Today, Judge Pastor brought down the hand of Justice on Conrad Murray. Here is the statement from the Estate about today’s sentencing:
Michael Jackson’s death was a huge loss to his children, his family, and his fans worldwide. A jury determined Michael’s untimely passing was caused by Conrad Murray. Dr. Murray in pre-trial statements and in a post-trial documentary expressed no remorse or responsibility for Mr. Jackson’s death. The Estate of Michael Jackson believes that the sentence imposed on Conrad Murray by Judge Pastor was appropriate and called for. The egregious conduct of Dr. Murray when “treating” Michael Jackson was bad enough but when coupled with his outrageous lies in trying to cover up his wrongdoing after Michael was dying and/or had died only served to magnify his criminal actions. Michael Jackson was the one of the greatest entertainers that ever lived and he will be missed by millions.
This, of course, leaves out the facts that he will get NO house arrest and NO probation. The judge has set another date that will determine the amount of restitution he will need to pay.
The document warrants Murray to fork up 100 million to Michael’s children, and pay the maximum time for a conviction of manslaughter, four years.
One other thing that gives me a little more faith that he will get four years is that awful Mockumentary where Murray called himself getting off and stated he feels no remorse or guilt for his actions. Well, much to his surprise, that documentary will be used against him tomorrow. Where he thought he could get off by passing the opportunity to not have to testify under oath, he will be paying that hefty price in more ways than one.
Could it be now, that the reason he chooses to speak at his sentencing hearing tomorrow is because his mockumentary is being used against him; where, here he was thinking he would profit from this piece of crap rather than pay for it? Will he all of a sudden cry and beg for mercy and admit he is remorseful and sorry?
I guess we’ll find out, won’t we.
It will be streaming live tomorrow 8:30 am Pacific, 9:30 Mountain, 10:30 Central, and 11:30 Eastern on MJJC:
Part 3 of Vindicate MJ’s excellent piece on How to Recognize and Refute the Fallacies Used by Michael Jackson Haters
Let the takedown of Gloria Allred begin……………
Allred should do this more often!
The Half Truth (also Card Stacking, Incomplete Information). A corrupt argument from logos, the fallacy of telling the truth but deliberately omitting important key details in order to falsify the larger picture and support a false conclusion (e.g. “The truth is that Ciudad Juárez is one of the world’s fastest growing cities and can boast of a young, ambitious and hard-working population, mild winters, a dry and sunny climate, low cost medical and dental care, a multitude of churches and places of worship, delicious local cuisine and a swinging nightclub scene. Taken together, all these facts clearly prove that Juarez is one of the world’s most desirable places for young families to live, work and raise a family.”)
This is probably the second most used fallacy (behind the aforementioned Big Lie and ad hominem techniques). Dimond repeatedly used this technique in her roundtable discussion with TruTV’s “In Session”, as well her partners in crime Nancy Grace, Maureen Orth, and Gloria Allred.
Speaking of Allred, I scanned the chapter of her 2006 book “Fight Back and Win: My Thirty-year Fight Against Injustice” that is dedicated to MJ and the 2005 trial, and I almost fell out of my chair when I read her “analysis”! She should be utterly ASHAMED of herself for peddling such biased trash to her gullible readers! Here is a verbatim copy of everything she had to say about the trial, beginning on page 254 (my commentary is in red):
THE MYSTERY OF MICHAEL JACKSON
In December 2002, Michael Jackson, hobbling on crutches (reportedly from a tarantula bite), made his way through the press crowd outside a Santa Maria, California, courthouse for an appearance in a $38 million civil case—a contractual dispute filed against him by a concert promoter.
“Michael! What do you think of Gloria Alfred?” called out Jane Velez-Mitchell from TV’s Celebrity Justice.
From underneath a black umbrella held by his security guard to shield him from the sun’s glare came the response, delivered in his trademark breathy baby’s voice.
“Who’s Gloria Allred?”
The question drew chuckles from some of the press corps. How could Michael Jackson not know who I was? I had briefly represented a young boy in 1993 who accused him of child molestation. More recently, on November 26, 2002, I had filed a complaint with authorities in Santa Barbara, California (the jurisdiction that includes his Neverland estate) after seeing him dangle his nine-month-old baby, Prince Michael II, over the side of a fourth floor hotel balcony in Berlin, Germany.
Mitchell replied, “She’s the attorney who’s filed a complaint against you with Child Protective Services.”
Some reporters told me later that they were stunned by the response—not by the words, but by the tone in which they were delivered. The baby voice was replaced by a deep, angry adult male voice no one had ever heard before in public. I suspect that the real Michael Jackson temporarily peeked through the crack in his carefully maintained facade.
His “tell her to go to hell” comment played over and over on the evening news and reporters called me for a response.
I said, “While Michael Jackson wants me to go to hell, I want him to go to parenting class to learn how to protect rather than endanger his baby. My hope is that, upon reflection, he will realize that this is not about me, but about his behavior.”
Michael Jackson needed a wake-up call. He appeared to live a sheltered life surrounded by people who might only tell him what he wanted to hear. He seemed to think that what he did was okay. Well, I wasn’t a member of his entourage. I didn’t think that he deserved special treatment or that he should be allowed to take advantage of his fame to engage in actions that endangered a child—actions which, if engaged in by a non-celebrity, would have been condemned and investigated.
Dangling his baby over the side of the fourth floor balcony was reckless and irresponsible conduct. It demonstrated a complete lack of parental awareness of the substantial risk of great bodily harm or death that could have resulted had he dropped the baby. I told reporters that if Michael Jackson was truly sorry, he should demonstrate that in deeds not words by voluntarily submitting himself to a Child Protective Services investigation into whether he had endangered the baby and whether the child should be removed from his care. I said that children of celebrities deserve no more and no less protection than any other child. Rather than attacking me, Michael Jackson needed to address the problem. I felt that he needed to recognize that his baby was not a toy and that he had a duty to keep the child safe. I said that he should attend parenting class as soon as possible to learn how to become a responsible parent.
That he was able to avoid many of the consequences of his questionable treatment of children is disturbing to me. Acting as a private citizen following the child-dangling incident, I wrote to Child Protective Services and the district attorney of Santa Barbara County, Tom Sneddon, asking that they investigate Jackson’s behavior toward children. This was not the first scandal involving Michael Jackson and children, but it made me wonder why the system seemed to give the one-gloved wonder the kid-glove treatment. The mystery behind this apparent special treatment for Jackson dates back to a 1993 incident in which a young boy accused him of sexual abuse.
Law enforcement has publicly confirmed that the child made serious allegations against Jackson and cooperated with police and the district attorney’s office by providing statements. In fact, I took that child to the district attorney’s office in Los Angeles myself when I briefly represented him, and the child gave extensive and detailed answers to those who questioned him. At least one law enforcement officer involved in that investigation said publicly that he found the child to be credible.(As you can see, she’s trying to validate Jordan Chandler’s claim by reminding her readers that the police believed him; this is the fallacy of blind loyalty.)
At the time, I noted that children everywhere were watching to see how this child, who had bravely come forward with allegations against a celebrity, would be treated. Other children might fear what could happen to them if they accused a celebrity or other powerful person of child sexual abuse. Many people loved and trusted Michael Jackson. This thirteen-year-old boy loved and trusted him as well. Unfortunately, that trust was destroyed. At the time, I waited to see if Jackson would be held to the same standards of conduct as any other person. I wondered if he thought that he was above the law.
The outcome was disturbing. In 1994, while the criminal investigation was being conducted, a settlement was reached in a civil lawsuit brought by the boy against Jackson. Another attorney represented him at that time. Although the amount was confidential, reports put the possible settlement at between $ 15 and $20 million.
After that settlement, Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti and Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon announced that there would be no criminal prosecution of Jackson. They said that the child in question now refused to testify, and without his cooperation, the case could not be proven. Was there a connection between Jackson’s civil settlement payment and the sudden implosion of the criminal case?That mystery would take almost a decade to unravel. (Allred just used the “post hoc” fallacy, which will be discussed later.)
In the ensuing years, Jackson married twice and became the father of three children. His 1994 marriage to Lisa Marie Presley ended after twenty months. During his three-year marriage to Debbie Rowe, from 1996 to 1999, she gave birth to a son and daughter, Prince Michael I and Paris. The mother of the third child, Prince Michael II, is unknown.
Just months after the baby-dangling incident, in January 2003, ABC aired a British documentary about Jackson that was taped with interviewer Martin Bashir. Its contents were shocking and ultimately set off Jackson’s latest legal battle. Jackson said that he had slept in his bed with young children unrelated to him and admitted to sleeping on the floor while a child named Gavin slept in his bed.
Bashir asked Gavin, “When you stay here, do you stay in the house? Does Michael let you enjoy the whole premises?”
Gavin replied, “There was one night, I asked him if I could stay in his bedroom. He let me stay in the bedroom. And I was like, ‘Michael, you can sleep in the bed,’ and he was like ‘No, no, you sleep on the bed,’ and I was like ‘No, no, no, you sleep on the bed,’ and then he said, ‘Look if you love me you’ll sleep in the bed.’ I was like ‘Oh man. . .’ so I finally slept on the bed. But it was fun that night.”
Jackson then interjected, “I slept on the floor.”
Later in the interview, Jackson said, “I have slept in a bed with many children. I slept in a bed with all of them when Macaulay Culkin was little. Kieran Culkin would sleep on this side, Macaulay was on this side, his sisters in there—we all would just jam in the bed . . .”
My concern deepened when Jackson said during the same interview that he would allow—and even condone—his own children sleeping with unrelated adult males.
Bashir said, “But Michael, I wouldn’t like my children to sleep in anybody else’s bed.”
Jackson responded, “Well, I wouldn’t mind if I know the person and, well, I am very close to Barry Gibb. Paris and Prince can stay with him anytime. My children sleep with other people all the time.”
I was extremely upset by these new revelations and by Jackson’s seeming total lack of understanding of the true significance of his behavior. I believe it is highly inappropriate for a young child to sleep in the same bedroom with Jackson, in light of the prior accusations of child sexual abuse made against him. A vast number of child psychologists would recommend against such behavior.
Jackson’s apparent condoning of it flew in the face of what many would approve and of common sense.
Jackson’s conduct once again demonstrated a lack of good judgment and a failure to appreciate appropriate adult/child boundaries. Once again, I filed a complaint with the Santa Barbara County Department of Child Welfare Services and forwarded a transcript of the interview. I also sent a complaint to Child Protective authorities in Los Angeles. I urged them to “interview the child named Gavin and any other child who has been in Mr. Jackson’s home and/or bedroom without the presence of their parents.”
Although I received a letter from the Santa Barbara authorities acknowledging receipt of my letter, I had no idea if they acted on it because that information is kept confidential. During Jackson’s 2005 criminal trial, however, a social worker from Los Angeles testified that my name was on her referral—and that this was the reason she went to interview Gavin.
There was another part of the Bashir interview that I believe offered new insight into the sudden implosion of the 1993 child sexual abuse criminal case.
Bashir asked Jackson: “The reason that has been given for why you didn’t go to jail [in 1994] is because you reached a financial settlement with the family?”
Jackson responded, “Yeah, I didn’t want to do a long drawn-out thing on TV like O. J. and all that stupid stuff, you know, it wouldn’t look right. I said, ‘Look, let’s get this thing over with. I want to go on with my life. This is ridiculous, I’ve had enough. Go.’”
To me, Jackson’s comments answered the question that had been hanging in the air since 1994: Was there, at a minimum, a connection in Mr. Jackson’s mind between payment to the child to settle a civil suit and his being spared from a criminal prosecution which might have resulted in his going to jail? (In this example, Allred is using the post hoc fallacy to try and show a connection between the settlement and the collapse of the criminal case.)
