Monthly Archives: December 2011

Happy Holidays To All!

Happy Holidays Everyone!

Being that today is Christmas Eve, its only appropriate that a Jackson 5 Christmas story be shared…

On December 24, 1972, the Jackson 5 perform Christmas songs during a benefit concert at the “Foundation for the Junior Blind” in Los Angeles, California, for 1000 visually impaired children, 400 of which attending the benefit party. On his thoughts about the event, Michael Jackson declares: “You know, really, this is what Christmas is all about – giving.”

Source: The Silent Truth

And let’s not forget those Private Home Movies we love so much!


What’s Next?

Today I recieved this email that totally blew my mind. I couldn’t believe it took us (MJ Fam) to come up with this idea!

Here is the email:

There is something happening this Friday that you won’t want to miss:

What’s next?
Let’s talk about that!
Are you weary of the tabloid hacking, bullying, the front page humiliation? Are you sick of the lies? The slander? Fed up with the insanity and public dismembering of real people at the hands of media? You have been forced to become watchdogs of the media, you have been baited by haters, you have been ridiculed for your steadfast loyalty and activism for a man who was, over time, hounded to death by the media. And you have been called names; that all is about to change.
Michael Jackson asked the fans to be his legacy and to “change the world.” And fans have been steadfast in using the power of their words to “make a difference” and “make that change.” As fans, are you ready to go father? Are you, as Michael’s truth brigade (They Don’t Care About Us,) ready to put boots on the ground? Are you ready to take back your airwaves? Are you ready to become part of the “occupy movement” and occupy dignity, decency and truth? Are you ready to “Occupy Media?”
If you are, join us on Friday, December 9 at 4PM Pacific and 6PM Central, 7PM Eastern time at “A Place in Your Heart Radio” to meet someone who can help us organize to take back the airwaves from the bullies and demand media programming that is in the public interest.
Rev. B. of Inner Michael has engaged in a dialogue with Sue Wilson–Emmy Award- Winning film maker and activist and has asked her to come and speak to the fans at “A Place In Your Heart Radio.” Sue will speak to the fans about media reform, activism and the occupy movement–social and political action toward preserving equality and democracy in media with content that serves the public interest.
Sue Wilson is the Emmy winning director of the media reform documentary “Broadcast Blues” and editor of As a graduate in Radio/TV/Film, she was California State University Long Beach’s “Outstanding Graduate.” In the early ’90’s, she won Emmys for specials she produced for KCBS-TV in Los Angeles, and then turned the spotlight on wasteful government spending for Sacramento Fox TV station KTXL, where her Emmy winning stories changed national, state, and local spending policies.
Once a media insider, Sue Wilson knows the industry, has broken national stories, exposed corruption and initiated change. A veteran of radio, and now TV, and a media reform activist, she is the producer of “Broadcast Blues” a documentary that sets its sights on media policy. She writes at, the Brad Blog and the Huffington Post, and she recently formed a new grassroots media reform group to take citizen action, the media action center, which recently helped organize protests abainst Fox news and News Corp.
Rev. B. has asked her to speak with fans this Friday as we move into the next phase. The fans have asked “What now?” We have been watchdogs, have complained in speech, in letters and in videos. Now we are called to action and to the “occupy movement” with boots on the ground. Sue has accepted Rev. B’s invitation to appear here and provide information, guidance and leadership and with Rev. B, calls us to action and in the next phase of our work in the name of Michael’s legacy.

And check Voices Education Project

~front page~
for a new article by Bob Koehler!
The Lakota have no language for insulting other orders of existence.
There is a name for humans when the power is more seductive than their humanitarian side…
and for humans who get in the way in war and
become collateral damage.

Voices Education Project Creating Peace one story at a time.
Host of “Words and Violence” curriculum
dedicated to Michael Jackson and Lady Diana
“Words and Violence”

Spread the word and dont forget to tune in!

How to Recognize and Refute the Fallacies Used by Michael Jackson Haters, Part 5 of 5

And here we have it folks. The last installment of an excellent, well-written and thorough piece from David Edwards at VindicateMJ:


I will close out this series by examining the well-intentioned but ineffective ways that fans try to defend Michael Jackson. Also, take note: you can follow me on Twitter @sanemjfan.

Now that we have dealt with how to handle MJ haters, let’s take a look at how some fans, despite their well intentions, have truly dropped the ball in vindicating MJ by using some of these same fallacies in their defense. Let’s take a look at some of the most widely used defenses by fans (I won’t repeat the definitions here):

Name-calling and Ad hominem arguments: A crucial mistake that I see many fans making is attacking anyone who is skeptical about MJ’s innocence as a “hater”, and that’s why I differentiated between a hater and a skeptic in the first part of this series. Calling someone names is very immature and childish, and will get you nowhere. If you want people to respect your views on MJ, you must conduct yourself as a mature adult who is capable of engaging civil dialogue with someone who doesn’t agree with you, instead of having a temper-tantrum like a two-year old who doesn’t get his way. That argument goes both ways! We can’t reduce ourselves down the level that most MJ haters reside!

Another mistake that I have heard over and over again is when fans reference MJ’s childlike personality or charitable endeavors when discussing the allegations.  When you make that argument, you give the impression that you are just some “crazy, rabid” fan who is so “in love” with MJ that they don’t want to take the time to thoroughly research the facts, so instead you have to try and tug at people’s heartstrings and get them to feel sorry for MJ. This is no different than the parade of so-called “character witnesses” that have testified for Conrad Murray! No matter how nice he was to them, and no matter how many lives he saved, it doesn’t excuse what happened on June 25th, 2009, and whatever good deeds MJ accomplished cannot and will not ever rebut the allegations; only the presentation of exculpatory evidence through sound research into the facts will do that.

Ad hominem and name calling attacks can also be classified as red herrings, non sequitur attacks, and snow jobs, which were discussed in part 4.

Let’s look at what this legal analyst – a true analyst, not an entertainer! – Tamara Holder had to say about MJ after his death. She met him briefly in 2007 at a birthday party for Rev.Jesse Jackson:


There’s no question Michael Jackson, the King of Pop, leaves behind a legacy. He was considered the most famous man in the world.  I had the opportunity to privately meet MJ in November 2007 at Rev. Jackson’s 66th birthday party at the Beverly Hilton in LA. Michael was sweet and genuine. He complimented my dress. I did, however, get the sense that he was empty inside and full of pain.  It was at this meeting I believed there was no way he ever touched a child inappropriately or intentionally harmed anyone. Michael was a good man. And his love of Rev. Jackson as a longtime friend and advisor was obvious.

Michael Jackson and Tamara Holder

We all know that she meant well, but as a lawyer, she should know better than to say that! Don’t get me wrong, I’m not mad at her, but I’m just trying to point out the inherent weakness in her assertion. For her to say that she believes he was innocent because she met him ONE TIME at a birthday party will not get any skeptics to change their minds! And to prove that she’s a true legal analyst, as opposed to just another talking head, here is a post she wrote on July 28th, 2009, where she contrasted MJ’s death and Elvis Presley’s death and predicted that Murray would be charged with murder (which, as we all know, wasn’t the case, but she had the right intentions!)

Appeal to Heaven: This is another weak defense that I’ve occasionally heard from MJ fans, although not as often as some of the other aforementioned fallacies.  Some fans have said things like “MJ was a gift from God, who was sent here to show us how to L.O.V.E. each other through the power of his songs and his charitable work, he united the world with his message, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, etc.” This is a weak, ineffective, and unconvincing argument (just like every other fallacy we’ve discussed). There are many hypocrites in ALL religions that are extremely pious, loving, philanthropic, and yet they have committed all types of crimes, so merely being a Believer doesn’t refute the allegations. There is no reason to invoke MJ’s religious beliefs or philanthropy as a defense of him.  In fact, with so much sexual abuse in organized religious organizations, this may make MJ look even more guilty!

The same thing applies when you refer to MJ’s personality, or his good works, or any other reason that doesn’t directly refute the facts!

I could go on and on, but you guys get the point (especially the long time readers of this blog). Now, let’s look at some video examples, and take note of how NOT to defend MJ! In this video clip from July 2nd, 2009, pop culture columnists Toure and David Wilson discuss whether or not there is too much coverage of MJ, and of course the host of the show, Dr. Nancy Snyderman, had to include those biased statistics to insinuate that whites cared less about MJ than blacks. (Another ad populum attack!) I transcribed the interview, just in case the video is ever removed.

Dr. Nancy Snyderman: And of course, the Jackson coverage raises a question: has the media been spending too much time covering the Michael Jackson story? Certainly it’s something you can’t get away from right now.

