the Defendant [Michael Jackson] NOT GUILTY of a Lewd Act Upon a Minor Child as charged in Count Two of the Indictment.
DATED: 13 June, 2005
SIGNED: Foreperson #80
COUNT 3 - VERDICT:
We the Jury in the above-entitled case, find the Defendant [Michael Jackson] NOT GUILTY of a Lewd Act Upon a Minor Child as charged in Count Three of the Indictment.
DATED: 13 June, 2005
SIGNED: Foreperson #80
COUNT 4 - VERDICT:
We the Jury in the above-entitled case, find the Defendant [Michael Jackson] NOT GUILTY of a Lewd Act Upon a Minor Child as charged in Count Four of the Indictment.
DATED: 10 June, 2005
SIGNED: Foreperson #80
COUNT 5 - VERDICT:
We the Jury in the above-entitled case, find the Defendant [Michael Jackson] NOT GUILTY of a Lewd Act Upon a Minor Child as charged in Count Five of the Indictment.
DATED: 10 June, 2005
SIGNED: Foreperson #80
COUNT 6 - VERDICT:
We the Jury in the above-entitled case, find the Defendant [Michael Jackson] NOT GUILTY of Attempting to Commit a Lewd Act Upon a Minor Child as charged in Count Six of the Indictment.
DATED: 13 June, 2005
SIGNED: Foreperson #80
COUNT 7A - VERDICT:
We the Jury in the above-entitled case, find the Defendant [Michael Jackson] NOT GUILTY of Administering an Intoxicating Agent to Assist in the Commission of a Felony as charged in Count Seven of the Indictment.
DATED: 13 June, 2005
SIGNED: Foreperson #80
COUNT 7B - VERDICT:
We the Jury in the above-entitled case, find the Defendant NOT GUILTY of Providing Alcoholic Beverages to Persons Under the Age of 21, a lesser included offense of that charged in Count Seven of the Indictment.
DATED: 13 June, 2005
SIGNED: Foreperson #80
COUNT 8A - VERDICT:
We the Jury in the above-entitled case, find the Defendant [Michael Jackson] NOT GUILTY of Administering an Intoxicating Agent to Assist in the Commission of a Felony as charged in Count Eight of the Indictment.
DATED: 13 June, 2005
SIGNED: Foreperson #80
COUNT 8B - VERDICT:
We the Jury in the above-entitled case, find the Defendant NOT GUILTY of Providing Alcoholic Beverages to Persons Under the Age of 21, a lesser included offense of that charged in Count Eight of the Indictment.
DATED: 13 June, 2005
SIGNED: Foreperson #80
COUNT 9A - VERDICT:
We the Jury in the above-entitled case, find the Defendant [Michael Jackson] NOT GUILTY of Administering an Intoxicating Agent to Assist in the Commission of a Felony as charged in Count Nine of the Indictment.
DATED: 10 June, 2005
SIGNED: Foreperson #80
COUNT 9B - VERDICT:
We the Jury in the above-entitled case, find the Defendant NOT GUILTY of Providing Alcoholic Beverages to Persons Under the Age of 21, a lesser included offense of that charged in Count Nine of the Indictment.
DATED: 10 June, 2005
SIGNED: Foreperson #80
COUNT 10A - VERDICT:
We the Jury in the above-entitled case, find the Defendant [Michael Jackson] NOT GUILTY of Administering an Intoxicating Agent to Assist in the Commission of a Felony as charged in Count Ten of the Indictment.
DATED: 10 June, 2005
SIGNED: Foreperson #80
COUNT 10B - VERDICT:
We the Jury in the above-entitled case, find the Defendant NOT GUILTY of Providing Alcoholic Beverages to Persons Under the Age of 21, a lesser included offense of that charged in Count Ten of the Indictment.
DATED: 10 June, 2005
SIGNED: Foreperson #80
"The media anticipated the legal equivalent of a lynching... To spike ratings, they covered the man, not the evidence... The end result was further blackballing of Michael Jackson's reputation." Peter Shaplen (Media Coordinator)
Today in 04, MJ's defense filed a motion calling out Melville's factual errors in refusing to reduce MJ's egregious $3M bail.
The county max for comparable charges was $435K.