The answer, if one listened to Jackson’s own words in the Bashir-Jackson exchange, seemed to be yes. The “long drawn-out thing on TV like O.J.” to which Jackson was apparently referring was the criminal trial of Mr. Simpson, since the civil case was never televised. Arguably, in this context, the only way that Jackson could go on with his life when he’d “had enough” was for the criminal case to “go” or disappear. That is exactly what happened after the settlement.
I took my concerns to Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley in March 2003. I asked him if the payment of the civil settlement might be viewed as an effort on Michael Jackson’s part to obstruct justice in the criminal case. California law makes it a felony to bribe a witness not to attend trial or withhold testimony. The purpose of these laws is to assure that the justice system can operate fully and fairly, without improper interference. It must not be corruptible. While civil settlements may be reached in cases that may also allege acts that could be criminally prosecuted, those agreements may not include promises not to testify in a criminal case. If they do, the settlement itself would be void and parties to it might be subjected to obstruction of justice criminal charges.(Gee Gloria, if MJ was never charged with obstruction of justice, shouldn’t that tell you that the settlement wasn’t “hush money”, and that it didn’t include any promises not to testify?) I felt that a grand jury should have been impaneled years ago by former DA Gil Garcetti to determine whether or not there was an obstruction of justice or an attempt by Michael Jackson to obstruct justice.
DA Steve Cooley and I agreed that victims of child sexual abuse should know that civil settlements can’t preclude a victim or witness from talking to law enforcement about a crime. A person cannot enter into a legally enforceable contract to conceal illegal activity, such as child abuse. In other words, a person accused of such a crime can’t buy a child’s silence. (Thanks for letting us know that, Gloria! You just answered your own question! All that money you spent on law school really paid off, huh?)
Unfortunately, even if a crime had been committed, it was now too late to prosecute—the six-year statute of limitations on the case had expired. I was concerned that Jackson had left the impression that the rich and powerful can buy their way out of the criminal justice system. The public might have been left with the impression that the system allowed poor defendants to be prosecuted for child sexual abuse, while it spared the rich, who could afford multimillion-dollar civil settlements.
I appreciated the opportunity to meet with District Attorney Cooley to discuss these important issues with him and I vowed to continue to be alert to both public and private reports about Michael Jackson and his behavior with children.
In November 2003, those reports became very public indeed. Jackson was arrested on seven counts of lewd and lascivious acts with a child under the age of fourteen, and two counts of using an intoxicating agent to commit those acts. An article in Vanity Fair suggested there might be evidence that Jackson placed alcohol in the soda pop cans of the minor and showed pornography to him.
I again filed a formal complaint asking the Santa Barbara Department of Child Welfare Services to open an investigation into whether Michael Jackson’s children should be removed from his care and custody and whether the Juvenile Court should immediately assume jurisdiction over the children for their protection.
California law provided that the Juvenile Court could step in when “there is a substantial risk that a child will be sexually abused by his or her parent or by a member or his or her household.”
In light of the criminal charges against Jackson, coupled with the 1993 sexual abuse complaint and his own admission that he has slept with young children in his bed, I felt there were more than sufficient grounds for such an action. Authorities have the right and responsibility to protect children who are at substantial risk or harm, even before a conviction or acquittal in a criminal case. Protection of children is always paramount. Many people feel that if Jackson were not a celebrity, but had the same history with children, his own children would have been temporarily removed from his care long ago.
On January 14, 2004, after Michael Jackson moved his legal residence from Neverland in Santa Barbara County to Beverly Hills, in Los Angeles County, I filed a similar complaint with the Los Angeles County Department of Child and Family Services asking that it temporarily remove the children from his care. The next month I filed a formal application with department director David Sanders, asking that Juvenile Court proceedings be started.
In March I was notified that the department would not be taking any court action. Based on that decision, I felt it was absolutely necessary for me to file directly with the Juvenile Court, which I did on March 17, 2004. The Court now had to review the decision of the social worker who had decided not to remove the children, and it could either affirm his or her decision or order the social worker to commence Juvenile Court proceedings. The response of the Court was that that matter was still being investigated. It remains a mystery to me why Jackson’s children have not yet been temporarily removed from his care, in light of the known facts.
I was happy to hear in April 2004 that Jackson would go to trial. All of the facts could now come out in a court of law, where Michael Jackson would not be able to hide behind his fame, money, or power. The public would finally be able to see the face behind the mask and the life behind Neverland’s closed doors. “Mr. Jackson, the gloves are off!” I said at the time.
Michael Jackson went on trial in March 2005. As it unfolded, we saw and heard a great deal of new and deeply troubling evidence in regard to his behavior around children. The alleged victim, first seen in the Martin Bashir TV interview, claimed under oath that Jackson molested him on a minimum of two occasions when he was thirteen years old. According to the child, the two were alone in the master bedroom suite of Neverland when Michael Jackson offered to teach him how to masturbate. The child testified that he hesitated, but Jackson explained to him that men who did not masturbate could become unstable and rape women. He said that Jackson told him “It was okay—it was natural .. . that’s when he put his hand down my pants.” The child went on to relate in some detail his allegation that Jackson molested him that night, and again on the following night.
The child’s younger brother testified under oath that he personally witnessed Michael Jackson masturbating his brother on two occasions, in Jackson’s bed. “I saw Michael’s left hand in my brother’s underwear and saw his right hand in his [own] underwear,” he testified. “He was masturbating. He was rubbing himself.” The younger brother also testified that Jackson had provided him, his brother, and other boys with wine, adult-oriented magazines, and access to sexually explicit Internet sites.
Both brothers testified that on one occasion Jackson appeared in front of them naked, with an erection. The alleged victim testified that [the brothers’| response was, “Euwwww! . . . [because] we never really saw a grown man, like, naked before.”
They also testified that Michael Jackson provided them with wine and hard liquor on multiple occasions. The alleged child victim said that Jackson routinely gave him wine in soda cans, encouraging him to drink it and referring to it as “Jesus Juice.” He described his feelings when he drank vodka that he testified Jackson supplied: “. . . it smelled like rubbing alcohol … I chucked it back really quick … it really burned. And then like two or three seconds later my head started . . . like it looked like the room was spinning, so I put my head inside the couch.”
The alleged child victim testified that he’d had concerns about all the liquor he was drinking with Jackson, because it might show up on routine urine tests he underwent as part of his treatment for cancer. The child said he asked Jackson what to do about it and Jackson replied, “Doo-doo, just don’t take the test.”
A former Neverland housekeeper and former Neverland house manager testified that they had seen children intoxicated on the estate on multiple occasions. The former house manager testified that he once saw three boys whom Mr. Jackson had taken on a tour of the wine cellar come out “drunk.”
A twenty-four-year-old man gave emotional testimony that Jackson had molested him multiple times when he was a young boy staying at Neverland while his mother worked as Jackson’s personal maid. After the first incident, which the man testified began as a “tickle session” but escalated into unwanted sexual touching by Jackson, the pop singer allegedly slipped the boy a $100 bill and said, “Don’t tell your mom.” Similar incidents of tickling-into-sexual-touching by Jackson continued for approximately three years, until the child was ten-and-a-half years old, according to the witness.
The same man’s mother, the former personal maid, testified that she had seen multiple boys spend the night in Michael Jackson’s bedroom. She had seen one young boy she could identify taking a shower with Jackson, as their underwear lay together on the floor. She had also once seen Jackson in bed, nude from the waist up, watching TV with a boy. She also testified that child actor Macaulay Culkin had spent nights in Jackson’s bed with him during her employment there.
A man testified that he was once called to bring French fries to Jackson and Macaulay Culkin at around 3:00 A.M. When he arrived with the snack, he testified, he saw Jackson fondling the child: “Jackson’s left hand was inside the pants of the kid , . . down in the pants … in the crotch area. I was shocked. I nearly dropped the French fries.”
Macaulay Culkin denied that Michael molested him, but a former security supervisor at Neverland testified that he witnessed a late-night Jacuzzi session with Michael Jackson and Culkin, after which the two disappeared behind a locked restroom door, then emerged wearing only towels, with Jackson carrying the child “piggy-back” style into the house and locking the door behind them. The security supervisor noted that in the past he’d “never recalled Mr. Jackson locking the house.” He later observed two pairs of swimming trunks about two feet from each other on the stone floor of the restroom. A former Jackson security guard also allegedly witnessed this incident; he testified that, out of curiosity, he peeked into the restroom containing Jackson and Culkin and observed Jackson kneeling down to perform oral sex on the boy.
Still, Michael Jackson was acquitted on all charges on June 13, 2005. (Gee Gloria, would you mind explaining to your readers WHY he acquitted? How about being a little fair and balanced, you know?)
Several of the jurors said later that they believe molestation had occurred. Juror Raymond Hultman said on the Today show that he believed Michael Jackson has a pattern of molesting young boys, although he was not persuaded of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in this case. (We debunked them in this post, and in this post.)
Given the serious and substantial new evidence provided under oath during the criminal trial, I again sent a complaint to Santa Barbara Department of Child Welfare Services requesting that they initiate a much-needed investigation into Michael Jackson’s activities with children at Neverland. I urged that the Jackson children be immediately removed on a temporary basis from his custody during the investigation.
Although in a criminal case the prosecution is required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to obtain a conviction, the burden of proof for removal of children by Child Protective or Child Welfare Services is much less. There must be clear and convincing evidence of a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if left in parental custody, and there must be no reasonable means of protecting the minor’s physical health without removing the child from parental physical custody.
Therefore, whether or not Michael Jackson was convicted is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not his children should be temporarily removed from his care and declared dependent children of the court. Given the testimony at trial by the alleged child victim in the criminal case, his brother, and other witnesses, I believe that the Department of Child Welfare Services of Santa Barbara County should have immediately intervened in order to protect the health and welfare of Jackson’s three minor children. I am convinced that they would have done so if that parent had not been a celebrity.
Children of celebrities should not receive less protection than children of non-celebrities.
You’ve got to be kidding me, right? This should prove, once and for all, that MJ’s haters are not ignorant of the facts; they know EXACTLY what they’re doing when they smear MJ! She researched the case well enough to be able to describe the testimonies of the Arvizos, Jason Francia, the Neverland 5, etc., yet she didn’t devote a single sentence to Mesereau’s demolishment of them under cross-examination! This is the very definition of not only a half-truth, but also the blind loyalty fallacy as well! Her readers will proudly admit that they believe her analysis solely because of her extensive legal record (as if that makes her analysis above reproach!)
For more examples of Allred’s treachery, look no further than her involvement with Daniel Kapon, one of the many “phantom victims” whose claims of molestation dissipated like smoke in a summer breeze once they were scrutinized! For more information, please read this post on MJ’s phantom victims, and this post on how MJ’s settlements were not signs of guilt. This post deals with Allred’s minor involvement with the Chandler family in 1993, prior to their decision to FIREHER for trying to thwart their plan of suing MJ first by going for a criminal trial. Here is an excerpt from All That Glitters, page 167, where Ray Chandler describes the rationale of Evan’s decision to fire her:
By the conclusion of the meeting, June and Dave, like Evan before them, had no doubts about switching from Gloria Allred to Larry Feldman. The choice came down to either waging an all-out media campaign to pressure the DA to seek a Grand Jury indictment, or conducting subtle, behind-the-scenes negotiations toward a quick, quiet and highly profitable settlement. Avoiding the trauma that a lengthy criminal or civil lawsuit would bring to the entire family, especially Jordie, was a no-brainier.
Gloria Allred’s Termination Letter from the Chandlers
If you want to see something truly hilarious, look no further than this interview Allred granted to Hollywood TV on July 29th, 2009, where she reminds everyone that Conrad Murray is entitled to the presumption of innocence, a fair trial, blah blah blah, yet certainly she didn’t give MJ that presumption, as evidenced from her book!
Ironically, a few weeks ago she gave an interview to Radar Online, and she proudly proclaimed that the public should “remember” the allegations against MJ! Click here to listen to it. (The interview is around 40 minutes long.)