A new poll from the Pew Research Center shows that 64% of people surveyed thinks that the coverage of the Jackson story is excessive, 3% think too little, 29% just about right. But let’s take a look at the coverage, and how it’s seen through different eyes: African-Americans vs. White Americans. 70% of Whites thought there has been too much coverage, compared to just 38% of African-Americans, and another way of breaking down these numbers, and more than half of African-Americans said the coverage has been just right, compared to one in four whites, 25%.

Toure: Michael Jackson was the biggest star – not black star, the biggest star, period – of his period. He still in a moment of his fame, and we were already talking about him, and he’s still in the moment of his fame.

Dr. Nancy Snyderman: The bubble is still there.

Toure: So, sudden death, and the chair is pulled out from under us, so we’re in shock, and we need to talk about it. I don’t understand why all these white Americans are saying “it’s too much!” It’s a major American story. It’s not like the media is shoving it down; people want to hear about this.

David Wilson: He’s been around for 45 years, in American homes, for 45 years, so he’s an American icon, and he’s a treasure, so I think that, like you said (pointing to Toure) the fact that we lost him so suddenly pretty much shocked everybody.

Dr. Nancy Snyderman: Maureen Orth, who contributes to Vanity Fair and NBC, was pretty damning in what she said. “This man was a pedophile, this man had drug abuse, and we are, forgive the pun, whitewashing all of this……..

David Wilson: He never was convicted of anything, ….

Dr. Nancy Snyderman: No he was not, he was exonerated …..

Toure: He was repeatedly exonerated, that is correct. I think Maureen Orth, in particular, has been inappropriate at this time. He just died. Let us grieve as a nation. Let his body get into the ground. Let his spirit rest. Let’s take a moment, even a couple of months, if not a couple of years, before we come back to say, ‘OK, there are other parts of this story.’”

You’ve got to be kidding me, right? Dr. Snyderman mentions the comments that tabloid trash peddler Maureen Orth said shortly after MJ died, and the only thing they can say is “he was never convicted of anything”? Do you guys see how PATHETIC that defense is? MJ was accused multiple times of child abuse, and several of his employees claimed to have seen this child abuse, and he settled two civil lawsuits out of court, and he was stripped search, yet (according to Toure) we should “wait a couple of months, if not a couple of years” before we get to the truth of the allegations?Has he lost his damn mind?!!

Let me take a moment to inject something into this conversation that I think needs to be said: these are two BLACK MEN who are essentially saying that we should “trust” the justice system. This is the same justice system that, over the years, has REPEATEDLY failed the black community by convicting innocent black people charged with crimes against whites, acquitting guilty white people charged with crimes against blacks, punishing black men with harsher and longer prison sentences than their white counterparts who are convicted of the same crime (look no further than drug convictions), but when it comes to Michael Jackson, the system all of a sudden “worked”?

When those four white cops were acquitted of beating Rodney King to a bloody pulp, no black person in America said that we should “trust the system”! (In fact, many blacks rioted after this verdict in 1992!) What about all of the Ku Klux Klan members who were never convicted of killing and lynching blacks? When it comes to Michael Jackson, all of a sudden we’re supposed to trust the justice system because he was exonerated? The same justice system that recently allowed an innocent black man named Troy Davis to be executed?

Also, did you notice Toure’s egregious error? He said that MJ was “repeatedly exonerated”, which is FALSE! Once again, I know he meant well, but that assertion simply isn’t true. Sneddon and Garcetti NEVER closed the 1993 case or exonerated MJ; they merely left it “open but inactive”. Here is a quote from Sneddon in February 2001:

Charges Against Jackson Stand, Says Prosecutor

Michael Jackson is not out of the woods.

So says Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon, the man who brought child molestation charges against the singer in 1993.

Jackson is scheduled to deliver a speech tonight at Carnegie Hall on behalf of his Heal the Kids initiative. Although Sneddon can’t be there in person, he’s definitely arching an eyebrow from 3,000 miles away.

“The case against Michael Jackson was never closed, and he was never exonerated,” Sneddon says. “It’s in suspended animation and can be reopened at any time.”

Think about this for a moment: if you’re someone who has serious doubts about MJ’s innocence, and you heard those two idiots on TV say those things in response to Orth’s comments, would you be persuaded to believe MJ was innocent? Of course not! They didn’t provide any facts, and Toure acted like he wanted everyone to bury their head in the sand like an ostrich, and just pretend that those allegations didn’t exist. Their reactions VALIDATE Orth’s comments in the eyes of most skeptics, and definitely in the eyes of haters. They will say “Hey, why should Maureen Orth have to wait months or years to trash someone who she thinks is guilty of child abuse? How many years do we have to wait until we trash O.J. Simpson after he dies?

Here is an excerpt of what she said the day after he died:

“He was surrounded by sycophants,” Orth continued, “He isolated himself so much, but honestly I think a lot of that isolation was self-imposed so he could play with little boys and do whatever he wants.”

His celebrity got him off the charges when he had that trial,” Orth said of 2005. “As big a genius he was with music he was also that big a failure as a human being, in my opinion.”

I think this ending is great for Michael,” Orth said when asked about his death and the outpouring of emotion and media blanketing. “He would have wanted to go out this way.”

Man, I WISH this video was still available, but unfortunately it has been removed (and this is why I transcribe videos before they’re deleted). What amazing analysis of the trial, huh? She summarized the trial in a single sentence, and gave the entire world the real reason that he was acquitted!

Nobody attacked Orth on her day of mourning! So why did she have to attack MJ?

What’s truly sad is that her husband was the late, great Tim Russert, a highly respected political journalist and host of “Meet The Press”, and when he died there was an outpouring of prayers, condolences, and well-wishes from all over the world. Yet, she couldn’t extend that same courtesy to the Jackson family? She truly showed how callous, heartless, and classless she really is! And let me be clear about something: when she went on that show to make those comments, it was 100% premeditated! It’s not like she was already scheduled to be a guest on the show, and just happened to be asked about MJ’s death; she got up to be on that set when the show aired at 6:00am on Friday, June 26th, 2009 so that she could spew her venom at MJ while the fan community’s wounds were still fresh.

And if you think Orth’s views on MJ have changed over the last few years, think again! Here is an excerpt from an article written about her on March 15th, 2011:

Orth became a special correspondent in 1993 and since then has interviewed countless celebrities and political figures such as Vladimir Putin, Margaret Thatcher, Madonna and Michael Jackson.

Orth commented on how the increasing accessibility of celebrity news and the pervasiveness of the internet largely contribute to “one besotted planet feeling that connection to celebrity.”

“The celebrity industrial complex has grown rapidly like the fallout of the atomic bomb,” Orth said, giving the example of how Michael Jackson “was so addicted to fame he was willing to dangle his baby out the window.”

Michael Jackson was a subject of particular interest for Orth. Over a period of 12 years she interviewed hundreds of people concerning him and wrote a series of five investigative pieces about his life. This included investigations into his career, drug addictions, accusations of child molestation, the resulting trial and his death.

As you can clearly see, the authors of this article used the “blind loyalty” fallacy to trick gullible readers into thinking that her “research” is above reproach. They emphasize the title of “special correspondent” (as if that means anything), and the fact that she interviewed “hundreds” of people about MJ (which they fail to mention that those “hundreds” of people included Victor Gutierrez, the Hayvenhurst 5, the Neverland 5, Ray Chandler, former advisors who had been fired, etc.)

Even when she writes about her charitable endeavors with the Peace Corps, she STILL cannot miss an opportunity to throw in MJ’s name and bash him for no reason! Here is what she wrote in an LA Times op-ed on February 25th, 2011:

Just trying to fit in at any level as one constantly has to do in the Peace Corps has served me in good stead, whether I was listening to heartbreaking tales of naive, star-struck parents allowing their little boys to spend too much time with Michael Jackson or uncovering Arianna Huffington’s fierce loyalty and reliance on her odd guru, John-Roger, to cite just two examples.

See what I mean? There she goes again, playing the “phantom victim” card! She and her buddy Diane Dimond spoke to all those parents who were sooooooo afraid of pressing charges against MJ for fear of media attention, but they were brave enough to tell (or possibly sell?) their stories to two tabloid journalists? Gimme a break!

Let’s look at some examples of how some fans have valiantly tried to defend MJ by discussing his childlike personality, and how it has backfired and been misconstrued! Once again, here is Bill O’Reilly’s interview with Rep. Peter King, and let’s listen to what they say at 4:00:


O’Reilly tried to play “devil’s advocate” by asking King to react to fans’ defenses (or as he perceived it, excuses) of MJ’s behavior by saying “the people who know Jackson say that he was the product of an arrested development, and he was a child in his own mind, and I think that speaks to the way that he conducted his life. He was not an adult in an emotional way.” He then goes on to MISQUOTE MJ by saying that MJ said that he “slept with children only because he loved them and wanted to be close to them, and there was no sexuality involved.” (Michael NEVER said this! He merely said he gave the bed to the kids when they asked for it.)

