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)
10 hours of "sworn testimony 🤡" but King played only a moment's worth for estate.
Flashback to 2005 when King told the media he had 100s of damning, frantic messages from MJ then circulated several seconds worth, unverified and misleading, to the media.
The way King & Geragos are attempting to reframe the story as if it is the estate seeking to bury it. It has always been THEIR side presenting in private—to solicit millions.
Big brain idea? They could had just uploaded the 10 hours raw to YouTube. But where's the money in that?
Others who told hours of "horrific abuse" stories on video:
Daniel Kapon, who sold his tapes to the tabloids but had never met MJ.
Joseph Bartucci Jr., who claimed kidnapping & abuse while MJ was across the country.
Canada teen Dimond pursued for months only to admit the hoax.
Epstein's 95-page black book was published in full 5 years ago. MJ's "contact" in it was really Sam Gen, an attorney for a very short-term adviser to MJ.
But in new DOJ release you'd believe this was MJ's direct details within it.
One-upped by White House Press Secretary tweeting a 2003 pic of MJ, Ross, their kids and Clinton at a well-known event—no connection to Epstein at all.
Now with the children as "redacted individuals" and a byline implying it could be because they are victims of Epstein. Really?
"We redact the faces of victims and/or minors" has the same absurd energy as the Comedy Central skit from Nathan For You...Where a singular billboard housed the faces of "popcorn sharers and theater masturbators"—one or the other, let the public guess which one each might be. 🤦
Let's see how well this excerpt from Wade's first public announcement of his now 12-year running civil suit against the estate & MJ companies has aged.
(Spoiler: Not very well at all.)
Lauer asks: "Why didn't you go to the lawyers and do this quietly?"
Wade doesn't tell him that he did exactly that initially, but it didn't work: "They are filing the petition to file a civil suit today, in court. They feel very good about this all being done confidentially..."
Wade: "I've lived in silence & denial for 22 years & I can't spend another moment in that."
Wade was 22 in May 2005 where he had the most opportune chance to "speak my truths" in a criminal court of law. Where he credibly underwent 11 rounds of intense examination by both sides.
Defense has replied to the "Jane Doe" related motion for a protective order. That motion was filed in August as an effort to prevent the defense from deposing her mom and obtaining records relating to Susan's previously self-withdrawn abuse claims.
The underlying justification Susan and her mom used to fight a depo (and record requests) was that her mom was aging and unwell.
Note the hypocrisy in Finaldi's support of this motion, when his firm pursued multiple complete non-parties since 2016 regardless of health condition.
The defense calls the statements used in her motion "attempts to deflect attention from her deficient evidence...they are false."
Further, they argue her supporting materials are inadmissible and ineffective due to "hearsay, lack foundation and are not properly authenticated."
🤣 It's Finaldi's signature as the attorney representing Jane Doe's mom to contest the estate's subpoena and depositions.
Finaldi was also the one responsible for sprinkling Jane Doe's allegations into the mix again via many filings and exhibits since 2017, despite irrelevance.
What ever happened to Vince's early retirement? Finaldi told Dan for LN2 that this was the reason he had to replace his entire law firm with Carpenter's. He'd never lie!
All while acting like the estate's requests are somehow more unreasonable than Finaldi's own for many years.
Let's recall some of the conduct Finaldi made against non-parties that he had pursued for years to depose.
This included the Chandlers calling Finaldi's conduct "persistent harassment" and attempts of invading their privacy.
Telling the media he wouldn't stop searching Jordan.
It was not the estate, but Wade and James' attorneys who continued trying to slip unvetted claims by Susan ("Jane Doe") through exhibits and TV specials even 8 years after that case was self-dismissed.
The estate's issuance of subpoenas & depos of her family is a result of that.
I suspect Susan was unaware that her bizarre claims were still seeping into the narrative of Wade and James, in an effort to bolster their so-called evidence. Claims that were so poorly drafted and copy/pasted in 2016 that Finaldi even referred to her as a "him" in the complaint.
The irony isn't lost how Marion is challenging the subpoenas due to poor health, discomfort and lack of any actual knowledge of Susan's claims.
Flashback the countless parties Wade's attorneys pursued for years to depose, despite being complete non-parties and in poor health.