And for additional laughs, let’s look at this literal TRIFECTA of MJ haters sit there and pretend that they give a damn about who gets custody of Prince, Paris, and Blanket! Allred, her daughter Lisa Bloom, and Wendy Murphy (who once called MJ the “Teflon Molester”) go toe to toe with each other over the appropriateness of Debbie Rowe getting custody!
Here is a recent tweet from Lisa Bloom, who criticized the Jackson family for what she perceived as hypocrisy from them. If you think her feelings on MJ have changed because he’s dead, think again! You can see how she used the Blind Loyalty fallacy to make her followers think that MJ’s refusal to testify was a sign of guilt!
This is typical from a Michael Jackson hater!
In Part 4, I will give readers a list of bulletproof questions that they can ask to any skeptic who is willing to engage in civil discourse about the allegations……
Here is the second of five parts of “How to Recognize and Refiute the Fallacies Used by Michael Jackson Haters”
In this part, we will look at how the media has completely distorted Michael Jackson’s plastic surgeries in order to advance their agenda, among other issues, so let’s get started……………..
Bandwagon (also, Argument from Common Sense, Argumentum ad populum): The fallacy of arguing that because “everyone” supposedly thinks or does something, it must be right. E.g., “Everyone thinks undocumented aliens ought to be kicked out!” Sometimes also includes Lying with Statistics, e.g. “Surveys show that over 75% of Americans believe Senator Snith is not telling the truth. For anyone with half a brain, that conclusively proves he’s a dirty liar!”
The bandwagon fallacy is also known as an “ad populum” technique. This is typically used by the media to justify their attacks on MJ. For example, let’s look at this quote from Charles Thomson’s “Most Shameful Episode In Journalistic History” article:
Why was Michael Jackson so stressed and so paranoid that he couldn’t even get a decent night’s sleep unless somebody stuck a tube full of anesthetic into his arm? I think the answer can be found in the results of various polls conducted in the wake of Michael Jackson’s trial.
A poll conducted by Gallup in the hours after the verdict showed that 54% of White Americans and 48% of the overall population disagreed with the jury’s decision of ‘not guilty’. The poll also found that 62% of people felt Jackson’s celebrity status was instrumental in the verdicts. 34% said they were ‘saddened’ by the verdict and 24% said they were ‘outraged’. In a Fox News poll 37% of voters said the verdict was ‘wrong’ while an additional 25% said ‘celebrities buy justice’. A poll by People Weekly found that a staggering 88% of readers disagreed with the jury’s decision.
The media not only loves to play the “most people think MJ is guilty” card, but they also break it down by race, in order to imply that only blacks are really into him! The best way to refute someone who tries to use this fallacy is to say that “Well, there was a time when most people thought that the earth was flat, but Christopher Columbus proved them wrong!”
Big Lie Technique (also “Staying on Message”): The contemporary fallacy of repeating a lie, slogan or deceptive half-truth over and over (particularly in the media) until people believe it without further proof or evidence.
The big lie technique is arguably the most effective technique that the media has used to brainwash an impressionable and gullible public, and turn them against MJ. By constantly repeating the “Wacko Jacko” moniker, rumors of skin bleaching, plastic surgery, being a self-hating black man, and numerous other lies, the public has been conditioned into thinking the worst about MJ. Essentially, by repeating the same lies over and over again, they start to sound like the truth! If that phrase sounds somewhat familiar, it’s because there was a famous dictator who was 100% successful in using the big lie technique to brainwash his citizens; that person was Adolf Hitler! Here’s his quote:
Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it. – Adolf Hitler
Let’s look at MJ’s so-called “facial mutilation” to see how the media used the big lie technique to say that MJ butchered his face! In this video, you’ll hear Fox News “journalist” Juliet Huddy call MJ a “freak”, in an attempt to dehumanize him just a few days prior to his memorial (and pay attention to O’Reilly’s use of ad populum techniques to bolster his claim that only blacks care about MJ):
First, let’s look at this photo, which consists of 2 photos taken 20 years apart and merged together. One photo is from MJ’s cover shoot of the December 2007 issue of Ebony magazine, and the other photo is from 1988. Look closely at the photo, and try and guess which photo is from 1988, and which is from 2007:
I don’t see any evidence of facial mutilation. Do you?
Pretty tough, huh? You can barely tell the difference! And this proves what MJ said all along, that he only had surgery on two areas of his face: his chin, and his nose! The rest of his face is completely structurally sound!
Below is the photo from Ebony magazine’s December 2007 issue:
Below is the photo from 1988 (you can easily tell because of his Bad attire):
Here are those same two photos merged with a photo from either 1980 or 1981. Once again, you’ll only see t change in his chin, nose, and the overall size of his face (as he had grown and gained weight over the years). I want to acknowledge LunaJo67 for creating the following 3 photo comparisons. You are amazing!
I don’t see any evidence of body dysmorphic disorder. Do you?
He aged pretty well over the 26 year time period in between these photos, huh?
While we’re on the subject of plastic surgery, let’s look at what Dr. Willa Stillwater wrote in her amazing article “Rereading Michael Jackson”, which is now posted on her new MJ blog “Dancing With The Elephant”. Open the article and scroll down to the section titled “I’m Gonna Be Exactly What You Wanna See” (a lyric taken from the song “Is It Scary?”), where Dr. Stillwater eradicates the “facial mutilation” garbage by analyzing photos of MJ throughout the years that actually MATCH each other, which is the opposite of what the media did to portray his face as a science experiment. Here are a few excerpts:
So why was it so commonly accepted that Jackson had extensive plastic surgery? I think partly it’s because he defied accepted notions of race and identity by changing the color of his skin and the shape of his nose, so both the media and the public became obsessed with his face. The tabloids, especially, were constantly photographing and analyzing his face, searching for additional changes. He also had a very angular jaw line and prominent cheekbones that could look quite different depending on camera angle, lighting, and the expression on his face, providing the tabloids with plenty of material for speculation.
However, the occasional odd photograph by itself could not have caused the media hysteria that came to surround Jackson’s face. There was more going on than that, and the explanation lies in the nature of perception itself, and how our beliefs shape our perceptions: we see what we expect to see. Once the media and the public became convinced that Jackson had had numerous plastic surgeries — that he was, in effect, addicted to plastic surgery — they began to interpret the photographic evidence in ways that supported their preconceived ideas.
However, that was not the explanation that was presented in the tabloids, and it was not what the public came to accept as true. The dominate narrative in the tabloids, and eventually in the mainstream media and the public mind as well, was that Michael Jackson was born with a cute pointy chin, rounded chipmunk cheeks, and a narrow jaw line, and then completely changed his face through obsessive plastic surgery, making his chin wider and more masculine and his cheekbones sharper and more prominent. And because that’s what our minds came to believe, that is what our eyes began to see. This progression as we imagined it looks something like this:
In effect, we highlighted and prioritized the images that fit the narrative we believed, and mentally edited out the ones that didn’t. And each time we saw a new photo, we evaluated it in terms of the pre-existing story line. If it fit the narrative and somehow suggested additional alterations to make his face more masculine, it was accepted as yet more proof of plastic surgery and was added to the “changing faces” photo series that sprang up like mushrooms all over the web. If it didn’t, it was largely ignored.
Notice how she referenced the media’s use of anecdotal evidence, which is the fallacy of only using evidence and research that supports your claim, while IGNORING anything that refutes your claim. (This is also known as “cherry picking”.) As Dr. Stillwater asserted, any photo that didn’t “fit” the facial mutilation meme was ignored and tossed on the cutting room floor.
Please, PLEASE take a moment to read that section and look at the photo lineups that she presented! It was excellent research that only a true MJ advocate could accomplish!
Let’s look at some additional photos of MJ to and see how the media really did a number on him. This photo below, taken in the early 2000s, is actually photo-shopped in order to make MJ’s skin even lighter than it really is, so that people could say to themselves “Yuck! He looks like a freak! I think he’s guilty!”
This is NOT his true complexion!
It’s similar to what Time Magazine did to O.J. Simpson in June 1994 (before he had his day in court!), when they intentionally darkened his complexion to make him look guilty! (Newsweek magazine ran the exact same mug shot, but without altering it.)
Throughout American history, darker skin has been associated with violent behavior.
This is what’s MJ’s skin complexion really looked like!
His real complexion!
Here is a comparison photo of MJ in 1996 and 2005; by the way, the 2005 photo is on the left, and the 1996 photo is on the right! When you look at the photo, you naturally assume that the older photo is on the left:
Let’s focus on what’s really important: regardless of how much plastic surgery MJ had on his face, he NEVER had plastic surgery on his heart! He was a kind, loving, and philanthropic person throughout his life, and genuinely cared for the welfare of the less fortunate. Here is a comprehensive list of his charitable contributions throughout his career. And here’s one last photo comparison of MJ, before we move on:
Photos taken from 2005, 1992, and 1989.
Finally, as we all know, haters absolutely love to project their hatred of MJ unto his kids, and the number one method of doing so is to deny them their paternity! We’ve heard it over and over again: “Those aren’t his kids! He bought them! They’re ___ kid’s!” (You can fill in the blank with Arnold Klein, Mark Lester, or anyone else who has claimed paternity.) A new MJ blogger named Xena Eve Gabby recently wrote an amazing piece on the paternity of MJ’s kids, and how much of a non-issue it is, and here is a quote that really sticks to me, because it exemplifies the “big lie” technique used by the media:
Now that the kids are being photographed out more and more, people are starting to notice Paris’ looks. While her eyes are not blue, but more of a green color like Joe Jackson’s, people are still thrown off. However, her darkened skin has some screaming “tan” even though she’s been naturally tanned since childhood, and others re-thinking their stance of her paternity. Many are starting to believe she is half-white and half Middle Eastern.
Hmm.
So, at the beginning, the kids were all white because it suited people’s needs to paint Michael as a self-hating black man who wanted to be white and have white babies. But when people could not deny that the kids were mixed with SOMETHING, they totally abandoned the “all white” theory and decided to go with “mixed with anything but black.” It’s amazing. People cannot seem to come up with a single coherent thought when it comes to Michael and the paternity issue. If the man wanted all white, blonde babies, he would have ensured that the donors were all white with a long history of blondes in the family. But he ended up with two dark haired babies. So why didn’t he learn his lesson the third time around? The third time around, he got a baby with even darker features. So there’s the “blonde/blue eye” theory all put to bed.
One of the main reasons why it was “okay” for MJ to be made fun of is because of his overwhelming and unprecedented success! As he said in 2002 with Al Sharpton, as soon as he surpassed Elvis in record sales and bought the Beatles’ catalog, OVERNIGHT he became a “freak”, “gay”, “weird”, he bleached his skin, took female hormones, and whole bunch of other lies! But let’s compare his face with his rival Prince’s face:
Wow! They look pretty similar, huh? Ever wonder why Prince wasn’t ridiculed the same way MJ was over his looks? It’s simple: it’s because, although he was very talented, he wasn’t the cultural icon that MJ was, and only sold a fraction of the records that MJ sold, and it wasn’t very profitable for the media and tabloids to smear him for revenues!
On another note: let’s look at what conservative media critic Brent Bozell wrote about their paternity on July 9th, 2009, in his article “The Jackson Whitewash”:
Many people were touched by the Jackson tributes, and none were more heart-rending than his adopted daughter Paris declaring through tears that he was the best father you can imagine. How sad: No one can seem to explain precisely who is the biological father or mother of Jackson’s children. Such was his family.
Brent Bozell, you are a HEARTLESS BASTARD! How dare you condescendingly refer to Paris as MJ’s “adopted” daughter! (Can you tell how snide he’s being when he says that?). She cried her heart out about her love for her father, and you want to use that opportunity to insinuate that she isn’t even his, and then say how “sad” it is that no one can “explain precisely who is the biological father or mother of Jackson’s children”?
You’re someone who, as a pro-life activist, routinely advocates for the adoption of unwanted children, yet you use Paris’ so-called “adoption” as a way of delegitimizing MJ’s authenticity as her biological father! Is it a “shame” that many of the millions of people whose parents put them up for adoption instead of aborting them may never know their biological parents, you hypocrite?