As you can see from King’s reaction, he wasn’t having it! To him, it sounded like a copout from some crazy fan, and he completely dismissed it. That is the last thing you want a hater or skeptic to do! Your defense of MJ must be unassailable, and King cut through that argument like a hot knife through butter! What most fans don’t realize is that when you say things like that about MJ’s personality, it doesn’t exonerate him; instead, it makes him look even MORE guilty because skeptics and haters are likely to believe that he truly did abuse children, but out of ignorance or curiosity instead of a sexual desire!

Think about this: when quack psychologist Stanly Katz described MJ as a “regressed 10-year-old” to a police detective in a taped phone interview, did that exonerate MJ of the allegations, in their minds? Of course not! The cop sat there and acknowledged that he AGREED with Katz, and yet the so-called “investigation” continued!    Here is an excerpt:

In a taped June 2003 telephone interview, Katz, 55, gave a Santa Barbara sheriff’s investigator his “off the record” opinion of the 46-year-old entertainer.

Jackson, Katz told Det. Paul Zelis, “is a guy that’s like a 10-year-old child. And, you know, he’s doing what a 10-year-old would do with his little buddies. You know, they’re gonna jack off, watch movies, drink wine, you know.

And, you know, he doesn’t even really qualify as a pedophile. He’s really just this regressed 10-year-old.”

“Yeah, yeah, I agree,” replied Zelis.

Whenever you’re discussing (or arguing) with someone about the “he sleeps with kids” issue, follow Mesereau’s example! Let’s look at what he said shortly after the trial, beginning at 4:50:


Notice that all he did was refute the myth that MJ didn’t have girls around, and he clarified the facts, and THAT’S IT. He didn’t sit there and give MJ a mental diagnosis as if he was MJ’s personal psychiatrist! That is ALL you have to do! Just debunk the myths, state the facts, stay away from giving a psychiatric evaluation of MJ, and you’ll be fine! Because, as you have already seen, the “he never had a childhood” spiel can get twisted and distorted very easily!

And not only that, but when you “misdiagnose” MJ ‘s personality like that, it validates that belief that some people have of MJ being “mentally disturbed”, and therefore not deserving of any honor or respect!

Here’s another example: Jermaine’s well-intentioned but awful interview with Piers Morgan. Let’s listen to how he described MJ allowing kids to sleep in his bed, beginning at 3:15:

And in case that video is ever deleted, here’s the transcript:

MORGAN: I remember — I remember all that. And it just always struck me that I didn’t know enough about the reality of the truth, certainly not in the position that you were. It just seemed to me that Michael, he did stuff that was — to the public, just looked a bit inappropriate, especially as he got older. Did you ever think as his big brother of warning him, it may not be a good idea to have sleep-overs with young boys, because people won’t get it? They won’t understand what you’re doing.

JACKSON: See, but I’m the same way, because what’s wrong with sleep- overs? What’s wrong with sleep-overs with — with kids? It’s only the demented mind that thinks something different. It’s like Michael said it best, why do you — why do you relate the bed to sex? We can have sex standing up. We can have sex in the car, outside, on the ground. And during those times when he was sharing his bed, he was on the floor. But at the same time, these are people’s minds who were demented. Like they were saying Neverland was used to bring in kids and to molest them. And when you go to Neverland, the wheelchair ramp going up to the rides. He was concerned about bringing the joy to kids who were terminally ill, who were dying of all types of diseases. This is — this is a man who lived his life according to God’s will. This is a man who really cared about people. And it’s so sad, because this world didn’t look at that until after he was dead. And he was trying to say this all along while he was alive.

MORGAN: But when you watched the Martin Bashir interview, the infamous interview, clearly Michael did that to try and set the record straight, and, if anything, made it 10 times worse. When you watched that, what did you feel about that interview?

JACKSON: Well, first of all, Martin Bashir needs to be slapped and he never should have been around Michael. And there again, Michael trusted. And — and see, why this — there’s a question for us, why does people in the media want to say the most horrible things about someone, knowing that they have all the right intentions to do good?

MORGAN: I guess the answer, if I’m putting my media hat back on, because I worked in newspapers at the time of all that, is that it’s not normal — I use that word in, you know, just in a straightforward way — for a guy of, say, 44, to be sharing a bed with a boy of 12. That — it’s not what most men of 44 do. So when the public hear about this —

JACKSON: But how do you know that?

MORGAN: — or the media —

JACKSON: How do you know that?

MORGAN: I just —

JACKSON: How do you know that?

MORGAN: I just guess — I don’t anybody like that.

JACKSON: No, but you can’t just guess, because see, that happens all over the world and people don’t think of that as people

MORGAN: But do you believe that?

JACKSON: Yes. Yes.

MORGAN: You do?

JACKSON: Absolutely. Absolutely.

MORGAN: I don’t think it does.

JACKSON: Yes, it does, because —

MORGAN: And I’m not casting aspersion over Michael. I’m saying I don’t think it does happen all over the world. Was Michael too innocent for this modern world, do you think?

JACKSON: Absolutely.

MORGAN: You really believe that, that he was just from a different era?

JACKSON: He was from the era that — that we were from. I wish that we were around him more to tell him, Michael, get this person away from you because they have a hidden agenda, whether it was the — all the people who accused him of — of the — of the child molestation, but at the same time, he saw the good in people, the good.

Oh boy, where do I start? Yes, I know Jermaine loves his brother, and tried to defend him the best way he could, but (to use a baseball analogy) he completely struck out! Just imagine if he said that to Bill O’Reilly instead of Piers Morgan, who was very easy on him! O’Reilly would have eaten him alive! He would have pounced on Jermaine’s “what’s wrong with sleepovers with kids?” comment by saying You set yourself up to be accused of misconduct, that’s what’s wrong!

When you compare Mesereau’s eloquence to Jermaine’s inarticulateness, the results couldn’t be more disparate! 

Just imagine what a skeptic would say after watching that clip? They would say “If MJ and his family felt that cavalierly about him sharing his bed/bedroom, especially after what happened in 1993, then he got what he deserved! I’m so sick of these lunatic, crazy, rabid MJ fans telling me that I’m supposed to care about clearing his legacy, and getting justice for his murder!”

This mentality is something that conservative commentator Matt Drudge discussed on his radio show in 2005, and at 7:56 he gave a valid reason why people should care!


At the very moment they’re making this wonderful video, and they said they were coached, the problem is the guy making the video was German, and he barely spoke English! How did he coach them for an hour and tape the whole thing? This is a disaster! Sneddon is a disaster, as far as I can tell. And you can say “Why do you care so much about this Drudge? What’s in it for me? Why should I be worried about Michael Jackson? Every time I see his face I get creeped out, the music sucks, maybe if he gets back with Quincy Jones we’ll listen again”, you know, that whole rap.  Because what can happen to an individual, when you have overzealous prosecutors in this country, is frightening! And this is the story of the Michael Jackson case, in my opinion. 100 search warrants. Photos of his genitalia and his arse. And I know many of you don’t want to think of Michael Jackson in those terms.  But Sneddon photographed his privates! Sneddon did! And if he did it to Michael Jackson, he could do it to you! Think about that!

Drudge is 10,000% correct in his assertions! It truly is frightening what can happen when not only overzealous prosecutors, but corrupt judges and police officers too, decide they want to make an example out of somebody for their own personal gain! And if you don’t believe me, then go ask those Duke Lacrosse players!

So, in closing, when you defend MJ, just stick to the facts, remember those questions and talking points that I gave you in a previous post, avoid using the fallacies that I’ve discussed in this series, and follow Mesereau’s example whenever you discuss MJ’s bed sharing, and you’ll be able to hold your own against any MJ hater or skeptic!

Now, let’s end this series on a happy note! Over the past 2 and a half years, I’ve heard nearly every ridiculous excuse as to why MJ is guilty, and I’m at a point now that whenever someone tries to convince me that MJ is guilty, the video below perfectly illustrates all that I hear!

And I also experience the same physical reaction that Peppermint Patty experienced in the clip, too!


How to Recognize and Refute the Fallacies Used By Michael Jackson Haters, Part 4 of 5

In this post I will show how notorious Michael Jackson detractors Bill O’Reilly and Maureen Orth use numerous fallacies in their arguments, and I will give examples of the types of questions that all fans should know to ask when debating Jackson’s innocence!

