Category Archives: Beware: the Demons

As a precaution for the reactions and possible aftermath of the Paris Jackson interview, this post from Vindicating Michael will serve as a good reminder about what we could expect from the those who are hellbent on attempting to tarnish Michael’s legacy and making Michael’s children suffer. As a community dedicated to protecting Michael’s legacy, and ultimately his children, it is crucially important that we do everything we can to see that Michael’s children are protected from the same treatment that their father received during his life. There are bound to be more sick, heinous people who will creep from the depths where they fester their hate for innocent human beings. With that in mind, this article should remind us to be on our guard as to what we might deal in the future.

Vindicating Michael

“The bullying/hate towards Paris Jackson is on a larger scale” – Gigi

Gigi, I want to thank you and David for alerting us to the situation with haters abusing Paris Jackson on Twitter. They do it in the same way they did it to her father, only this time it is even worse because they are doing it to a child and an orphaned one at that.

Those who allow themselves to behave like that to children are their worst offenders – and it makes me doubt very much their “high morals” which is actually their only pretext for this atrocious behavior. They accuse Michael of horrendous things but then turn his children’s lives into a nightmare by shattering their good memory of a beloved father and try to break the children’s spirit when they are still in their vulnerable teens.

Michael’s haters are extremely disappointed that Michael raised his…

View original post 1,755 more words

More Proof of What We’ve Suspected About Tabloid Operations

A post on Seven’s blog gives insight into the tabloid’s ruthless and deadly tactics in creating a story. I’m sharing the link to this post because it merely exposes the tip of the iceberg, in my opinion, on the disgusting and atrocious methods used by these bottom dwellers. In this case, the one in particular details a reporter who followed Michael around in London waiting for newsworthy material.

Excerpt from The media’s deadly, criminal tactics in pursuing and creating a “story”

“Standing amid the tabloid scrum on the pavement outside Hamley’s as [Michael] in a spot of after hours shopping I was gobsmacked to hear the assembled  hack cooking up an agreed list of his purchases [Big Teddy.. Peter Pan Videos] only to see it appear in every national the next day. Naturally, I’ve scarcely believed a newspaper ‘fact‘ sense then.”

Tagged , ,

French TV Station Planning To Air Murray Documentary as “Tribute to Michael”

The following report brings to light the fact that some French TV station is scheduled to air Murray’s documentary as a tribute to Michael JacksonWhat is going through the minds of these people?! Why has decency and respect continued to be thrown out the window for Michael?

Needless to say, we have another situation on our hands where this matter needs to be made aware by anyone and everyone willing to help. And since this is scheduled to air June 20, 2012, we don’t exactly have that much time on our hands to get this problem fixed. Please, please do what you can. For Michael.

“French TV are planning to air Murray’s documentary on 20 June as “a tribute to Michael Jackson”.

Perhaps they do not realize the nature of the content …or are they just playing dumb?

French fans have organised a petition – not sure how much value these petitions are.
Can we support them by contacting French TV and objecting on moral grounds?  Murray is a convicted felon and it is no tribute to Michael for him to gain publicity or payment for his crime.  I’m currently awaiting a friend to get back to me with a translation for something I have written.  Perhaps some of us can speak French anyway,  but I think it would be also ok to object in English.  I can pass the translation on when I get it if anyone wants it.”
Contacts :France Television (direction du groupe) : http://www.francetelevisions.fr/contact/contact.php
*France Ô sur Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/franceOtv
*France Ô sur Twitter : https://twitter.com/#!/franceotv
A sample comment in French:
Monsieur, / Madame, / Aux responsables de France Ô- France Télévisions,Je viens de découvrir que votre chaîne va diffuser le documentaire de Conrad Murray, le 20 juin 2012 et ceci pour rendre hommage à Michael Jackson !Vous n’êtes apparemment pas au courant du fait que le Dr. Murray a été jugé et condamné pour l’homicide involontaire de M. Jackson. Actuellement, Murray est en prison. Lors du procès, le juge était horrifié et dégouté par Murray qui n’a jamais éprouvé le moindre remords ; mais aussi par le fait que Murray voulait gagner de l’argent en vendant ce documentaire irrespectueux et déplacé où il essaie de trouver une excuse pour son comportement irresponsable et sa négligence criminelle, où il accuse sa victime.C’est pour quoi je vous prie de revenir sur votre décision concernant l’émission de ce documentaire. Ce film immoral est une islute à la mémoire de Michael Jackson, ce qui est insuportable pour sa famille et surtout pour ses enfants.
Translation
(Translation: I have discovered that your channel is going to show the Conrad Murray documentary on 20 June 1012 in order to pay tribute to Michael Jackson! You are not apparently aware that Dr Murray has been tried and convicted of the involuntary homicide of Mr Jackson. He is actually in prison. During the trial the judge was horrified and disgusted that not only did he show no remorse, but that Murray would gain money in selling this documentary where he not only makes excuses for his negligent and criminal behavior, but tries to blame his victim. For this reason I am asking that you reconsider your decision to broadcast the documentary. This film is immoral, an insult to the memory of Michael Jackson and is distressing for his family, particularly his children. )
*Note: If you don’t live in France (or don’t know a French address off-hand) then the Facebook or Twitter links will work to your benefit.
Tagged , ,