Despite the fact that he loved and provided for his kids, both emotionally and financially, that’s not good enough for you, because you think that MJ is “weird”. Maybe he should have just aborted his children, huh Brent? Instead of discrediting MJ’s relationship with his kids, you should be PRAISING MJ for “adopting” those kids, especially when you consider the tens of thousands of children who are stuck in foster care!
Let me be clear on this: I’m upset at the fact that he brought up the issue of adoption at the most inopportune time, and he did it to dehumanize MJ. I’m not upset because he thinks that MJ adopted his kids; in fact, you’d be surprised how many casual fans think he did!
And on top of that, the only photo of MJ that Bozell included in his article is one that shows him in an unflattering light! While Paris humanized her father, he chose to take the opportunity to further caricaturize him as a “freak”!!
You’re not as honest and compassionate as you claim you are, huh?
I dug into Bozell’s background, and he sure does have some skeletons in his closet! Bozell is the founder of the Parent’s Television Council (PTC), a watchdog group that monitors the entertainment industry. In 2000, the group prematurely blamed the Word Wrestling Entertainment corporation for the death of a young girl who was killed by a teenager, who they claimed was influenced by wrestling moves he saw during a wrestling match. The PTC was sued for defamation and slander, and of course Bozell’s initial reaction was to deny everything and accuse them of filing “one of the most malicious and dishonest pleadings ever placed before a court”. But by July 2002, he was singing a different tune! The PTC settled out of court with the WWE for a whopping $3.5 million dollars! Here is an excerpt from an article about the settlement (my commentary is in red):
The next time media critic Brent Bozell and his Parents Television Council (PTC) claim to be persuading advertisers to yank advertising from some tawdry TV program, it might be useful to check out the claim carefully.
That’s an interesting sidelight to Bozell’s settlement of a libel suit filed by World Wrestling Entertainment last week. The suit centers on Bozell’s admission that, in 2000, he falsely blamed what was then called the World Wrestling Federation for children’s killing other kids using “wrestling moves” learned on TV.
What’s more, Bozell also acknowledged that he exaggerated the number of advertisers that pulled ads from wrestling programming: He claimed to have persuaded advertisers to withdraw from WWF Smackdown! on UPN that had never been advertisers there to begin with.
Libel lawyers not involved in the case expressed surprise at the size of the $3.5 million PTC agreed to pay in the case, an unusually large amount for a pretrial settlement with a plaintiff that has the huge legal hurdle to overcome because the WWE and its chief Vince McMahon are considered “public figures.” Courts always make it harder for them to win libel cases. (Somebody should mention this to Maureen Orth the next time she brags about the fact that MJ never sued her!)
In addition to paying the $3.5 million dollars, Bozell was also ordered to issue a public retraction and apology, and post it on the PTC website for 6 months (and as you can imagine, it has long since been removed from their website, but you can read it here in its entirety). Here are a few excerpts:
We based our statements on media reports and source information. We now believe, based on extensive investigation and facts which have come to light since making those statements, that it was wrong for MRC, PTC, their spokespersons and myself to have said anything that could be construed as blaming WWE or any of its programs for the deaths of the children. Simply put, it was premature to reach that conclusion when we did, and there is now ample evidence to show that conclusion was incorrect. I now believe that professional wrestling played no role in the murder of Tiffany Eunick, which was a part of our “Clean Up TV Now!” campaign, and am equally convinced that it was incorrect and wrong to have blamed WWE or any of its programs for the deaths of the other children.
Because of our statements, PTC, MRC and the WWE have been in litigation since November 2000. WWE vigorously advanced its position that neither it, nor “professional wrestling” lead to these deaths. WWE also contended that MRC, PTC, their spokespersons and I had misrepresented the number of advertisers who withdrew support from WWE’s Smackdown! television program after receiving communications from the PTC, some of which regrettably connected the WWE and Smackdown! to the deaths of children. As such, WWE exercised its right to initiate this litigation, during which facts came to light that prompted me to make this statement.
By this retraction, I want to be clear that WWE was correct in pointing out that various statements made by MRC, PTC and me were inaccurate concerning the identity and number of WWE Smackdown! advertisers who withdrew support from the program. Many of the companies we stated had “withdrawn” or pulled their support had never, in fact, advertised on Smackdown! nor had any plan to advertise on Smackdown! Again, we regret this error and retract any such misleading statements.
This man blatantly lied about getting advertisers to drop their support of the WWE, yet he called it an “error”! This wasn’t a little “fib”; it was a material misrepresentation of the truth in order to achieve his goal of maligning the WWE, the same way he materially misrepresented the truth about MJ by not giving any exculpatory facts, thus fooling his readers into thinking that MJ was guilty! (Thus, the misleading title “The Jackson Whitewash”.)
This is just another example of an MJ hater throwing stones while living in a glass house. This guy lied to promote his political agenda, got caught, and was forced to cough up some serious dough, yet he had the audacity to use MJ’s settlement as a sign of guilt. Typical.
Blind Loyalty (also Blind Obedience, the “Team Player” appeal, or the Nuremberg Defense). The dangerous fallacy that an argument or action is right simply and solely because a respected leader or source (an expert, parents, one’s own “side,” team or country, one’s boss or commanding officers) says it is right. This is over-reliance on authority, a corrupted argument from ethos that puts loyalty above truth or above one’s own reason and conscience. In extreme cases, a person attempts to justify incorrect, stupid or criminal behavior by whining “That’s what I was told to do,” or “I was just following orders.”
You often hear the media’s so-called legal “analysts” refer to their vast experience as a prosecutor, judge, sex crimes investigator, etc., prior to ripping MJ to shreds. The reason they do this is because they want to appear infallible in the eyes of the general public, who will surely feel intimidated by their distinguished record. Let’s look at how Sunny Hostin rammed her credentials down her viewers throats before trashing MJ on the Sean Hannity show on the day before MJ’s memorial in July 2009 (and don’t worry guys, I refuted her and her partner in crime Nancy Grace in this post):
The blind loyalty technique also applies to religious leaders who bash MJ because, whether they realize it or not, the fact that they have the title of Father, Reverend, Pastor, Bishop, Rabbi, Imam, etc. gives their attacks credibility to their parishioners, who naturally assume that what they’re saying has been vetted and fact-checked.
Equivocation: The fallacy of deliberately failing to define one’s terms, or deliberately using words in a different sense than the one the audience will understand. (E.g., Bill Clinton stating “I did not have sex with that woman,” meaning no sexual penetration, knowing full well that the audience will understand the statement as “I had no sexual contact of any sort with that woman.”) This is a corruption of the argument from logos, a tactic frequently followed in American jurisprudence.
The best example of the media using the equivocation fallacy is in relation to MJ’s comments about sharing his bed. The media, led by Martin Bashir, deliberately twisted his comments to make them have a sexual connotation, and to this day, this is the number one reason why people believe that MJ was guilty.
Let’s look at this example: just after the trial, Mesereau granted an interview to Katie Couric, and when she asked if MJ would continue to “sleep” with boys, Mesereau immediately corrected her and clarified MJ’s comments, before mentioning that MJ would discontinue this practice. (Notice how he didn’t say that MJ never had a childhood, or was mentally regressed, or that people around the world also do this, etc.) Couric did a very noble thing and apologized to Mesereau, which implies that she truly didn’t intentionally misconstrue MJ’s words, which cannot be the same for many other media pundits.
False Analogy: The fallacy of incorrectly comparing one thing to another in order to draw a false conclusion. E.g., “Just like an alley cat needs to prowl, a normal human being can’t be tied down to one single lover.”
Let’s look at Congressman Peter King try use both the false analogy and the ad populum fallacies in the same interview! While making a ludicrous attempt to defend his indefensible comments, he said that if you asked people what they thought about a grown man who takes children into his bed, that 90% would say he’s a pedophile. (There are other things said in this interview that I will address later.)
That is an inapt analogy because, obviously1) MJ didn’t invite, force, bribe, or cajole any child into his bed, and 2) the reason that 9 out of 10 would call MJ a pedophile is because of how the facts about the sleepovers were inaccurately presented to them.
King tried to “play the race card” by referencing a poorly researched article written by a “respected, award winning journalist” from the New York Times named Bob Hebert, who happens to be black. On July 3rd, 2009 he posted an op-ed titled “Behind the Façade”, which is nothing but another example of sloppily researched drivel. Here’s an excerpt:
Jackson was the perfect star for the era, the embodiment of fantasy gone wild. He tried to carve himself up into another person, but, of course, there was the same Michael Jackson underneath — talented but psychologically disabled to the point where he was a danger to himself and others.
Reality is unforgiving. There is no escape. Behind the Jackson facade was the horror of child abuse. Court records and reams of well-documented media accounts contain a stream of serious allegations of child sex abuse and other inappropriate behavior with very young boys. Jackson, a multimillionaire megastar, was excused as an eccentric. Small children were delivered into his company, to spend the night in his bed, often by their parents.
One case of alleged pedophilia against Jackson, the details of which would make your hair stand on end, was settled for a reported $25 million. He beat another case in court.
The Michael-mania that has erupted since Jackson’s death — not just an appreciation of his music, but a giddy celebration of his life — is yet another spasm of the culture opting for fantasy over reality. We don’t want to look under the rock that was Jackson’s real life.
As with so many other things, we don’t want to know.
Let’s look at the fallacies he used: first, he went ad hominem, which is every hater’s Ace of Spades! He scared readers into thinking MJ is guilty by lying to them and saying had young children “delivered” to him, and then told them that the details of the 1993 case would “make their hair stand on end”.
The most egregious deception he gave his readers was the whopping six word summary of the 2005 trial: “He beat another case in court.” Is that it? Is that the most you will get out of a journalist who has numerous awards for “distinguished” writing? He writes an article trashing MJ, and devotes two whole sentences to the allegations! Unbelievable!
And don’t get me started on Maureen Orth (who King cited in that interview)! I will certainly refute her trash in greater detail at a later date! But for now, this post has information to debunk the lie that MJ installed the alarms to alert him to when adults were coming. (Go to bullet point #17.)
It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Rep. King clung to these pieces of “objective journalism” to justify his hate, as this is what haters typically do. He had to invoke Hebert’s piece in order to say “Hey! How can you accuse me of being a racist against MJ when there are black people who think he’s guilty too!”, and he had to invoke Orth’s work to give an example of the “evidence” against MJ.
Other false analogies that we’ve all heard a gazillion times already is the comparison of MJ’s acquittal to OJ Simpson’s acquittal, and the comparison of MJ to serial child molesters, solely because of his desire to help and be around children.
In Part 3, I will totally rip Gloria Allred to shreds over what she wrote bout MJ in her book. Stay tuned……………..
Everyone, spread this series of posts from Vindicate MJ. It is essential (should be required) material for all fans! Just as the title says, it does just that, and more!
Here it is:
How To Recognize and Refute the Fallacies Used by Michael Jackson Haters, Part 1 of 5
One thing I’ve learned over the course of almost 2 ½ years of defending Michael Jackson against the false child abuse allegations is that in order to quickly and effectively defeat a Michael Jackson hater, you have to first think like a Michael Jackson hater! Ever since his untimely death, I’ve probably read thousands of negative comments that have posted under articles about MJ, and consistent patterns that I’ve noticed from MJ haters are 1) they are almost always devoid of inculpatory facts, and 2) they rely heavily on intellectual fallacies (instead of incontrovertible evidence) to prove their points. Oftentimes, I would read a comment, and within seconds I would come up with an effective rebuttal to their nonsense, since it was the same drivel over and over again. Unfortunately, most of the MJ fans who would also comment on those articles would do a poor job of defending MJ, despite their good intentions. One of the reasons that they did such a poor job is because, in their defense of MJ, they would use the SAME intellectual fallacies that haters would use!