Lying with Statistics: Using true figures and numbers to “prove” unrelated claims. (e.g. “When taken as a percentage of the national debt, filling up at your corner gas station is actually far cheaper today than it was in 1965!”). A corrupted argument from logos. (See also Half-truth,  Non Sequitur, Red Herring.)

This is very similar to the ad populum argument stated in a previous post in this series. Here’s another example for you: The MJ Facts Info hater’s site recently updated its site, and they added a new section on how to debunk the “myth” that MJ wasn’t a pedophile.  They use all of these useless statistics that prove absolutely  nothing, and are totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.

And in case you’re wondering, yes, I have already fact checked their site!

Name-Calling: A variety of the “Ad Hominem” argument. The dangerous fallacy that, simply because of who you are, any and all arguments, disagreements or objections against your standpoint or actions are automatically  racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, bigoted, discriminatory or hateful. E.g., “My stand on this issue is the only correct one. To disagree with me or even question my judgment in any way would only show what a pig you really are.” Also applies to refuting an argument by simply calling it a fallacy or declaring it invalid, without proving why it is invalid.  See also, “Reductionism.”

Think about this: how many times have you seen or heard MJ fans referred to as “rabid”, “fanatical”, “crazy”, “deranged”, “delusional”, “lunatic”, etc.? It’s a way of robbing us of our credibility as we attempt to advocate, defend, and seek justice for MJ, and it’s used by haters to marginalize fans in the eyes of skeptics.  For example, look at what conservative commentator Sean Hannity had to say about fans in front of the court house for the Dr. Murray trial (and I’ll give him credit because at least he also attacked the Dr. Murray supporters too!)



Non Sequitur: The fallacy of offering reasons or conclusions that have no logical connection to the argument at hand (e.g. “The reason I flunked your course is because the government is now putting out yellow-tinted ten-dollar bills!”). (See also Red Herring.)

Red Herring: An irrelevant distraction, attempting to mislead an audience by bringing up an unrelated, but usually emotionally loaded issue. E.g., “In regard to my recent indictment for corruption, let’s talk about what’s really important instead–terrorists are out there, and if we don’t stop them we’re all gonna die!”

Snow Job: The fallacy of “proving” a claim by overwhelming an audience with mountains of irrelevant facts, numbers, documents, graphs and statistics that they cannot be expected to understand. This is a corrupted argument from logos. See also, “Lying with Statistics.”

The snow job, red herring, and non sequitur fallacies are also very popular with haters, even though most haters are too dumb to even realize that they’re using these fallacies!  We’ve all heard them before: “Michael Jackson is a grown man who’s never been in a real relationship with a woman, he built an amusement park in his backyard, he butchered his face, he bleached his skin, he likes to hang out with animals, he took female hormones, so therefore he’s guilty!

Another common snow job, red herring, or non sequitur tactic that haters use is when they bring up the MJ’s “bed sharing”, and try to focus EXCLUSIVELY on that non-issue. They like to argue over the propriety of MJ allowing non-related kids to sleep in his bed/bedroom, and insinuate that MJ forced or cajoled children to do it without their parent’s permission, which couldn’t be further from the truth. This is a very emotionally charged issue (and thus could also be labeled an ad hominem attack), and over the years haters (especially those in the media) have used this to insinuate that MJ was a sick predator who couldn’t control his “urges” to be around young boys, and invited them into his room to sleep in his bed in order to satisfy some perverted sexual fetish (and yes, I’ve heard people use this argument before, too).

The reality is that Michael Jackson did what millions of people around the world do when they have company, be it friends or family; he let them sleep in his bedroom! Nothing more, nothing less! As we have discussed in this post, and in this post, there wasn’t anything sinister or abnormal about his bed sharing, and this entire issue is really all about making a mountain out of a molehill to distract people from the facts which clear MJ of the bogus charges.

Let’s look at what the late, great Rick James (a successful, yet underrated R&B/funk singer) had to say about this issue in November 2003:

They both had their own style!

PHILLIPS: You’re looking good. Now, you and I were talking yesterday, we were talking a little bit this morning. You’re in support of Michael Jackson. Tell me why.

JAMES: Because I love him. I think he’s fantastic. I love his whole family. I’ve been knowing Michael since he was a kid. I’ve know his whole family. I know his mother. I know his father. I know the brothers. I know the sisters. And I have nothing but complete love, and respect and admiration for the whole family.

It’s a good thing that Rick James was never accused of child abuse! They would say he’s so “weird” that he must be guilty!

PHILLIPS: So, Rick, why do you think authorities are going after Michael Jackson?

JAMES: Because he’s black, he’s rich and he’s famous, and they got nothing else better to do.

PHILLIPS: Has Michael ever talked openly with you about his relationship with children, or his love for children, or even Neverland?

JAMES: Look, Michael loves children, OK? I mean, to be — I mean, I look at it like this. I mean, all this pedophile crap, you know, why didn’t they go after Elvis Presley? He was the biggest pedophile at all. He had Priscilla when she was 14, 15. Why didn’t they go after Jerry Lee Lewis. He the second biggest pedophile of all. He married his first cousin. She was 13 years old. Why don’t they go after Santa Claus? Why don’t they do psychology references on him? They don’t know who he is. He’s 100,000 different cities and kids sit on his lap, telling him what they want for Christmas.

PHILLIPS: I don’t know, Rick, I’ve sat on Santa Claus’ lap, I’ve never had any issues with Santa Claus.

JAMES: But never mind, Santa Claus, what about Elvis? They didn’t do anything to him. He had Priscilla when she was 14, 15 years old. Nobody said a damn thing. Then as soon as you get famous and black, they go after you.

PHILLIPS: Well, let me ask you, let me ask you, you know the documentary that came out, OK, on BBC with Michael Jackson. He talked openly about, hey, I love children, we sleep in the same bed, it’s nothing sexual, I just love them and like to take care of them. Is there anything wrong with that? Do you see anything wrong with that?

JAMES: There ain’t nothing wrong with that. Look, I have a house, 8,000 square feet. I have children come by. I have grandchildren. They come by and they bring their friends. They sleep in my room. I got a great big giant bedroom. They watch TV. They lay on the floor. Sometimes I wake up, kids are laying in my bed because they’re scared or something, whatever. I have candles going. What, what does that make me, a pedophile, because kids follow my bed, fall to sleep, whatever? I love kids. I’m (UNINTELLIGIBLE) pedophile as Larry King. I mean, come on now.

After reading that, would you consider Rick James a child molester? I wonder why Gloria Allred didn’t try to take HIS kids away? Oh, that’s right, he’s not a big enough star for her!

Here is an excerpt from Frank Cascio’s new book “My Friend Michael”, where he puts the bed sharing issue into proper perspective, beginning on page 261:

“In Bashir’s interview, Michael was shown holding Gavin’s hand and telling the world that kids slept in his bed. Anyone who knew Michael would recognize the honesty and innocent candor of what he was trying to communicate. But Bashir was determined to cast it in a different light…

What Michael didn’t bother to explain, and what Bashir didn’t care to ask about, was that Michael’s suite at Neverland, as I’ve said before, was a gathering place, with a family room downstairs and a bedroom upstairs. Michael didn’t explain that people hung out there, and sometimes they wanted to stay over. He didn’t explain that he always offered guests his bed, and for the most part slept on the floor in the family room below. But, perhaps more important, he didn’t explain that the guest were always close friends like us Cascios and his extended family.

One of the biggest misconceptions about Michael, a story that plagued him for years following the Bashir documentary, was that he had an assortment of children sleeping in his room at any given time. The truth was that random children never came to Neverland and stayed in Michael’s room. Just as my brother Eddie and I had done when we were younger, the family and friends who did stay with Michael, did so of their own volition. Michael just allowed it to happen because his friends and family liked to be around him.

What Michael said on Bashir’s video is true. “You can have my bed if you want. Sleep in it. I’ll sleep on the floor. It’s your’s. Always give the best to the company, you know.” Michael had no hesitation about telling the truth because he had nothing to hide. He knew in his heart and mind that his actions were sincere, his motives pure, and his conscience, clear. Michael innocently and honestly said, “Yes, I share my bed, there is nothing wrong with it.” The fact of the matter is, when he was “sharing” his bed, it meant he was offering his bed to whoever wanted to sleep in it. There may have been times when we slept up there as well, but he was usually on the floor next to his bed, or downstairs sleeping on the floor (in the family room that was part of his bedroom suite). Although Bashir, for obvious reasons, kept harping on the bed, if you watch the full, uncut interview, it’s impossible not to understand what Michael was trying to make clear: when he said he shared his bed, he meant he shared his life with the people he saw as family.

