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)
THREAD: After a disastrous gloss-over of material facts and blatant falsification of others in the Chandler scandal—including the use of Dimond and Francia as defacto sources—did the pay-for podcast fair any better when detailing the Arvizo case?
(Spoiler: Not in the slightest.)
It opens by excerpting the overplayed soundbite from LWMJ with Gavin, cutting it just as all the media did in 2003-2005 before MJ and Gavin both confirm MJ slept on the floor.
Also omitting how another adult slept in the room, and the complete context.
Jay references the DCFS probe instigated by the school (and Gloria Allred) following LWMJ without disclosing the outcome.
DCFS investigated from 2/14-2/27, independently interviewed all members & circumstances.
"Abuse allegations UNFOUNDED both by the LAPD-Wilshire Div & Dept."
THREAD: By ep. 2 of the last podcast cash-in, it becomes evident that every producer and purported fact-checker involved should be forever stripped of any journalistic credence they previously claimed to possess.
Blind promotion of knowingly false propaganda by Dimond & Francia.
For context—Dimond was physically at court during Blanca's train wreck testimony. As usual, she exited during CROSS to give Nancy Grace updates.
For this podcast, the hosts & Dimond and Smith collectively omit any mention of Blanca's testimony, sticking only to Hard Copy claims.
DIMOND: Blanca would see MJ in the showers with young boys naked.
OMITTED FACTS: Blanca admitted more than half a dozen times under oath in 94, 05 and 16 that she neither saw nor heard any child in the shower with MJ at any time. None, ever.
THREAD: Breaking down the deception present in the kickoff topic alone, within the latest opportunistic podcast.
Cohosted by Leon Neyfakh & Jay Smooth, many support staff & two self-described fact checkers—none of whom seem willing to engage in debate versus blocking and muting.
It takes all of 5 minutes into the 519 minute podcast—the latest cross media cash-in to exploit MJ's name in promotion of premium services—to recognize their blatant slant and all the fallacies of neutrality.
Launching it with an omissive portrayal of MJ's 1994 NAACP appearance.
Jay says MJ had no purpose for his appearance at the NAACP Awards in 1994 except that criminal charges were still possible so he was "calling on his audience to rally behind him in the face of persecution and asking them to view him as a victim of injustice."
In the @NYtimes special, @LizDDay includes bits from Blanca's depo.
But conveniently cuts it right before the moment Blanca says it was never Pellicano harassing, threatening or following her.
Blanca in fact names @NYtimes as the ones pursuing her. Why not include this bit Liz?
Later @LizDay adds vagueness to the briefcase story, making viewers believe Gary went to "one of MJ's properties" for briefcase without making it clear this was the property that had already been raided.
She omits Hearne explaining it was visible to LEO and seen in photos at GJ.
In more omissive edits, @LizDay's special cuts Hearne's response to a single word "No" when asked if he found the request unusual.
In the actual transcript he explains how common it was for MJ to forget things when traveling and ask to retrieve them, clothing bags, docs, demos.
Lily Chandler (JC's younger sister) & Tabitha Marks (JC's ex) have requested the same extension as estate to file their response (Oct. 3).
Yes. These two non-parties are—FOR THE 6TH YEAR—still forced to argue Finaldi's repeatedly rejected motions for depo.
Despite Finaldi implying he'd not compel anyone to be deposed, his continued actions prove otherwise.
Lily explained in 2016 she had no recollection of interacting w/ MJ and had never witnessed any sexual abuse.
Tabitha didn't know JC until '08 and has no relevance to timeline.
The court denied Finaldi's requests, declaring that "the information sought by Robson through depositions would not help prove his case...[neither] possessed personal knowledge relating to Robson's claims against MJ's companies."
The court will be consolidating both cases for oral arguments (as they did in 2019) and has proposed consolidating both cases for a single final opinion as well.
Estate now has until October 3 to reply to Wade's brief, but may request more time.
The consolidation of cases for a single ruling is controversial and was opposed by estate the last time.
This is because each case is very unique even though Finaldi pretends they are identical (and with same causes of action).
Wade's was summary judgment, James' was demurrer.
At the trial level each case was separate. This is what allowed estate to approach using different arguments and strategies.
At last appellate level, the court ruled only on AB 218 that reversed the statute of limitations. There was no in-depth consolidated opinion on causes.