I can’t tell you how many times over the last few years I’ve been disappointed by MJ’s family, so-called “friends”, and some fans, who have each missed numerous opportunities to set the record straight, once and for all. The last straw for me came a few weeks ago, as I watched “In Session”, a legal program that examines the top legal cases around the country. Our good friend Diane Dimond was allowed to make numerous falsehoods about MJ while participating in a roundtable discussion with two of MJ’s former associates, Mike Garcia (one of three bodyguards who worked from him when he lived in Las Vegas) and Steve Manning (his former publicist), and many of her falsehoods were not refuted by facts; instead, they were met with intellectual fallacies such as “If you knew Mr. Jackson, you knew he didn’t do it!” and “But the Santa Barbara jury found him not guilty!”. Dimond effectively challenged both of them, and if you were someone who was on the fence about MJ’s guilt or innocence, then after watching this program you would probably conclude that MJ was guilty, based on Dimond’s cunning use of half-truths, and the poor performance of Garcia and Manning. Fortunately, I thoroughly fact-checked everything Dimond said, and in less than a month that post is one of the most viewed in the history of the blog!
Here is an example of how bad it was!
Steve Manning: Diane,isn’t it true Diane that the Ryan father who pushed this whole thing, later admitted that his father made him do it?
Diane Dimond:No, that is not true! That was put out on the internet that the first young man recanted, and it absolutely was not true. That came out after his father committed suicide, and people said “Oh look, his father committed suicide! Chandler’s gone, it was all a hoax!” Mr. Chandler committed suicide because he had a degenerative disease that was robbing him of the ability to stand up, to speak, to swallow, or to think.
Steve Manning: Well, I wish you would have went to Neverland, and you’re family. It was something for families; it was a beautiful place……
Diane Dimond: I’m sure it was a beautiful place, but Mike, with all due respect, you (Mike Garcia) started working for him in 2006, he didn’t even live at Neverland! You don’t know what went on at Neverland, and I don’t either! I just know the people I spoke to, not secondhand.
See what I mean? First, Manning confuses Jordan Chandler with (I assume) Ryan White (whose relationship with MJ we examined in a previous post), and then he asks her if Jordan really did “confess” to lying after MJ died, which shows that he hasn’t fully investigated it himself! (If he had, he would have known it was an internet hoax.)
But for him to tell Dimond, the Queen of Tabloid Lies, that he wishes she could have seen what a beautiful place Neverland is, is truly indicative of his inability to cogently defend MJ with facts. There are too many fans that have the mentality of “Why should I take the time to learn the facts backwards and forwards when I already know that MJ is innocent? Why should I spend two hours reading Gavin’s cross-examination when I can watch This Is It for the 500th time?” Those are the types of fans who have every lyric to every song memorized, constantly engage themselves in various forms of “Michael-ing”, wear Michael Jackson paraphernalia, make their Facebook pages a literal shrine to MJ, but are clueless when it comes to the facts of the allegations! (And trust me, I’ve encountered way too many fans who fit in this category!)
I was so disappointed by their performance that I decided to make a list of all of the scare tactics that haters unknowingly use (since most of them aren’t even aware that they’re relying on fallacies when they argue their points). A fallacy is defined below:
1. Mistaken belief or idea: something that is believed to be true but is erroneous
2. Invalid argument: an argument or reasoning in which the conclusion does not follow from the premises
3. Logical error in argument: a mistake made in a line of reasoning that invalidates it
As you can see, there are several variations to the word, and all of them apply in the situations where haters use this form of attack against MJ. And while we’re on the subject of definitions, let me take a moment to define the word “hater”, and make a clear distinction between a hater and skeptic (for the purposes of this post):
A skeptic is someone who has serious doubts about MJ’s innocence, but is willing to entertain the possibility that he could be innocent. Skeptics are open-minded, and want to be persuaded with facts, and not with plastic surgery, skin bleaching, or any other irrelevant nonsense. Although skeptics may be genuinely disturbed by the allegations, and MJ’s own behavior at times, they do not cling to prejudices, phantom victims, or ridiculous hypothetical scenarios to justify their belief that MJ is guilty, especially when presented with the insurmountable quantity (and quality) of exculpatory evidence. Skeptics are ready to admit that they were wrong about MJ once they are presented with the facts, regardless of what their personal feelings are about MJ. (A perfect example of a former skeptic would be Joan Dowlin, a Huffington Post blogger who wrote a poignant, heartfelt tribute to MJ on July 8th, 2009 titled “Michael, I Apologize”. And here’s an example of someone who is skeptical of MJ’s devotion to children, but readily admits that he thinks he’s innocent.)
A hater is someone who has ALREADY CONVICTED MJ beyond a reasonable doubt, and when they are presented with unimpeachable facts, they cling to prejudice (e.g. “I think he’s guilty because he’s weird!”), phantom victims (e.g. Diane Dimond and Maureen Orth both claiming to have interviewed victims who were too afraid to press charges), ridiculous hypothetical situations (e.g. “MJ paid off his accusers, the police, the two grand juries, and the FBI!”), and many other fallacies that I will address later on in this post, instead of admitting that they were wrong. Haters are very close-minded, and quick to jump to conclusions without having all of the pertinent facts available to them (which is why they thought MJ was guilty in the first place!). Haters usually have a pre-conceived prejudice about a subset of the population that guides their thinking towards MJ (e.g. linking pedophilia to homosexuality; many haters have ridiculed him as being gay because of his voice, and because he wasn’t a womanizer like his brothers.) Lastly, haters love to thumb their noses at MJ fans by posting their garbage at the most inopportune times in order to maximize the hurt that they inflict on the fan community (for example, Andrea Peyser posted her “Freak of the Weak” column during week of the one year anniversary of MJ’s death.)
To put it succinctly, skeptics wanted to see justice, and not a conviction, while haters wanted to see a conviction, and not justice!
It’s very important that fans know how to make the distinction between a skeptic and a hater, because too many times fans have pigeonholed people who were skeptics as haters, and that has turned off many people who were only trying to seek the truth about the allegations. If people feel that by asking serious (and oftentimes justifiable) questions about the allegations that they will be attacked, then they’ll simply give up, assume that MJ was guilty, and avoid any further contact with MJ’s “crazy, rabid fans”. Essentially, many MJ haters are former skeptics who tried to find the truth, but were turned off by fans who were too emotional in their defense of MJ! (And I’ve witnessed this firsthand by reading the comments on Dimond’s facebook page.)
Haters are analogous to pornography; as the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once said in a landmark case about what is considered hardcore pornography, “I’ll know it when I see it”. When you’re talking to an MJ hater (like Andrea Peyser), you’ll certainly know it!
Now, let’s looks at some of the major fallacies that haters use to attack MJ, and (unfortunately) some fans use to defend MJ. I was lucky enough to find a comprehensive list of fallacies on this site, called “Master List of Logical Fallacies”. Their definition of fallacy is even better than the definition that I quoted above!
Fallacies are fake or deceptive arguments that prove nothing. Fallacies often seem superficially sound, and far too often have immense persuasive power, even after being clearly exposed as false. Fallacies are not always deliberate, but a good scholar’s purpose is always to identify and unmask fallacies in arguments.
I agree with that definition 100%, except in the last paragraph I would replace “a good scholar’s purpose” with “a good Michael Jackson advocate’s purpose”! In order to be an effective advocate, you must totally and absolutely refute any nonsense that haters spew, and in order to refute them, you must recognize what technique they are utilizing (even if the haters themselves don’t recognize the techniques they’re utilizing!). It’s similar to a game of chess; you watch your opponent’s every move, and you counter it. By the time you finish reading this post, you’ll be able to counter anything and everything that haters throw in your face!
So without further ado, let’s start analyzing these fallacies, one by one! I will copy the definition from the website, and then add in my own commentary and examples.
Ad Hominem Argument: Also, “personal attack,” “poisoning the well.” The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s personal character or reputation, using a corrupted negative argument from ethos. E.g., “He’s so evil that you can’t believe anything he says.” See also Guilt by Association. Also applies to cases where potential opposing arguments are brushed aside without comment or consideration, as simply not worth arguing about.
This is the #1 fallacy that haters use to smear MJ, by far. How many times have you heard people bring up his plastic surgery, so-called skin bleaching, buying the Elephant man’s bones, sleeping in hyperbaric chambers, taking female hormones, etc.? Its part of their way of saying that “MJ is weird, and therefore he’ guilty.” Here is another definition of ad hominem:
Appealing to emotions: appealing to people’s emotions, biases, and prejudices, instead of their ability to think.
That definition motivates my philosophy when it comes to defending MJ. I want people to make evaluate the facts and make a rational decision based on intelligent thought, instead of making an emotional, knee-jerk reaction.
The ad hominem fallacy is oftentimes used by people who are woefully misinformed, and want a quick and easy way to rationalize their feelings. Congressman Peter King’s vicious attack on MJ just before his memorial is arguably the most popular example of an ad hominem attack. As you watch this video, you’ll notice that he didn’t present any facts to back up his assertions that MJ was a child molester, yet he sarcastically asked viewers if they would let their child or grandchild be in the same room as MJ. His reason for asking this is to elicit a “No” answer from people (who would likely answer that way based off of an emotional, knee-jerk reaction), and to make people who would answer “Yes” feel ashamed about themselves. And to top it off, he had the temerity to invoke the troops by saying that we need to give credit to the men and women who are dying in Afghanistan! What he’s doing here is intentionally “hiding behind patriotism”, and anyone who disagrees with him is smeared as being unpatriotic!
Also, be sure to pay attention to the specific loaded, emotionally charged words that he used to appeal to the prejudices of the viewers: pervert, lowlife, pedophile, child molester, etc.
Another ad hominem attack that has been hurled at MJ throughout the years is to accuse him of being a homosexual; this rumor grew legs in 1993, when he was falsely accused of molesting young boys; NOT GIRLS, but boys! This technique is so effective because if people think that MJ is gay, then they are more likely to think that he’s guilty! For example, here is junk science from a January 2004 article titled “Michael Jackson: The Psychoanalysis of a Very Queer Man”.
It took a turn for the worse when Ian Halperin published his trash tabloid book “Unmasked”, in which he claimed to have gone “undercover” as one of MJ’s gay lovers! This subject reared its ugly head again in April 2010 when Jason Pfeiffer, an employee of MJ’s longtime dermatologist Arnie Klein, claimed to be MJ’s gay lover, but that story was quickly refuted. (Here is Nikki Allygator’s rebuttal.)
Here is an excerpt from “The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour” (which can be downloaded for free as a PDF from that link), page 105; it shows an example of how the media tried to get MJ’s friends and family to backstab him by accusing him of being gay! Geraldo Rivera conducted a “mock trial” on his show, and here is what MJ’s cousin Tim Whitehead had to say:
The defence witnesses included Tim Whitehead, Michael’s cousin who is very close to Michael, who told the jury he had been offered $100,000 to say that Michael is gay. He refused and said he has never seen any behaviour that could be construed as child abuse.
And of course Tom Sneddon had to play the gay card too during the 1994 Grand Jury proceedings! Here is an article from the LA Times on March 31st, 1994:
Jackson Case Panel Asks About Sexual Orientation : Grand jury: An employee of the singer says he was questioned about the star and about himself. The witness’s lawyer calls the inquiries improper; some experts dispute him.
March 31, 1994|JIM NEWTON | TIMES STAFF WRITER
Prosecutors investigating allegations that Michael Jackson sexually molested a 13-year-old boy asked a witness to tell a grand jury about Jackson’s sexual orientation and to testify about his own sexual orientation as well, according to sources familiar with that witness’s testimony.
The witness, an employee of Jackson who appeared before the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury recently, told his lawyer about the questions, and that attorney fired off an angry letter to the Santa Barbara County and Los Angeles County district attorney’s offices in response.
In his letter, lawyer Richard M. Steingard accused prosecutors of exceeding the proper limits of grand jury questioning. Steingard wrote that grand jury questions must be limited to evidence that would be admissible in court–a contention that legal experts disputed even as some expressed reservations about inquiring into a witness’ sexual orientation.