The bottom line: Michael’s interest in young boys had absolutely nothing to do with sex. I say this with the unassailable confidence of firsthand experience, the confidence of a young boy who slept in the same room as Michael hundreds of times, and with the absolute conviction of a man who saw Michael interact with thousands of kids. In all the years that I was close to him, I saw nothing that raised any red flags, not as a child and not as an adult. Michael may have been eccentric, but that didn’t make him a criminal.

The problem, though, was that this point of view wasn’t represented in the documentary. Listening to Michael talk, people who didn’t know him were disturbed by what he was saying, not only because his words were taken out of context but also because Bashir, the narrator, was telling them they SHOULD BE disturbed. The journalist repeatedly suggested that Michael’s statements made him very uncomfortable. Michael was quirky enough without the machinations of a mercenary newshound, to be sure, but there’s no doubt that Bashir manipulated viewers for his own ends. His questions were leading, the editing misguided. As I watched the broadcast, it seemed to me that Bashir’s plan all along had been to expose Michael in whatever way he could in order to win the highest ratings he could for his show.

Here is another example of those three fallacies: earlier this year, a very well-known MJ hater intentionally tried to distract us by throwing a red herring in our direction. She accused MJ of being gay (another ad hominem attack), and her “proof” was the fact that the DNA of 3 males were found on MJ’s mattress. Additionally, traces of cocaine were found ON the blood stains (but not IN the blood stains) of a dirty pair of underwear, so the hater naturally accused MJ of being a “drug addict”. That so-called evidence was refuted in this post, among others, but her goal of temporarily throwing us off course by throwing irrelevant junk science in our face was a smashing success!  We wasted so much time on that non-issue!

Post Hoc Argument: (also, “post hoc propter hoc” argument, or the “too much of a coincidence” argument): The classic fallacy that because something comes at the same time or just after something else, the first thing is caused by the second. E.g., “AIDS first emerged as a problem during the exact same time that Disco music was becoming popular–that’s too much of a coincidence: It proves that Disco causes AIDS!”

To put it in simpler language, this fallacy states that because Event  A precedes Event B, then that unequivocally means that Event A CAUSED Event B!  This is used when describing the effect that the strip search had on the decision to have a $15.3 million dollar settlement, and the effect that the settlement had on the Chandlers. In the eyes of most haters, because the “accurate” description given by Jordan Chandler preceded the settlement, and because the settlement preceded the Chandler’s decision to stop cooperating with police, therefore the “accurate” description was the CAUSE of the settlement, and the settlement was the CAUSE of the Chandler’s decision to stop cooperating! (i.e. it was hush money!) That nonsense was thoroughly shot down in this post that analyzes the hypocrisy of the media’s reporting on MJ’s settlements vs. the settlements of other celebrities, who were NEVER accused of paying “hush money” with their respective settlements! Also, this post explains Jordan’s so-called “accurate description”!

Here is an example of the Post Hoc fallacy in action: On January 30th, 2004 FOX News host Bill O’Reilly interviewed Geraldine Hughes about her book “Redemption”, which fully exonerates MJ of the Chandler scandal. He tries to make the connection between the settlement and the collapse of the criminal case:

HUGHES:  Well, okay — well, basically, it’s — my contention is that it was an elaborate — elaborate, meaning it was multifaceted.  Multifaceted means I can throw you one thing and it’s really not going to matter until you pull it all together.  Minus physical evidence, you have to look at the whole picture.  You can’t just — one thing is not going to do it for you.

O’REILLY:  All right.

HUGHES:  But I will say this.  I will say this.  We have the finest police, law enforcement agency in the nation.  There were four police agencies that went looking for evidence to corroborate with the little boy, and they found nothing.  That really should be your biggest thing right there.

O’REILLY:  Well, here’s what swayed me to disagree with you, and maybe you can put this in perspective for us.  During the settlement hearings…

HUGHES:  Okay.

O’REILLY:  The father, Dr. Chandler, all right, and your boss presented a scenario whereby the 13-year-old boy would identify marks on Michael Jackson’s body that nobody would have known about unless they had seen his intimate parts.

HUGHES:  Right.  Yes, okay.

O’REILLY:  Now what say you, Madame?

HUGHES:  I said did they bring him — did they arrest him based on their findings?  Because had he accurately described parts that only someone could have described if they had seen it, that would have been — that was really what they were looking for, the mere fact that they didn’t bring him up on charges after that.  And Michael even said the only reason why…

O’REILLYThe boy — after the $20 million changed hands, the boy then wouldn’t testify.  And that’s how it went.

Notice how O’Reilly cut Geraldine off before she could finish her sentence? Absolutely typical! We’ll analyze this interview again later on in this post.

Reductionism: (also, Oversimplifying, Sloganeering): The fallacy of deceiving an audience by giving simple answers or slogans in response to complex questions, especially when appealing to less educated or unsophisticated audiences. E.g., “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must vote to acquit.” Often involves appeals to emotion (pathos). E.g., “Moms! If you want to protect your little kids from armed terrorists, vote for Smith!”

Have you ever asked a hater why they think that MJ should have been convicted, and instead of giving a substantive, cogent argument, they instead give you some crap like “Well, OJ Simpson was acquitted too!” That’s probably the best example of a reductionist fallacy. Another example of reductionism is the following quote that Diane Dimond used in her roundtable discussion from a few weeks ago:

But in my book, I outline several years’ worth of interviews that I did, with lots of young boys, and their families, that were too afraid to come forward and press charges, that all told the same story! Of how the child was manipulated to come and see Michael Jackson, manipulated to be alone with Michael Jackson, maybe the adults in their lives were over-protective, or over-reacting, but Michael Jackson made the first charges “go away”, as I outline in the book, by paying $30 million dollars! Who does that? And don’t tell me it’s because he had a lot of money back then, because he wasn’t working at that point!

She took the complex subject of the 1993 settlement, and reduced it to “MJ must have been guilty, because innocent people don’t pay millions of dollars to their accusers!” What Dimond and her ilk are clinging to is the erroneous belief that the settlement was a sign of guilt, instead of the pertinent facts of the case. My suggestion to anyone who is in a debate with someone who uses this fallacy is to ask them to describe the exact timeline of the allegations, beginning in May 1993 and ending on August 17th, 1993, the day the police got involved. By limiting the haters to the timeline of events that took place BEFORE the settlement, they are forced to explain and justify Evan Chandler’s refusal to hand over Jordan to June Chandler, his questioning of Jordan only AFTER his tooth was removed and he was under the influence of drugs, his demand of a $20 million dollar film deal on August 4th, 1993, etc.

This line of questioning usually shuts them up really quick!

Maureen Orth used this same fallacy in her defense of her five Vanity Fair articles by basically saying “Hey! He never sued me for slander or libel, so obviously that means that everything I wrote is true!”

In August 1993, I was on the beach in Nantucket when I was told that Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter was trying to reach me: Michael Jackson had just been accused of child molestation by a 13-year-old boy. Thus began an odyssey of 12 years in which I wrote five lengthy articles for the magazine about the trials and tribulations of this music icon whose fame had literally deformed him. I spoke to hundreds of people who knew Jackson and, in the course of my reporting, found families who had given their sons up to him and paid dearly for it. I found people who had been asked to supply him with drugs. I even found the business manager who told me on-the-record how he had had to wire $150,000 to a voodoo chief in Mali who had 42 cows ritually sacrificed in order to put a curse on David Geffen, Steven Spielberg, and 23 others on Jackson’s enemies list. I sat through two trials and watched his bizarre behavior on the stand when he said he did not recognize his publicist of a decade. One of the reasons I endured this not-fun circus was that, when I began, I was the mother of a boy roughly the same age as the ones Jackson was so interested in spending the night with. His behavior truly troubled me. Understandably, in the wake of his death, there are those who do not want to hear these sad facts. Yet nothing that Vanity Fair printed was ever challenged legally by Jackson or his associates.

A man who made great music and entertained brilliantly has died. I’ve been told that he had endured an eight-hour rehearsal and was in rare form on the stage the night before his death. I’ve also been told that the lawyers swooped in yesterday to retrieve all the videos that had been made of these rehearsals. I believe the aftermath of his death will probably be as messy as his life was. I loved his music. Offstage, he could not escape his tragic flaw.

And notice how in the last paragraph she used what I call the “Trojan horse” fallacy, which is when a hater pretends to be a fan in order to gain your trust (which is analogous to the way the Greeks entered the city of Troy) and fools you into thinking that they’re being objective. They always talk about how they “used” to be fans, and how they still “love his music”!

By the way, it’s funny how Orth said that MJ paid $150k dollars to put a curse on Geffen, Spielberg, and others, yet they are all still alive and doing well. Did MJ ever get a refund on his money? I sure hope he had a money back guarantee written into the contract he made with that voodoo chief!