Immediate Action is Needed: Kraft Wants to Hear From Fans

It has come to the attention of fans that some slanderous story involving a self-proclaimed “ex-lover” of Michael’s and Entertainment Tonight will be airing tonight. What’s different about this time is that a sponsor (Kraft foods) for ET Tonight wants us, fans of Michael Jackson, to let them know how we feel about ET Tonight and their eagerness to air this ridiculous story.
Kraft, apparently, did not know that Scott Thorson  (Liberace’s Ex-lover) will be on ET Tonight speaking about his ‘affair’ with Michael.  Some say this is an old story from around 2004, which in an attempt to slander Michael is probably resurrected now because there’s a movie of some sort in the works of being released. Nevertheless, we need to engage ourselves and anyone else who is on our side of this never-ending media battle against Michael Jackson, and voice our opinions!
Meanwhile, the dirt that we can dig up on this Thorson guy besides his involvement with Liberace was his appearance on Larry King in 2002 denying any gay relationships other than with Liberace. The first part was aired last night. Also (good to know) he is a convicted felon for armed robbery.

Contact info if anyone wishes to complain:

http://www.contactmusic.com/news-art…r-with-jackson

How to contact Kraft Foods:

Kraft foods —Telephone: Attention: Consumer Relations Group 1-800-543-5335

As for Entertainment Tonight, here are ways in which you can contact them and voice your opinions:

How to contact Entertainment Tonight:

When contacting anyone at CBS or Entertainment Tonight, please remain civil in your approach. Inform them that you will not be watching ET unless they removed this story about Michael Jackson. Hostility and attacks are counterproductive.MAIL:
Leslie Moonves, President & CEO, CBS
Glenn Geller, Senior VP, Current Programming, CBS
CBS Entertainment
51 West 52nd Street
New York, New York 10019PHONE:
Linda Bell Blue, ET Executive Producer
(212) 975-4321 (**Ask to be transferred to Ms. Bell Blue’s voicemail, where you can leave a message**)TWITTER:
Primary account / @ETonlineAlert
Mark Steines, ET Co-anchor / @MarkSteines
Linda Bell Blue, ET Executive Producer / @ExecProdLinda
Sharlette Hambrick, ET Senior Producer / @ETProdSharlette
Bonnie Tiegel, ET Senior Producer / @ETSrProdBonnie

FACEBOOK: Facebook.com/EntertainmentTonight

EMAIL: et.newsdesk@cbsparamount.com

Tagged , ,

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.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/jackson-case-psychologist

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:http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/toxicologyreport.pdf And: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/09/mj_autopsy.pdf 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…….

Source: http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/how-to-recognize-and-refute-the-fallacies-used-by-michael-jackson-haters-part-4-of-5/

How to Recognize and Refute the Fallacies Used by Michael Jackson Haters, Part 3 of 5

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.”

Again, the voice came from under the umbrella: “Ahh . . . tell her to go to hell.”

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 FIRE HER 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……

The fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree!

How to Recognize and Refute the Fallacies Used by Michael Jackson Haters, part 2 of 5

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……………..

Source: http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/how-to-recognize-and-refute-the-fallacies-used-by-michael-jackson-haters-part-2-of-5/

How to Recognize and Refute the Fallacies Used by Michael Jackson Haters, Part 1 of 5

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.)

In the meantime, you can check out my friend Debbie Kunesh’s 3-part series “Debunking the Demonic Deception: The Story of Michael Jackson and the Truth”. She did an excellent job of separating fact from fiction, and there are additional parts on the way!

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 because THERE WEREN’T ANY SIGNS OF ADDICTION TO BE SEEN!

 

Source:http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/11/14/how-to-recognize-and-refute-the-fallacies-used-by-michael-jackson-haters-part-1-of-5/

Kurt Loder Full of Lies

 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.

I’m on my way to do such now.