“One would think that prosecutors of your stature would, at a minimum, know this to be the law and attempt in your questioning of witnesses to comply with this rule,” Steingard wrote. “Based on the above, you apparently believe that the questioning of a witness has no limits or boundaries and that anything, even a witness’ sexual preference, is fair game.”
Steingard’s letter is the latest in a series of criticisms leveled at prosecutors in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara who are investigating the allegations against Jackson.The entertainer’s lawyers have regularly attacked the slow pace of the inquiry, which was launched last summer, while ministers, civil rights activists and other Jackson supporters have added their criticisms as well.
Suzanne Childs, a spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office, said officials there could not comment on the allegations raised in Steingard’s letter. Prosecutors are prohibited by law from discussing any matters that are before a grand jury–even to confirm that a grand jury probe is under way.
Legal experts, meanwhile, disputed Steingard’s reading of the law about the limits of grand jury inquiries.
“The grand jury is given powers that we do not give police or prosecutors . . . and it may ask a broad range of questions whose relevancy might not be clear until other evidence is gathered,” said Peter Arenella, a UCLA law professor who has extensively researched issues related to grand juries. “For the most part, the grand jury can ask whatever it wants.”
During grand jury inquiries, prosecutors generally question witnesses, but jurors also can ask questions.
Several experienced lawyers said they considered it highly unusual for prosecutors to inquire about a witness’ sexual orientation. One area of particular concern, they noted, is that state grand jury transcripts become public documents if the subject of the inquiry is indicted. As a result, the information about the witness’ sexual orientation could become public if Jackson were indicted.
Steingard’s letter indicates that his client was asked about three topics he considered objectionable: the sexual orientation of Jackson, the sexual orientation of Jackson associates and the witness’s own sexual orientation.
“The grand jury can ask questions that are relevant to the inquiry,” said Donald M. Re, an experienced criminal defense lawyer. “Given the nature of this case, the first two questions may be proper. . . . The third question, ‘Are you yourself gay?’ gets a lot closer to the line.”
Harland W. Braun, another defense attorney who also is a former prosecutor, agreed, saying he believes the district attorney could explore the topic of Jackson’s sexual orientation.
As to the question about the witness’s orientation, Braun called it “close to the edge.”
Under most circumstances, asking a witness about his or her sexual orientation would almost certainly be irrelevant during a trial, legal experts agreed. But even in that context, a witness’s own statements might make it relevant. For example, if a witness described impressions of Jackson’s conduct or conversations about homosexuality, the witness’s own perspective on that topic might be deemed relevant in court.
Steingard declined to comment Wednesday on the questions that were posed to his client during his grand jury appearance. But Steingard confirmed he had sent the letter to the district attorney’s office and said he stood by the statements in it.
“In general, to ask questions of grand jury witnesses about sexual orientation I think is outrageous,” he said. “I cannot fathom any circumstance in which that would be proper.”
Howard Weitzman, one of Jackson’s lawyers, said prosecutors have “spent considerable time, money and energy to
……..it doesn’t mean that ALL men who wear makeup are gay!! He had to wear makeup due to his vitiligo!
construct a case that does not exist.” Although the lawyer said he did not know whether a witness had been questioned about Jackson’s sexual orientation or his own, Weitzman added: “If what (Steingard) claims in that letter is true and the investigation is now down to that level, it is a real sad commentary on the prosecution in this case.”
The case has been under investigation since last summer, and an array of witnesses, including Jackson’s mother, have been forced to appear before grand juries meeting in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara. Authorities in the two counties are conducting investigations because Jackson allegedly molested the boy in both jurisdictions.
At a meeting with the courthouse press corps March 15, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti said he expected the Jackson investigation to be concluded within a month or so. Sources familiar with the case now say they expect it to conclude by the end of April.
The “MJ is gay” rumors didn’t start after MJ became a worldwide icon with “Thriller”; it actually started in the 70’s, as the article below clearly shows!
Let’s allow our good friend Diane Dimond to end this “MJ was gay” crap once and for all! Here is her response to Ian Halperin’s book “Unmasked”, which claims that MJ consorted with gay men in sleazy motels!
Diane Dimond On Michael Jackson’s Sexuality
ET special correspondent Diane Dimond, who has been covering Michael Jackson news since 1993, responds to the explosive new allegation that the King of Pop was gay.
In his new book, Ian Halperin, author of Unmasked: The Final Years of Michael Jackson, raises questions about Michael’s sexuality. The author claims that whenever Michael would go out to meet one of his alleged gay lovers, he would wear an elaborate disguise.
“He was always dressed as a woman, and very convincingly, to the point no one else would recognize Michael,” Halperin says in an interview with ET. “He was a master at costume — at showbiz. He could’ve been a professional make-up artist he was that good.”
Dimond says her findings do not jibe with those in Unmasked.
“Here’s what I think,” Diane says. “Over all the years that I have been looking into his life, I have found no evidence that Michael Jackson was gay. I have never spoken to any men who have claimed and proven they were Michael’s lovers.”
There, that settles it! If Dimond had a shred of evidence to suggest that MJ was gay, she would have used it years ago!
Finally, read this post by Seven Bowie and Nikki Allygator to see the indisputable evidence that proves that MJ did not take estrogen or other female hormones in order to keep his high pitched voice!
Appeal to Heaven: (also Deus Vult, Gott mit Uns, Manifest Destiny, the Special Covenant). An extremely dangerous fallacy (a deluded argument from ethos) of asserting that God (or a higher power) has ordered, supports or approves one’s own standpoint or actions, so no further justification is required and no serious challenge is possible. (E.g., “God ordered me to kill my children,” or “We need to take away your land, since God [or Destiny, or Fate, or Heaven] has given it to us.”) A private individual who seriously asserts this fallacy risks ending up in a psychiatric ward, but groups or nations who do it are far too often taken seriously. This vicious fallacy has been the cause of endless bloodshed over history.
Another name for this fallacy is “Hiding behind religion”, similar to the above example of Peter King “hiding behind patriotism”. It’s bad enough that you have to hear MJ get trashed by both the mainstream and tabloid media (the two are hardly distinguishable anymore), but imagine going to church and hearing your pastor trash him? That’s an unfortunate reality that some of us have had to face, and this is especially dangerous because, even if the pastor doesn’t explicitly say that his trashing of MJ is “divinely inspired”, it’s implied that it is divinely inspired, because you would expect a religious leader to thoroughly fact check any criticisms that he has about not only MJ, but anyone for that matter!
I am currently working on a post called “Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith”, and I will rebut all of the crap that has been said about MJ from the religious community. My goal is to have it posted on Christmas Day, and it’ll be worth the wait! It will be in the same vein as my other “fact checking” posts, and it will include lots of examples of Christians who were fair and compassionate to MJ, and defended him as well. (I would NEVER, EVER want to give the impression that a few idiots represent an entire religion.)
Appeal to Tradition: (also “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”). The fallacy that a standpoint, situation or action is right, proper and correct simply because it has “always” been that way, because people have “always” thought that way, or because it continues to serve one particular group very well. A corrupted argument from ethos (that of past generations). (E.g., “In America, women have always been paid less, so let’s not mess with long-standing tradition.”). The reverse of this is yet another fallacy, the “Appeal to Innovation,” e.g., “New and [therefore it must be] improved!”
This is one of the lesser known fallacies, but believe it or not it was used by a very high-ranking MJ hater: Ron Zonen, who was Tom Sneddon’s right hand man during the 2005 trial! During his speech at the Frozen in Time seminar last year, Zonen explained why the prosecution chose to have a grand jury hearing instead of a preliminary hearing:
At the search of the property they discovered a number of things that were of interest to that prosecution, including a lot of the pornography that Michael Jackson kept at his residence, and particularly in his bedroom. It was all seized and from that became the largest effort that Santa Barbara has ever had in tracking down and identifying fingerprints on hundreds of magazines, each individual page, each revealing dozens and dozens of fingerprints, but many of those fingerprints ultimately confirmed to be fingerprints of Gavin and Gavin’s brother. Material that they said was shown to them repeatedly was shown to them by Michael Jackson at his house. As well there was Vodka bottle, a number of different bottles of alcoholic beverages that was consistent with what the kids had said had been served to them at Neverland, in particularly at Michael Jackson’s residence. That was the search; the search eventually led a Grand Jury hearing. Why a Grand Jury hearing? Who has participated in a Grand Jury hearing? We have a couple of hands up. We have a tradition in Santa Barbara. I can’t speak to other counties, but we have a tradition for high profile cases. Our little community of Santa Barbara. We don’t go to Santa Barbara because we want to be high profile lawyers. We go to Santa Barbara because we want to golf! Or be on the beach! It’s a beautiful, angelic community, it’s very nice, and none of us were necessarily accustomed to the kind of profile celebrity status that was going to be visited upon us in the course of that trial. We made the decision to go to the Grand Jury because we felt it was appropriate, not just for that case, but all celebrity cases, all high profile cases, it’s just kind of an American tradition that the Grand Jury makes the decision. And in this particular case we also had the advantage of being able to do it in secret, hopefully keeping the transcript confidential and sealed, such that everybody would be protected from the content of that hearing from going public before we actually impaneled the jury. We felt it would be in Mr. Jackson’s benefit. We felt it would be in our benefit. That it would be the right thing to be able to do.
Ok, as soon as you’re finished laughing at Zonen’s comment about the prosecution wanting to have a grand jury hearing because it would “benefit” MJ, let’s begin to analyze his logic! I’m sorry, but that is total BS for him to say that they did it for MJ’s “benefit”, when the reality is that if there had been a preliminary hearing, the case wouldn’t have gone to trial at all! Let’s look at the difference between a preliminary hearing and a grand jury hearing to understand why the former, and not the latter, would have been a benefit to MJ:
When a felony case is initiated in court it must first go through a probable cause determination before the matter can be set for trial. There are two different forms in which this can occur.
The first is called a grand jury; this is where the prosecution presents the case to a group of citizens outside the presence of the defendant and the grand jurors are asked to determine whether probable cause exists based on the evidence presented to them by the prosecution. If the grand jury finds probable cause they return an indictment which then becomes the charging document in that particular case.
Alternatively a felony charge can be initiated through a preliminary hearing, which is conducted in a manner very similar to that of a trial; however, during a preliminary hearing there is no jury, rather a judge is the fact finder and the burden of proof is much lower than that ordinarily required at a criminal trial. At a criminal trial when a person could potentially be imprisoned if convicted our constitution requires that the prosecution provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt before that can occur. During a preliminary hearing however the prosecution is required only to demonstrate that probable cause exists for the case to move forward in the court system. If a preliminary hearing is held and the judge finds probable cause the state is permitted to file a document called an information which would be used as the charging document throughout the remainder of that case.
Because felony cases involving indictments are initiated through the grand jury,where neither the defendant nor the defense attorney are present, the prosecutor has special obligations to present the evidence in a fair and impartial manner and present evidence that is clearly exculpatory, meaning that it tends to show that the person accused is not guilty. If the prosecutor fails to present the evidence to the grand jury in this manner the case could be remanded to the grand jury for a re‑determination of probable cause.
As you can see, if that coward Sneddon had given MJ’s defense attorneys a chance to cross examine the Arvizos and other prosecution witnesses during a preliminary hearing, Judge Melville would surely have stopped that joke of a trial right there in its tracks! (But then again, based on some of the questionable, pro-prosecution rulings that he approved of during the trial, maybe he would have still let the trial move forward.)