Finally, if you’re dealing with someone who wants to play the “MJ’s settlement as a sign of guilt” card, you can ask them if they think that corporations who settle lawsuits are also guilty! A few examples of corporate settlements are (of course!) JC Penney’s settlement with the Arvizos, Texaco and Best Buy’s settlements of their respective racial discrimination lawsuits, and Wal-Mart and Microsoft’s settlements of their respective sexual harassment lawsuits, just to name a few. Tell the hater that they should boycott each of those companies to show that they disapprove of racism and sexism!

Shifting the Burden of Proof. (see also Argument from Ignorance)  A fallacy that challenges opponents to disprove a claim, rather than asking the person making the claim to defend his/her own argument. E.g., “Space-aliens are everywhere among us, even here on campus, masquerading as true humans! I dare you prove it isn’t so! See?  You can’t!  That means you have to accept that what I say is true.”

This is something that haters absolutely LOVE to do, and unfortunately this is a fallacy that we as MJ fans and advocates MUST accommodate!  It’s not up to us to prove that MJ was innocent; it’s up to THEM to prove that his is guilty! In a perfect world , we could just sit back, rest on our laurels, and demand that haters write books, post blogs, or upload videos to factually prove that MJ was guilty, but they’ll never do that, because that requires research, which is a foreign concept to them!  Instead, we as advocates have to be proactive in our defense of MJ by seeking out and destroying any misinformation that can (and has been) used to poison the minds of an impressionable, gullible public who don’t know how to tell fact from fiction. One of the reasons that we must do this is because there is a perception among the general public that because the Arvizo’s allegations made it all the way to criminal court, there must have been some truth to them. Many people believe “If those boys were lying, the cops would have caught them in their lies!” So as a result of Sneddon and his goons enabling the Arvizos in their lies, and exploiting them in order to achieve their devious desires, we must, in fact, prove that MJ was innocent.

The admins of this blog have done an excellent job doing just that. Similar to a school of hungry piranhas, whenever we sniff even the slightest bit of blood in our waters (i.e. rumors and lies about MJ), we refute them with facts, and only facts. If we waited for the day when haters stopped shifting the burden of proof unto fans, and instead took it upon themselves, then those lies would continue to go unchallenged in the media, and on the internet (because that day will never come!). This is why all fans must step up their knowledge of the facts, and learn how to effectively refute the lies and defend MJ. Look no further than the abysmal performance of Steve Manning and Mike Garcia in their roundtable with Diane Dimond to see what happens when you’re not equipped with facts! (And please don’t get me wrong, because I’m not angry with them, just disappointed.)

Here is an example of someone shifting the burden of proof: once again, our good friend Bill O’Reilly rears his ugly head! Here is another excerpt from his interview with Geraldine Hughes:

O’REILLY:  In the “Impact” segment tonight, 45-year-old Michael Jackson will be arraigned next week on child molestation charges in California.  As you know, the case is the subject of endless speculation, but there is a story you might not have heard. In 1994, Jackson settled child molestation charges with a 13-year-old boy and his family for millions.  At the time, a lawyer named Barry Rothman was representing the boy. Joining us now from Los Angeles is Geraldine Hughes, who was Rothman’s legal secretary during that case.  She is the author of the upcoming book “Redemption:  The Truth Behind the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Allegations.”

All right, I want to walk through this, Ms. Hughes.  I want to be very specific.  All right, you contend that the boy’s father, Dr. Evan Chandler, was behind this whole thing and that Jackson did not molest the boy.  Is that correct?

GERALDINE HUGHES, “REDEMPTION” AUTHOR:  That is absolutely correct.

O’REILLY:  And you base that on what?

HUGHES:  Well, basically, I was on the inside.  So I was able to witness behaviors.  I was able to witness what was going on the inside.  I knew from the very onset of the allegation that Michael Jackson was absolutely innocent and that it wasn’t a case…

O’REILLYAll right, now give me one — your biggest convincer.  You’ve got millions of people watching you right now.

HUGHES:  Okay.

O’REILLY:  All right?  The biggest reason you felt Jackson was innocent was?

HUGHES:  I guess, if I were to give one — there were a lot — but I will try and pull one.  Basically, it was — I actually recall the letter that went to Chandler, where he was advised about how to report child molestation by using a third   party without liability to a parent.  And that was like three weeks prior to the actual launching of the allegations.

O’REILLY:  All right, now Ms. Hughes, if I am a parent, and my child is molested, all right, I immediately go to my attorney for advice.  If my attorney advises me to take a certain course of action, as Dr. Chandler’s did, all right, because you worked for the man…

HUGHES:  Right.

O’REILLY:  …all right, why would that mean that this didn’t happen? Why wouldn’t this be just the methodical, orderly way to place the complaint?

HUGHES:  I guess if that was the only thing I had that I could say made me believe that, you would probably be right and I would probably look into it further based on your view.  But there’s many occasions…

O’REILLYAll right, but I asked you for the big gun.  And the big gun hasn’t convinced me.  Give me something else.

Notice how he condescendingly told her that he wanted her to be “very specific” (as if she was going to speak in generalities), and asked her to give him her “biggest convincer” (i.e. the “Smoking Gun”), and when – in his eyes – she failed to do so, he told her to give him “something else”. He then went on to say that Jordie gave an “accurate description”, which Geraldine rightfully refuted by saying that MJ would have been arrested if it had been accurate, and O’Reilly had to cling to the “pay off” myth to make his point. (That part of the interview is presented earlier in this post.) Essentially, because Geraldine didn’t “convince” O’Reilly of MJ’s innocence right then and there, he felt he was able to continue to smear MJ as guilty.

And for O’Reilly to sit there and tell a bold face lie and say that if his son was molested he would “immediately go to his attorney for advice” is absolutely ludicrous!  When you consider the many valiant crusades that he has led against child abuse (such as Jessica’s Law), and his attacks against judges who are lenient on convicted child molesters (see the video below), it is utterly laughable to think that he would call an attorney instead of the cops!



Let’s look at a more rational explanation of what someone would do if they suspected their child was molested: here is Joe Tacopina, the attorney who represented MJ’s close confidant and “unindicted co-conspirator” Frank Cascio, describing to Martin Bashir, in his second hit piece “MJ’s Secret World” (which I fact checked here) what he would do if he was in that situation:

Martin Bashir (narrating):  The mother says that Neverland had become a nightmare. She says they were threatened by Jackson’s aides, not allowed to leave the property, and that she and her family were being held hostage.

Joe Tacopina : During the period of time that they were allegedly held hostage, we have receipts that will show the mother and her teenage daughter getting manicures and pedicures, shopping at stores. I mean, it’s laughable!

Martin Bashir (narrating):  Jackson’s supporters say they are confident that they’ll be able to destroy the credibility of the accuser’s story at trial.

Martin Bashir (speaking to Joe):  You’re fundamentally saying that this cancer victim, and his entire family, are liars.

Joe Tacopina : Yes. If you want to attribute a reason, or a motive, I don’t think it’s hard to find one.  It’s financial. Michael Jackson has a bulls-eye on his back.  He’s a one-man lotto ticket.

Martin Bashir: What evidence do you have that this is a shakedown?

Joe Tacopina : Who do they go to first? A lawyer.  Not the police. You see, if my child had been molested, and I believed my child had been sexually abused by someone, I’m not looking for a personal injury lawyer.  I’m looking for a police officer.  Or a baseball bat!

(Unfortunately, as we’ve learned through recent events, there are some people who witness child abuse, yet turn a blind eye, which is absolutely UNCONCIONABLE!)

Finally, let’s look at how O’Reilly violates one of the fundamental principles of American jurisprudence; that a defendant is innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law!  The prosecution must PROVE guilt beyond a reasonable doubt! The defendant doesn’t have to prove anything!

O’REILLY:  Whoa, whoa, whoa.  I will cede you one point, Madame.  You’re not making your case for me, I have to be quite honest with you.  I’m not believing…

HUGHES:  That’s fine.

O’REILLY:   …you know, I’m not going to get it, Bill.

O’REILLY: Well, look, I mean I’m not — if I’m on the jury and I’m listening to you, he’s not exonerated.  But I will tell you this — I do believe that this Dr.   Chandler, okay, wanted the money rather than the criminal prosecution.  Instead of going to the authorities first and backing into the civil suit, he didn’t.  He went for the civil — he wanted the money and then the criminal prosecution be damned.  I do believe that.  And that’s wrong.

HUGHES:  But we live in a state where you can have both.  You can have criminal prosecution and the money.

O’REILLY:  Now, but not then.  Not yet.  You could have.