Sneddon: "MJ is no ordinary defendant & the bail schedule does not apply to him."
"Celebrity justice."
In the ruling, Melville baselessly suggested MJ had plans to travel to Brazil after sending the Arvizo family there (via hot air balloon?)
Except MJ had no involvement in any of those conversations, nor did he plan to go there.
Melville quoted non-existent remarks in decision.
Further, Melville leveraged the Chandler and Francia civil settlements based on 10+ yr. old allegations that never spawned any criminal charges after grand juries, 400 witnesses and millions of tax-payer expended travels to find any "victims."
GRANTED: Motion to quash subpoenas seeking body photos etc. This was the most important defense motion.
DENIED: Motion to enforce professional conduct by plaintiffs.
POSTPONED UNTIL OCT. 22 2024: Trial readiness & complex case considerations.
RE: Subpoenas
Judge Whitaker noted the prior unsuccessful requests made by Wade/James in 2014-18.
"To the extent Plaintiffs wished to seek relief from that order, they have not done so...subpoenas directly violate that order."
The one exception being the new request to SBCSO.
RE: Subpoenas
But the SBCSO subpoenas—the only new aspect introduced with Carpenter's latest requests—would still require a notice to affected consumers (including MJ's estate) and this was not done.
Therefore, these subpoena requests are included in quashing all four sets. 👍
The Wade/James court hearing tomorrow centers on three agenda items:
1. Trial readiness and tentative scheduling
2. Motion to enforce professional conduct by Wade's attorney(s)
3. Motion to quash four subpoenas to LAPD/SBSO/LADA/SBDA
The context behind each is as follows:
RE: Trial Readiness
The defense proposed a trial date of August 17, 2026 to allow 18 months for discovery, depositions, other calendar commitments and pre-trial motions. The plaintiffs did not object.
If honored, both sides will have until fall 2025 to finish major prep work.
Earlier this year, the media claimed the estate was delaying due to the biopic and to "silence" WR/JS and that Carpenter wanted a trial by April '25.
But in legal filings Carpenter agreed with the defense that discovery "is in infancy" and a 2026 trial date is fully reasonable.
From the original 11-page handwritten memo of Jordan's allegations, sold to the media in '93.
"Jordan stated he & Evan met with MJ & attorneys, and confronted him with ALLEGATIONS in AN EFFORT TO MAKE A SETTLEMENT and AVOID A COURT HEARING."
They never wanted court of any kind.
This is the same meeting detailed in Ray/Evan's book, where they outright admit to demanding $20M and how, had MJ just paid Evan it, he could've remained unscathed.
Instead, MJ staunchly refused any such demand including Evan's subsequent $1M pleading he sought later that month.
On August 5, 1993 following the failed meeting:
"I would like you to continue to negotiate...if those negotiations are not successful then as your client I am instructing you to file a complaint against MJ"
(By that, Evan meant filing a CIVIL case against MJ to allege such 💰.)
In Wade's suit he depicts himself as a superstar on an unmatched trajectory to fame & fortune if not for the realization of "abuse" in his 30s.
"It is not a question of whether Robson would have [continued to be] successful."
But he was already in major career decline by then.
By 2009, Wade openly admitted that he and his wife were depleting all of their time and money attempting to write failed short films and screenplays. Including the one filmed at NL.
"I spend most of my time saying no to jobs, probably to my own demise."
In 2010, a student spent time with Wade and Amanda to interview them for a paper and oral narrative.
At that point Wade said he was already far removed from the entertainment industry and for years had been out of that career's spotlight, allegedly to avoid Hollywood burnout.
"Plaintiffs’ new counsel, John Carpenter, has a problem: no matter which way one cuts it, his clients are inveterate liars... Carpenter has taken to a new tack, to poison the jury pool by making numerous false and misleading statements to the press."
In illustrating Carpenter's media rounds, she quotes his Daily Mail interview that the biopic "is normalizing very dangerous behavior—sure it will be used by padophiles."
Which is particularly ostensive, considering LN promoted extremely pro-pedophilia normalization throughout.
From Carpenter's TMZ interview, he suggested that the defense had access to "incriminating evidence" that they were not handing over.
Keller notes: "No such evidence was provided to Mr. Mesereau. No such evidence existed, and all responsive documents were already produced."