Zonen tried to use the “appeal to tradition” fallacy to justify the grand jury hearing, when in reality they used the grand jury hearing so that they could deprive MJ of a chance to rebut their case in front of a judge, and to take advantage of a very gullible grand jury, who were forced to vote based on a biased and one-sided presentation of the facts, most of which were highly distorted and even omitted altogether! For example, Sneddon falsified evidence by having Gavin touch the porn magazines that were confiscated from Neverland WITHOUT wearing any gloves so that he could subsequently have the magazines tested for Gavin’s fingerprints and use that as evidence to corroborate Gavin’s lie of MJ showing them porn. Here is an excerpt from the Grand Jury transcript, from April 2004:
Q Did you ever see that suitcase opened by Mr. Jackson and shown to you, the contents?
A Yes.
Q How many times?
A Twice.
Q Okay. Where was it the first time?
A First time we walked in there he introduced the suitcase to me. He opened it and showed me a girl that was spreading her legs open.
Q Did you go through the rest of the stuff in the suitcase on the first occasion? Did you look at some of the other stuff in there?
A On the first occasion it was pretty much just like opening stuff. He would like look, and then we — then he’d close it up, put it aside again.
Q So you went through everything in there, but he just showed you and closed it up and put it aside?
A Yeah.
Q How many things do you figure were in there?
A A lot of stuff.
Q Where were you the second time that he opened the suitcase and showed you stuff?
A We were up in his bed.
Q Who else was there?
A I don’t know. I don’t know if it was just me and him. I don’t know whether my brother was there or not.
Q Now, the second time when you were up in the bedroom and you opened the case, what did you do?
A He was just showing it to me again.
Q Was it the same material, or were there some different things in there?
A It looked kind of — it looked like there was different stuff.
Q Now, I want you to — I broke — we’re going to break the seal on this exhibit,and I’m going to ask you to look very briefly young man, at the stuff that’s in there, all right. Take a look at the stuff.
Now, there’s some magazines, correct?
A Yes.
Q Then there’s some sheets that are individual and not in magazines as if they’ve been torn out, correct?
A Yes.
Q Now, can you tell me whether or not that was the kind of materials that was in the suitcase that was shown you?
A Yes. That was the kind of material.
Q Does that look like some of the stuff that you were shown?
A Yes.
Q With regard to the number of books and items that are in there, does that look like about the amount of things that were in there?
A Yes.
Q And with regard to the things that are depicted, does that look like the kind of depictions that you were shown?
A Yes.
Q Some of the stuff that’s in this suitcase shows male and female individuals in various sexual acts. Were you shown that kind of material by Mr. Jackson?
A Yes.
Additional details about the mishandling of the fingerprint information can be found in this summary from MJ-Upbeat, Days 19 & 20, and from this MJEOL Bullet. Here is a short excerpt of Robert Sanger’s cross-examination of Dr. Antonio Cantu, the chief of forensics for the Secret Service, where he is questioned about a specific technique used to test fingerprints, and he admits that the prosecution’s fingerprint tests were flawed due to the tests being done over a year after the magazines were seized! The testimony is from March 24th, 2005:
9 Q. Okay. And that type of a test can be done
10 quickly, in a matter of minutes, or an hour, or a
11 couple of hours, right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. All right. So it’s not something that takes
14 weeks or months to do?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. All right. Now, in a case — in a case
17 where there is — the case is considered to be an
18 important case, let us say – I suppose all cases are
19 important to the people involved – you would expect
20 that fingerprint evaluation would take place sooner
21 rather than later, right?
22 A. Right.
23 Q. You certainly wouldn’t want to take, for
24 instance, a container with all the materials, and
25 take it to a grand jury and book it into evidence
26 and then take it out months later and do
27 fingerprints, would you?
28 A. Well, let me make a point here, if I may. 3351
1 Q. Before you make the point, is that what you
2 would prefer to do, or not?
3 A. Not necessarily.
4 Q. Okay. You would prefer to do the
5 fingerprint evaluation first, before you go book
6 something into evidence before a body, whether it’s
7 a grand jury, a trial court, or anything else,
8 right?
9 A. Yeah, you would expect to do the analysis
10 first.
11 Q. Okay. And were you aware that the
12 fingerprint analysis in this case wasn’t done for
13 over a year after the items were seized?
14 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Argumentative;
15 beyond the scope.
16 THE COURT: Overruled.
17 THE WITNESS: Very well.
18 First of all –
19 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Were you aware of that, was
20 the question, sir.
21 A. I was not aware that they were a year old.
22 MR. SANGER: Okay. Thank you. No further
23 questions.
For more information on the egregious examples of prosecutorial misconduct, please read Mesereau’s NOTICE OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE INDICTMENT! The length of 212 pages is indicative of the amount of misconduct and unprofessionalism that took place, and I fully intend to summarize it soon so that fans can have an accurate idea of what really went on. Also, be sure to check out the aptly titled “Smoke Without Fire” blog, which summarizes the grand jury proceedings. This is by far one of the best MJ vindication blogs out there, and I enthusiastically recommend it!
Here is William Wagener discussing the fingerprint falsification:
Argument from Ignorance:The fallacy that since we don’t know (or can never know, or cannot prove) whether a claim is true or false, it must be false (or that it must be true). Sometimes this also includes “Either-Or Reasoning:” E.g., “The vet can’t find any reasonable explanation for why my dog died. See! See! That proves that my neighbor poisoned him! There’s no other logical explanation!” A corrupted argument from logos. A fallacy commonly found in American judicial and forensic reasoning.
This is absolutely one of the most idiotic fallacies that I’ve ever heard in my life! How many times have you been chastised for defending MJ by someone who said “How do you know he’s innocent? You weren’t in the room with him and those boys!” Of course, the best comeback answer would be “Well, you weren’t there either, so how do you know he’s guilty!” Or how many times have you heard someone say “We’ll never know the truth! MJ claimed to be innocent, but the accusers said he was guilty! It’s impossible to find the truth!”
The number one reason why people say this is because they are literally TOO LAZY to do any sort of substantive research!
For example, let’s look at what Oprah said in September 2009 in an interview with Access Hollywood. (Unfortunately, the Youtube user who originally posted the video had their account suspended, but luckily you can watch it here on Hulu.) In this interview, she was asked if her feelings for MJ changed throughout the years after she did the 1993 interview, and she lied through her teeth by saying “the feelings didn’t change, in terms of my sense of compassion for him, but what I felt was a sense of sadness. I never knew what the truth was, as none of us now will ever know what the truth was.” Here is a quick rundown of 9 examples of the “compassion” that Oprah showed towards MJ over the years! (That link will bring you straight to the comments in that post. Be sure to scroll up to see the article.) What’s truly disappointing is that with the dozens of producers that she employs, she could have easily had them compile all of the facts of both cases, present them to her, and come to the obvious conclusion that MJ was innocent, but instead she chose to look the other way and pretend that she doesn’t know anything, so that she could continue with her façade of ignorance.
Another unfortunate example of someone using the argument from ignorance fallacy is Lisa Marie Presley! In her interview last year with Oprah, it was expected that she would vehemently defend MJ against the allegations, especially in light of the fact that she, as a single mother of two, married him a few months after the Chandler’s frivolous lawsuit was settled out of court. Boy, were we disappointed! She truly dropped the ball, and threw MJ under the bus by pleading ignorance to the facts, beginning at 4:37:
Oprah: You know, I’ve asked you this and I have to ask it again, even though it’s an uncomfortable subject, but whether or not you had ever seen any inappropriate behavior between Michael Jackson and young children?
Lisa Marie: Are you asking me again?
Oprah: I’m asking you again.
Lisa Marie: The answer is absolutely not, in any way. I did not see anything like that.
Oprah: So by 2005 was when he was on trial with the second charge. Your feelings at that time were what? Did he ever talk to you about it?
Lisa Marie: He was calling me about it and I said “Please keep your head together, please. If this goes to trial, please hold it together.” He said, “What are you talking about, what do you mean?” And he said, “You mean drugs?” And I said, “Yes.” Because all I saw was random things coming out, whether it was Martin Bashir and all these interviews, and in those interviews I saw him intoxicated. I didn’t see the Michael that I knew in that Martin Bashir interview. He was high as a kite, from what I saw and from what I knew.
Oprah: Really?
Lisa Marie: He was either too speedy or he was sedated. It wasn’t the Michael that I knew.
Oprah: The shocking things, he said some pretty shocking things in that Martin Bashir interview, particularly about how he felt about how it was okay to sleep with young children.
Lisa Marie: I think he said that stuff sometimes to be defiant, because he got so angry at having been accused. He was such a stubborn little rebel at times and he was like a child and he would just say what he felt everyone didn’t want him to say. I don’t feel like he had a straight head during those things and I think that they were edited in a very, very manipulative nasty way.
Oprah: So you never saw anything and to this day you don’t believe any of those charges were true?
Lisa Marie: No. I honestly cannot say, the only people who are going to be able to say the truth are him and whoever was in that room at the time it allegedly took place. I was never in the room, it wouldn’t be fair for me to… I can tell you I never saw anything like that.
So, according to both Lisa Marie and Oprah’s logic, because none of us were in the same room as MJ, Jordan Chandler, Jason Francia, and Gavin Arvizo, and because MJ is now deceased and can no longer defend himself, we’ll NEVER know the truth, and MJ’s legacy will forever be sullied. Makes perfect sense, right? Using that same logic, we’ll never know if OJ Simpson really did commit double murder, or if the Duke Lacrosse players really did rape that stripper, or if the employees at the McMartin preschool really did molest those young children, or if Lee Harvey Oswald really did kill JFK, or if Conrad Murray really did kill Michael Jackson, because none of us were there!
And while we’re here, let’s look at another fallacy that Oprah (and many others) has used: the loaded question! Here is both the definition, and an example of, a loaded question:
A loaded question is a question which contains a controversial assumption such as a presumption of guilt.
Such questions are used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to be those that serve the questioner’s agenda. The traditional example is the question “Have you stopped beating your wife?” Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to having a wife, and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious. Hence the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example the previous question would not be loaded if it was asked during a trial in which the defendant has already admitted to beating his wife.
Can you guess what the loaded question was that Oprah asked? It’s when she asked Lisa Marie if she had ever seen any behavior between MJ and young children! The reason it’s considered loaded is because, when you look deeply at what is being asked, it is inferred that there WAS inappropriate behavior, but perhaps it just wasn’t seen! Even though Lisa Marie denied seeing anything inappropriate, that doesn’t fully exonerate MJ of the allegation that is inferred by the question, and skeptics (and especially haters) could say “Well, just because she didn’t see it, it doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen!”
Oprah asked the same loaded question to the Cascio family as well! Although the Cascio children denied any abuse, that doesn’t mean they weren’t abused! Haters could say “Well, maybe they’re just covering it up for MJ in order to protect him!”
OPRAH WINFREY (HOST): Bad times meaning charges of sexual molestation?
CONNIE CASCIO: Right. We weren’t going to turn our backs on him, and we stood there, and
we said, “We’re with you all the way.” And he appreciated it and we did it.
OPRAH WINFREY (HOST): Well, I have to ask the questions because obviously, there were
bad times. Accused of sexual molestation. You had two young boys, a young daughter. Did you ever ask your children if any improprieties had occurred with them?
DOMINIC CASCIO: As a father, I did.
OPRAH WINFREY (HOST): As a father, you did.
DOMINIC CASCIO: And they looked at me like, “Are you serious?” But I had to do it.
CONNIE CASCIO: We had to explain it to him, the kids, what was going on. They didn’t
understand it.
OPRAH WINFREY (HOST): At the time.
DOMINIC CASCIO: Right.
OPRAH WINFREY (HOST): So I have to ask you, Frank, Marie Nicole, were there ever any
improprieties with you and Michael Jackson?
EDDIE CASCIO: Never.
FRANK CASCIO: Never.
MARIE NICOLE CASCIO: Never.
EDDIE CASCIO: Michael couldn’t–he couldn’t harm–he couldn’t harm a fly. I mean, he’s such
a kind and gentle soul.
OPRAH WINFREY (HOST): So when you heard those charges and heard those charges then
again, and he went on trial for those charges, what did you think?
EDDIE CASCIO: “This is ridiculous. It’s ridiculous.”