HUGHES:  Oh, then you could too.

O’REILLY:  Now here’s motivation you may be right about but…

HUGHES:  He could have had both.  He didn’t have to go just for the one.  And you tell me somebody molests your child, you’re going to take money and not go after the prosecution?

O’REILLY:  I wouldn’t do it.  I know people who would sell their children for $20 million.  Ms. Hughes, we thank you very much for appearing.

HUGHES:  Thank you.

O’Reilly said that if he’s on a jury listening to Hughes’ explanation, then MJ’s “not exonerated”, thus implying that the burden of proof is on the defense, which is totally and absolutely wrong!  This is another scare tactic that people like him like to use against MJ’s fans; it’s similar to a “gotcha” question. They like to ask us to prove MJ’s innocent, and if we don’t, then it’s “Gotcha! MJ’s guilty! I knew you couldn’t prove he was innocent!

And while we’re on the subject of O’Reilly, he and many other haters have tried to sympathize with Evan Chandler by saying “Well, maybe he didn’t want to deal with the media circus, so that’s why he decided to just stop cooperating after he received the settlement.” And to that I say BULL! Whenever you hear someone try to rationalize Evan’s refusal to go to trial, remember these two important facts:

1. Within two days of the1993 scandal going public, Ray Chandler actually moved in with his brother Evan, and lived there until December 1993. Together, they wrote the book “All That Glitters”, with the hope of releasing it under Ray’s name in order to circumvent the confidentiality agreement of the settlement. They were unable to get a book deal, so Ray just let the book collect dust until the Arvizo allegations became public, and he finally published the book in September 2004. He was subpoenaed to testify in court about the facts stated in the book, but not by Sneddon, but by Mesereau! Ray, being the coward that he is, successfully quashed Mesereau’s subpoena, and he was able to freely promote the book in the media. In July 2009, book publisher Judith Regan confirmed that Ray and Evan tried to publish the book and intentionally violate the confidentiality agreement. (For more info, read this series of posts.)

2. On May 7th, 1996, Evan Chandler filed a $60 million dollar lawsuit against MJ, Lisa-Marie Presley, Diane Sawyer, ABC Television Company, Walt Disney Company (the owners of ABC), Sony, and if that wasn’t enough, unidentified “John Does 1 through 300”. He claimed that MJ violated the terms of their confidentiality agreement by proclaiming his innocence in his July 1995 interview with Diane Sawyer (which is why ABC and its owner Disney were sued), and on his “HIStory” album (which is why Sony was sued).  I guess all of those John Does were unindicted co-conspirators, eh? In addition to the outrageous dollar amount requested, Evan also wanted Sony to help him “repair his reputation” by publishing a rebuttal album titled “EVANstory”, which would consist of such songs as “Truth”, “Duck Butter Blues”, and “You Have No Defense For My Love”! This frivolous lawsuit was dismissed in 2000, and (ironically) according to “All That Glitters”, Evan was nearly broke from having to pay for all of his legal fees associated with the lawsuit, and had to depend on an allowance from Jordan for the remaining years of his life. For more information on the lawsuit, and its absurdity, read this post. Also, here is great column written by a journalist in June 1996, who challenges Evan to present the facts in a court of law, instead of trying to get a record deal!

In summary, the notion that Evan didn’t pursue justice because he was afraid of attracting media attention to his family is UTTERLY REFUTED by his own actions! People who want to avoid media attention do not try to publish tell-all books or release albums! And keep this in mind: Evan Chandler filed his frivolous lawsuit in May 1996, almost a full year after MJ’s interview with Diane Sawyer, so that proves that his desire to get an album deal from Sony was premeditated! It wasn’t something that he did on a whim after seeing the interview. He and his lawyer spent many months preparing that lawsuit, and going through who they would sue, and what they would sue for. He knew what he wanted to name the album, and what songs he wanted to record for the album. His desire to have that album recorded and released by Sony was absolute.

Whenever you’re dealing with someone who wants to shift the burden of proof unto you, and force you to prove MJ is innocent, ask them to COGENTLY answer these questions about the allegations:

1.   If Michael Jackson was guilty of child molestation in 1993, why was he not arrested and charged with a crime?

2.   If Sneddon and Garcetti had so much inculpatory evidence against Jackson, then why were they unable to secure an indictment from two independent grand juries, located  in two different counties?

3.   If Michael Jackson “paid off” the Chandlers, then why was he not arrested and charged with obstruction of justice?

4.   If Michael Jackson was guilty, then why didn’t he capitulate into Evan Chandler’s demand of a $20 million dollar film deal on August 4th, 1993? He could have avoided the entire media circus had he done so!

5.   Why did Michael Jackson fight to have the case tried in criminal court first (where Jackson could be sentenced to prison if convicted), while the Chandlers fought to have the case tried in civil court first (where Jackson could be ordered to pay millions if found liable)? Wouldn’t Jackson want to avoid criminal court at all costs? (See question #4.)

6.   Why did Jackson’s legal team cite the case of “Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court” as legal precedent in their motion to get the civil trial delayed until after the pending criminal trial? (Pay attention to the last sentence in the second paragraph of Section IV, beginning with “To allow prosecutors to monitor the civil proceedings…”.)

The questions about the 2005 case are far more complex:

In the Statement of Probable Cause, dated November 17th, 2003, Det. Paul Zelis described an interview he did with Star Arvizo, who claimed the following (on pages 15, 23, & 50):

When asked, Star said Michael Jackson touched him inappropriately. The incident occurred when they were in a golf cart. Star was driving the golf cart and Michael was next to him. Michael then reached over and touched Star’s “testicles and penis” over his clothes with Michael’s left hand. He did not say anything to Michael and continued driving the golf cart.

Yet, Michael Jackson was never charged with molesting Star. Instead, when Tom Sneddon filed his initial felony complaint against Michael Jackson on December 18th, 2003, it consisted of the following allegations by Gavin, which allegedly occurred from February 7th through March 10th, 2003:

  • 7 counts of lewd acts upon a child
  • 2 counts of administering an intoxicant

However, in the grand jury indictment that was filed on April 21st, 2004, the dates of the alleged offenses shifted to February 20th through March 12th, 2003, and the charges were materially altered as follows:

  • 4 counts of lewd acts upon a child
  • 1 count of an attempted lewd act upon a child
  • 4 counts of administering an intoxicant
  • 1 count of conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment, and extortion

Based on those facts, here are the questions that you should ask:

1.   How do you explain the discrepancy in the alcohol and molestation charges between the initial felony complaint and the grand jury indictment?

2.   How do you explain the addition of the conspiracy charge, especially in light of the fact that the Arvizos went on numerous shopping sprees while at Neverland, and constantly asked to be returned to Neverland after leaving?

3.   Why wasn’t Michael Jackson charged with conspiracy in the initial complaint? Sneddon investigated Michael Jackson for almost 6 months before raiding Neverland in November 2003. Shouldn’t he have known then about the alleged conspiracy?

4.   Why weren’t the 5 unindicted co-conspirators charged, even after they refused immunity for their testimony against Michael Jackson?

5.   Why wasn’t Michael Jackson charged with molesting Star, in addition to Gavin? In the statement of probable cause, he claimed to have been molested while riding a golf cart. Wouldn’t Sneddon want to use as many accusers as possible against Jackson?

6.   Why did the start date of the alleged crimes suddenly shift by almost 2 weeks, and the end date shift by 2 days?

7.   Why would Michael Jackson begin to molest Gavin and Star only AFTER the documentary aired? Why didn’t he molested them between 2000 and 2002?

8.   Why would Michael Jackson begin to molest Gavin and Star AFTER he hired Mark Geragos in early February 2003?  Why would he hire a lawyer to defend him for a crime that he had not committed yet?

There you go MJ haters! Put up or shut up!

Recently, a reader of this blog told me that it’s very hard to explain and refute the accusations of the 1993 case, due to the fact that it never made it to court, and the Chandler’s were never cross examined under oath. As a response to her question, I came up with a list of 16 talking points that fans should memorize (to the best of their ability) so that they can explain what really happened in 1993. I will discuss these talking points in more detail in an upcoming post tentatively titled “21 Questions For Michael Jackson Haters”:

1. Evan and Jordan’s background as the screenwriters of “Robin Hood: Men in Tights”.

2. Evan’s jealously of Jordan spending more time with MJ than him., and his anger at MJ over being rejected as a 50/50 partner in MJ’s film company.

3. The taped telephone call between Evan and Dave Schwartz. (MJJ Justice Project did an EXCELLENT analysis of it! Here’s part 1, and part 2.)