MARIE NICOLE CASCIO: Terrible.
EDDIE CASCIO: Michael was a target, and unfortunately, he was targeted.
OPRAH WINFREY (HOST): So at no time did you ever feel, during all of those charges against
him, that your children were not safe with him.
DOMINIC CASCIO: Never.
OPRAH WINFREY (HOST): Never.
CONNIE CASCIO: Never.
DOMINIC CASCIO: Never. Never a doubt.
Also, let’s look at how Oprah insinuated that MJ was a drug addict by asking if they saw signs of addiction (which infers that there were signs of addiction, but perhaps they just weren’t seen!):
OPRAH WINFREY (HOST): Were you aware–did you all see signs of drug addiction?
DOMINIC CASCIO: We didn’t see the signs. When he was at home, he was a normal person.
OPRAH WINFREY (HOST): Mm-hmm. What would you say, Eddie?
EDDIE CASCIO: He was sharp. It was unfortunate to learn of the so-called problem oraddiction problem that we now know he suffered from. Unfortunately, it got the best of him.
Here’s another example weakness and ineffectiveness of the “I didn’t see any wrongdoing” defense: on the day MJ died, Martin Bashir took to the airwaves and made one of the most pathetic defenses of MJ I’ve ever heard, and that’s IF he really was trying to defend MJ! It could have been a subliminal way of saying he’s guilty for all I know! Notice how he said he “never saw any wrongdoing”, and to add insult to injury, he pointed out that MJ “was never convicted of any crime”. Both of those defenses have more holes than Swiss cheese!
The appropriate way for them to answer loaded questions like these would be to say “I didn’t see any inappropriate behavior because THERE WAS NO INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR TO BE SEEN!” and “I didn’t see any signs of addiction becauseTHERE WEREN’T ANY SIGNS OF ADDICTION TO BE SEEN!”
In a recent letter from the MJ Truth Team, fans are being notifies of another idiot supposedly coming out of the shadows to cash in his story which paints Michael other than innocent.
I never heard of him before, this Kurt Loder. Turns out he’s just another moron with a rickety platform. He opined yesterday on a radio program that MJ molested children.
Nov 8, 9:21 AM
Kurt Loder — I Think Michael Jackson was a Child Molester
Kurt Loder — the longtime face of ” MTV News ” — says he believes Michael Jackson was a child molester. Loder appeared on the “Jeff and Jeremy in the Morning” radio show this morning … when he was asked if he thought MJ’s death was a tragedy. Loder replied, “Its a shame how he grew up … his childhood was a shame … there is many sad aspects to his life, … on the other hand, I think he was a child molester, and that sort of tempers any feelings you might have about him.” When asked why he believed MJ molested kids, Loder claimed he knew about secret payouts to the parents of little boys … and pointed to MJ’s bizarre behavior. “Having sleepovers with little boys, and you’re a 40 year old man??? Uh, NO. You’re like a child molester.” Loder continues, “Maybe being a child molester is the product of a pretty terrible childhood he had … you can see why that might have happened. On the other hand, molesting children is bad.”
This was carried by the usual trash outlets like Hollywoodgossip, and comment sites such as those do not, in our opinion, merit the attention of people with actual brains residing within their skulls.
However, here’s what we can do–a great idea from one of our members. We can send a quick email to his publisher, while Loder attempts to promote a new book right now:
Let them know that if Loder has information unknown to two grand juries, a decade-long prosecutorial witch hunt complete with international toll-free number, and an exhaustive FBI investigation, then he should certainly come forward with the details. Otherwise he’s engaged in slander, pure and simple, made worse by being lobbed against a dead person. It’s cowardly and opportunistic of him to opine on the matter without coughing up evidence. And what we’re supposed to make of these alleged families who he says accepted all kinds of payment in favor of prosecuting someone who they say molested their children, God alone knows. Loder should get his face out of the tabloid press and educate himself before opening his mouth.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, be sure to inform his publisher that you will NOT be buying Loder’s book–despite your interest in MTV (OK, lie!)– and that you’ll be sure to tell everyone you know what you think of this nobody!
Michael’s fans may have to get used to hearing the pedophile charge raised periodically by the Kurt Loders and Gene Simmons of the world, whose remarks sound particularly idiotic and most remarkably, utterly unsubstantiated. They just spout their opinions, which those who love Michael have to bear in pain. We won’t rush to trash outlets to rebut them if that’s where it ends, but if we have the chance to hit them in their wallets or in their pathetic career aspirations, we should act. We should send a message that at the very least, it will not profit you to trash Michael Jackson.
Thank you,
Rebecca
Coordinator
Truth Runs Marathons (TRM)
Here’s a sample email to the publishers of Loder-full-of-lies’ book:
To Whom It Concerns,
This Kurt Loder character is only hurting himself when he claims he knows of families who accepted hush money from Michael Jackson. Despite my interest in MTV, I will not be purchasing his book. I have reason to believe since he makes a living selling tabloid junk as truth, then I can only assume that is what his book will be dealing with.
For example, he has recently said on “Jeff and Jeremy in the Morning” that Michael Jackson is anything but an innocent man. Loder seems quite sure of himself for someone who has never met Michael Jackson and yet claims at some time after his death and after the man who killed Michael Jackson is rendered guilty, that he knows people who took hush money from Michael Jackson.
Looks to me that Loder, is just cashing in at a very opportunistic time. Because if he had evidence of this in the first place, what is to prevent him from coming forward with the details and the names of those who allegedly accepted this hush money? Why now?
Would it not be responsible of Loder if he has information unknown to two grand juries, a decade-long prosecutional witch hunt complete with an international toll free number, and an exhaustive FBI investigation then he should certainly come forward with the details. Otherwise he is simply engaged in slander. Where is all his evidence? Does it not appear to you, that for him to opine this information at this opportunistic time is shady, let alone civilly criminal, and even more cowardly because it is slander, in its purest form, against a dead person?
It is pure idiocracy on Loder’s part. He is an idiot for these iffy accusations which the majority of the free world knows are false at that.
Is this supposed to help him sell his book?
Tell him it is not working. I will not be buying into Loder’s lies, let alone his book.
— Your Name
You can also tells this imbecile directly on his Twitter (@Kurt_Loder) you will not be buying his book, due to the fact that he is engaged in slander and you now think lowly of him, and frankly, him and his book are bound to be wastes anyway.
MJ Fans & Advocates – ACTION ALERT! — Only one day after the guilty verdict was rendered, Conrad Murray and the media plan to (further) exploit the man he murdered for profit and ratings. This smacks of the same level of conscienceless abuse as that autopsy program we stopped Discovery from airing months ago.
By appearing in a documentary that will undoubtedly seek to portray Conrad Murray as a ‘sympathetic’ victim of circumstance, Murray and his defense team who may well be planning an appeal – will now attempt to negate the facts of the Guilty verdict in real terms.
••It is beyond repellent that a previously well-regarded organization like NBC Universal would now seek to reward a convicted criminal for killing another human being. But that’s what they’ve chosen to do.
In the aftermath of the Conrad Murray verdict, The Hollywood Reporter today provided details of Murray’s documentary, “Michael Jackson and the Doctor—A Fatal Friendship.”
This documentary is already in the can and scheduled to air this week, starting Tuesday morning with a preview on NBC’s Today Show.
The Michael Jackson fan community and supporters MUST mobilize to obstruct this atrocity—just as we did the Discovery Channel autopsy documentary.
We succeeded then and we can succeed now.
However, this time we don’t have much time. The documentary is scheduled to air in full this coming Friday, November 11 on MSNBC and will repeat Sunday, November 13 on that same cable network.
This is a call to all fans to utilize every mode of communication possible—call, write, fax, tweet— express your outrage at this obscenity. With so little time, our approaches to obstruct this documentary are limited.
1. All fans who are willing to take the time and make the effort should write letters and mail/fax them to:
NBC Entertainment and Universal Media Studios
100 Universal City Plaza
Universal City, CA 91608
Phone: 818-777-1000
Fax: 818-866-1430
Marc Graboff
President, West Coast Business Operations,
Television Entertainment, NBC Universal
Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/mgraboff
Rebecca Marks
Executive Vice President, Publicity
Charles Engel
Executive Vice President, Programming
Curt King
Senior Vice President,
Publicity, Marketing, and Corporate Communications
*******
MSNBC Cable, L.L.C.
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112
Phone: 212-664-4444
Fax: 212-664-4085
2. Commit to not watch the program and persuade everyone around you to do same.
We don’t have time to contact the sponsors of this program. Besides, that would necessitate actually watching the program, which we do not want to do.
This is just a start, but we’ve got to start today, Tuesday, November 8.
All fans should feel absolutely free to complain DIRECTLY to the perpetrators of this perversion. Here are just some of the words that describe this documentary and the motives of its makers:
Calling all members of Michael Jackson fan community:
Let’s pull together to obstruct this documentary. Let the producers and distributors behind this travesty know they are about to crash headlong into a world of protest about this attempt to profit from the unlawful killing of Michael Jackson.
We can do this! We can snatch profit from the pockets of a killer and his handlers.
or by writing to:
NSW Viewers: PO Box 27 Willoughby, NSW 2068
Vic Viewers: PO Box 100 Richmond, Vic 3121
QLD Viewers: PO Box 72 Brisbane, QLD 4001
(no time for postal letters, it airs here too soon! In just two days)
Here is a sample letter:
To Whom It Concerns,
Please do not air this atrocity of a documentary. When did sensationalizing a guilty man and glorifying the crime he committed against an Ideal Human Being become such a good idea it needed to be televised?
Would you do the same for Troy Davis? Wait, let me guess… No, right?
The line of human decency is continuously crossed when it comes to the media and its handling of Michael Jackson and stories related.
Your affiliated station and its programs are better off letting Michael Jackson rest. In peace.
Please do not give the man convicted for the death of the Greatest Giver of our time a second thought.
I am asking you to remove this hideous documentary from the airwaves. Expect to see diminished ratings for your station as I will no longer waste my time on sensationalized, demonized tabloid reporting. We are truly TIRED of that.
Today, after a long and intense trial, the jury in the Conrad Murray involuntary manslaughter case has rendered a ‘Guilty’ verdict. Around the world, fans and supporters of Michael Jackson extend their sincere gratitude to the jurors who put their lives on hold to serve their community.
Michael Jackson fans would like to thank the Honorable Judge Pastor, who ensured that this trial remained centered solely on the actions of Conrad Murray on June 25, 2009, rather than being reduced to a sensationalized media event. We also extend our deepest gratitude to DDA David Walgren and DDA Deborah Brazil for the outstanding vigor, focus and professionalism in which they pursued this case.
The Michael Jackson fan base has waited for over two years for this verdict. While the majority were anxious for the trial to begin and conclude with a conviction of Conrad Murray, we were also keenly aware that this trial would inevitably place the media microscope on Michael Jackson. For weeks we have watched and listened as mainstream media ignored the clear facts stated in Michael Jackson’s autopsy and toxicology reports, and the corroborating testimony given by various experts, that he died from acute propofol intoxication; preferring instead to speculate about issues unrelated to the crucial events of June 25, 2009.
Conrad Murray’s choice to ignore standard and essential safety procedures when applying a demonstrably inappropriate drug to treat his insomnia, led directly to Mr Jackson’s death. As the testimonies of Dr. Alon Steinberg, Dr. Nadar Kamangar and Dr. Steven Shafer attest, if not for Murray’s egregious deviations from the standard of care, Michael Jackson would have been alive today.
We, the undersigned, continue pledging our support to Michael Jackson’s artistic and humanitarian legacy and our love to his family, especially his three beloved children. His message is still very relevant today, and as we steadfastly push ahead without him, we are determined to live his message and carry it on to the next generation.
Today, although there is some semblance of justice, we truly believe when the media stops sensationalizing Michael Jackson’s life and death to the frenzied masses and show truthful understanding of the man, then and only then, will Michael Jackson receive true justice.
Fan Blog for MJ 