4. Evan coercing Jordan to admit to being abused right after a dental procedure, when Jordan was still heavily sedated.

5. Evan’s demand for a $20 million dollar for a film deal on August 4th, 1993, and MJ’s refusal to give in.

6. June Chandler obtaining custody of Jordan, and Evan’s decision to bring Jordan to a psychiatrist rather than surrender custody of him. He did not mention his suspicions of child abuse to the courts. Evan did this so that the psychiatrist Mathis Abrams could report the alleged abuse, and Evan couldn’t be charged with filing a false claim.

7. Evan’s firing of Gloria Allred for her refusal to sue MJ before criminally prosecuting him, and his replacement of her with Larry Feldman, who filed a frivolous civil lawsuit in September 1993. MJ countersued for extortion.

8. Feldman’s motion to have the civil trail precede the criminal trial, and Fields’ and Weitzman’s counter-motion to have it delayed until after the criminal trial (which subsequently failed.)

9. The fact that MJ was not arrested immediately upon the completion of his strip search, and Larry Feldman’s request to have MJ strip searched again or bar the original photos from court, which confirms it wasn’t an accurate match. (I would also compare Jordan’s description to MJ’s actual description so viewers can see how disparate they are, as we did in this post.)

10. The settlement money was not offered or paid by MJ, nor did it prevent the Chandlers from testifying in a criminal case. The Chandlers refused to cooperate with authorities, and Garcetti was so desperate that he urged state legislators to amend a law that prohibited him from forcing victims to testify. (Read the “Officials Desperate to Nail Jackson” article in that link.)

11. After the settlement, two different grand juries in two counties refused to indict MJ, and the investigation stopped in September 1994.

12. In May 1996, Evan filed a $60 million lawsuit against MJ, LMP, ABC, and Sony, and he wanted to record and publish a rebuttal album called “EVANstory”. The lawsuit was thrown out in 2000, and Evan’s finances were depleted by the legal fees.

13. In September 2004, Ray Chandler successfully quashed Mesereau’s subpoena for him to testify in court about the validity of his book “All That Glitters” (read this series for more info), which was ghostwritten by Evan Chandler, and was originally intended to be released in Spring 1994. Book publisher Judith Regan confirmed this in July 2009.

14. In August 2005, two months after the trial, Evan tried to murder Jordan by hitting him from behind with a 12.5 pound weight, macing him, and choking him. Jordan obtained a permanent restraining order as a result.

15. In November 2009, Evan committed suicide by shooting himself in the head. Nobody attended his wake, and he was subsequently cremated.

16. In December 2009, the FBI released their files on MJ, as a result of requests under the Freedom of Information Act, and they confirm a meeting in September 2004 with Ron Zonen and Jordan Chandler, who threatened legal action if he was subpoenaed to testify because he “had done his part”.

Hopefully, each of these 16 talking points will be incorporated into a possible future biopic on Jackson’s life. I’m fed up with so many MJ documentaries and biographies that omit all of these exculpatory facts! For the complete story of 1993, read this three part series “HIStory vs. EVANstory”, beginning here.

Here’s an example of what can happen when you present the facts to haters who are so stuck in their anti-MJ delusions that they refuse to engage in civil discourse! One of our readers named Ashley left the following comment describing the reaction she received from a friend when discussing MJ’s Vitiligo:

I had an incident the other night on Facebook with someone I know who pretty much laughed at me for saying something about Michael having vitiligo. Her response was “you don’t actually believe that, do you?” Even when I provided her with the fact that it was determined by autopsy that he did in fact have it, she was still set in her tabloid-following mindset. It’s so sad. And of course, when I pointed out other facts to her, she defended herself by insulting me and saying she had a life and didn’t have time to read the facts. I merely responded that people shouldn’t talk about things they don’t know the facts about.

If you think that’s funny, just wait until you read this exchange between Tahlia, one of our dedicated readers, and her mother Sue, as they debate with Chris, Terri, Tash, and Sue over whether or not MJ was a drug addict!

“This is long, and I’ve already edited it to shorten it, but here’s another example of hater fallacies. I know I didn’t do the best job either, if you have any constructive criticism on how I can do this better next time please let me know. I use the same name on Facebook as on here. Sue is my Mother, she’s not used to being in debates.

Chris – I love MJ, but lets not forget that Dr Murray or not, he was a junkie and thats what killed him…

Terri well said chris

Tash So true Chris But….we live in a society that florishes on passing blame!! Heaven forbid mj was actually responsible for his own ultimate demise

Sue Just because the media said it doesn’t mean it’s true. Do your own research. Autopsy report said he was healthier than most men his age. Drug addicts aren’t healthy.

Sue Proof that he was NOT a junkie: (see autopsy report pages 5-10) For toxicology report see here: And: Again I say research the facts instead of blindly believing the crap that the media come out with. Did any of you watch the live trial? Particularly the testimony from the medical experts? I think it’s pretty stupid to believe the media over the experts!

Terri OMG everybody is entitled to their own and opinion and are allowed to believe what they want, your opinion is that he wasn’t a junkie so leave it at that, if you are not happy with what others are saying then don’t comment and stop trying to shove it down our throats, so all in all GET OVER IT.

Tahlia This isn’t about opinions Terry it’s about facts. That’s what the autopsy report link and toxicology link is there for. Nobody is shoving anything down your throat.

Sue Terri we are merely trying to direct people to the truth, that’s what the links are there for. If you want to ignore the truth and believe the lies I think that’s pretty sad. I’m sure you wouldn’t like people believing things about you that weren’t true. I’m not shoving anything down anybody’s throat, I’m simply supplying links to the facts!

Seran Oh please, why is everyone in an uproar about this? He’s dead. Who cares how. It wasn’t like he was doing anything amazing anyway and really. You believe things cast on the internet and call it research, any wording can be changed ever so simply. You’re not that naive surely

Terri Tahlia my name is right above and yet you still spell it wrong and that’s A FACT. Also are you going to believe that everything on the Internet is CORRECT? Now that is sad have you never heard of evidence being changed? And you can think i am sad for believing what I want I really couldn’t care less. And you are shoving it down people throats because you are telling them that their opinions are wrong.

Sue Again I ask, did you watch any of the live court case? I did and it matches with the links.

Terri No sorry i didn’t I have more important things to do like look after my child and do the house work.

Tahlia Tell that to his kids. He was doing rehearsals for his upcoming 50 concerts, which is pretty impressive at his age. By your logic should nobody care if a person dies, say, a stay at home mum because she ‘isn’t doing anything amazing?’ You should look at the evidence before you call it fake. The coroner’s report and toxicology report on the internet is the same that was used in court. You clearly haven’t researched this at all and you call me naive? Interesting. I’ve researched this for 2 years, I’m well aware of what’s fake and what’s not. Believing the media without question is what’s naive. I would also appreciate it if you would drop the attitude, it isn’t necessary. The prescription meds Michael was using were not being abused, and they were for depression, insomnia, and vitiligo. Michael also suffered from Lupus. Again, the coroner stated that Michael was healthier than most men his age. The coroner has much more credibility than any newspaper does.

Seran . No I haven’t researched it… you know why… because I DON’T CARE. I have better things to do in my life than worry about how a dead guy died

Sue Seran, again you believe what the media said. If you don’t care about how or why he died, why do you continue to attack us? Get back under your bridge troll!

Terri that is just plain rude Sue you obviously can’t take other people’s opinions and NEED TO GROW UP

Tahlia Why are you telling other people to grow up when it was you who exploded because you were provided with evidence that was different to your opinion? You are not being attacked, just educated.

Whenever you debate someone about MJ, and they change the subject, or attack you personally, or they stop talking to you altogether, simply because you stated the facts, then you know you were effective and convincing in your defense of MJ. Good job Tahlia and Ashley! You stood your ground, and made them admit the REAL reason they are so uneducated about MJ; they’re TOO LAZY to do any research! 

Where there’s smoke, there’s fire (also Hasty Conclusion, Jumping to a Conclusion). The dangerous fallacy of quickly drawing a conclusion and/or taking action without sufficient evidence. E.g., “My neighbor Jaminder Singh wears a long beard and a turban and speaks a funny language. Where there’s smoke there’s fire. This is war, our country is in danger, and that’s all the evidence we need to string him up!’” A variety of the “Just in Case” fallacy.

Do I really need to give examples of this fallacy? It’s something that we’ve ALL heard a gazillion times before; “If all of these people are making allegations, then they must be true!”   But once the dust settles, so to speak, all of the smoke quickly dissipates into the air! This blog is living proof of that!  Ironically, one of the best researched and most detailed blogs on the net is aptly titled “Smoke Without Fire”.

In the final part in this series, I will give examples of how NOT to defend Michael Jackson…….