Skip to content

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

November 14, 2011

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:

Just because some men who were makeup are gay…………..

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!

Here is a video of the late, great Whitney Houston talking about her date with MJ at Neverland, and her desire to marry him! If they had married and had a child, he or she would be 10x as talented as Blue Ivy Carter!

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.  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:

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!


To be continued………

 

89 Comments leave one →
  1. Lele permalink
    July 2, 2014 11:56 pm

    It is like they use MJ to cover up all the real pedophiles in Hollywood. Corey Feldman said that MJ was such a clean man, that it was impossible for him to be a pedo.. see this video here >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MgSTlpPHGk

  2. lynande51 permalink
    June 22, 2014 9:39 pm

    You know what would be useful at this point would be to start reminding people why Michael agreed to do the documentary with Martin Bashir in the first place. He was mislead by Bashir first saying that he turned Princess Diana’s life around and he wanted to do that for Michael. He showed him a crumpled up letter, later found to be fraudulent, where she said that. Michael agreed to having him do that months long interview because Bashir also promised Michael that he would introduce him to Kofi Annan the Secretary General of the Untied Nations. Michael hoped to convince Mr. Annan to implement an international Children’s Day. A day where children are celebrated and their parents are to spend that day with their children. I remember that a lot of people made fun of this in the media.
    Now would a p******** ask for something like that when what they want to do is separate kids from their parents so the kids aren’t under their protection.
    Michael was innocent all right even in the meaning that detractors make fun of. Because he actually believed that Bashir meant what he said and understood what he wanted to portray to the world.

  3. June 21, 2014 3:39 pm

    Speaking about Bashir’s disgusting video I suggest that Bashir, Gutierrez, Dimond and all the rest of these people handle the Hollywood situation with child offenders. I will be looking forward very much to their programs about these people.

    Besides the four guys recently named by Michael Egan as his alleged abusers, there are also seasoned child offenders like Marc Collins-Rector and his two younger associates who even made a porn film starring a 14-year old boy when they owned the Digital Entertainment Network. The public doesn’t know anything about these people and considering Bashir/Gutierrez/Diane Dimond’s fixation on this issue I think we have the right to demand that they should investigate it and report.

    Here is a list of other possible candidates for their programs:

    —Last year, child actor Corey Feldman sounded the alarm on rampant pedophilia in a brave, scathing memoir. He recounted how his best friend and co-star, the late Corey Haim, was sodomized by an older male on the set of their hit film “Lucas.” The boys, fed cocaine by a string of predators, attended parties with Hollywood talent manager and child actors’ rep Marty Weiss. Now a registered sex offender, Weiss pleaded no contest in 2012 to lewd acts on a child under the age of 14. The victim, another young child actor, alleged Weiss sexually assaulted him between 30 and 40 times from the age of 11.

    —Registered sex offender Jason Murphy, a Hollywood casting agent, had kidnapped and molested an 8-year-old boy before joining the industry.

    —Boy band impresario Lou Pearlman was a con artist and sleazeball who hosted sleepover parties wearing only a towel and solicited massages from young male singers. “Certain things happened, and it almost destroyed our family,” boy band star Nick Carter’s mother told Vanity Fair years ago. “I tried to warn everyone.”

    —Former child actor Todd Bridges, of “Diff’rent Strokes” fame, says he was abused by his agent.

    —Former teen pop princess Debbie Gibson has spoken of “older male record executives” who hit on her while she was still underage.

    —Despite disturbing and longstanding allegations of molestation and rape, directors Woody Allen and Roman Polanski still enjoy professional acclaim and adoration of their peers.

    —Perv fashion photographer Terry Richardson continues to enjoy the support of Lady Gaga, Beyonce, Rihanna and Miley Cyrus despite years of allegations of misogyny, manipulation and sexual misconduct against young models.

    If all of these sickos had been Catholic priests, college fraternity members or charter school teachers, we wouldn’t have heard the end of it. Perhaps the social justice awareness-raisers in the Hollywood left should take a break from pointing fingers at everyone else — and put a stop to the monsters in their own midst.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/michelle-malkin/2014/05/06/column-hollywoods-sexual-predator-problem-explodes

  4. June 21, 2014 3:18 pm

    “Have you seen this disgusting video about MJ yet?” – Lele

    This disgusting video was made by Bashir in collaboration with Victor Gutierrez, which makes it doubly disgusting. And though they said they didn’t pay for the interviews they did. This “raised serious questions” which caused companies other than ABC not to air it.

    The example of a paid interview is that with Terry George who is one of the worst scumbags on this planet. When he was a teenager he pursued celebrities with a tape-recorder to make interviews and air them on the local radio. When MJ was in the UK he did give to Terry George a totally innocent interview which was broadcast on the radio (its fragments can be heard in the disgusting documentary).

    After that Terry George stalked Michael and tried to reach him in every corner of the world. Now that he is trying to convince us that in a telephone conversation with him MJ allegedly masturbated, all I can say to this – where is the tape please?

    However there is none and knowing Terry George’s ways and habit to record every little scrap it is impossible to imagine that he could have ever lost such a chance.

    Actually Terry George’s fantasies are very much in line with his business – he owns a telephone-sex company.

  5. Lele permalink
    June 18, 2014 3:35 pm

    @susannerb that MJ hater claims the only reason they do it is because we MJ fans having websites defending MJ.

  6. susannerb permalink*
    June 17, 2014 6:51 am

    Thanks for this information, Lele.
    Yes, they tell lies and it’s disgusting, but I think first of all these guys want to incite Michael’s fans. If they really want to do something against p___files, why care about a dead one? It doesn’t make sense. There are enough living p___files they could fight against and expose, but no – they are not interested in them. They want to enrage MJ’s fans. And that’s why they are not credible at all in the public opinion.

  7. Lele permalink
    June 16, 2014 10:22 am

    All they’re doing is telling more lies.

  8. newrodrigo permalink
    June 16, 2014 9:59 am

    Mike Par from that Wade Robson FB page and MJFACTS are working with each other. Been getting pestered in the last week through them.

  9. Lele permalink
    June 14, 2014 7:22 pm

    Michael Jackson’s Ped__e World (FULL Doc) (200…: http://youtu.be/iZ0B4jjNdjM.
    Have you seen this disgusting video about MJ yet?

  10. sanemjfan permalink
    April 4, 2012 10:52 pm

    I added the video of a 2009 interview with Oprah saying that we’ll “never know the truth” about the allegations! What a joke!

  11. sanemjfan permalink
    March 1, 2012 3:21 am

    I added a new video of Whitney Houston talking about her date with MJ at Neverland, and her desire to marry him!

  12. ares permalink
    February 15, 2012 5:09 pm

    @Anonymous

    Being a troll, and especially an idiot troll, is not a talent. You are not good even at that so you don’t have the right to judge anyone’s talent.

  13. Suzy permalink
    February 15, 2012 2:21 pm

    I didn’t know Justin Bieber was admired and cited as influence by dozens of musicians from diverse styles, from rock to hip-hop, from pop to classical. Nor did I know that Justin Bieber’s dancing skills are admired even by classical and ballet dancers.

    I could give you dozens of quotes from both musicians and dancers to prove my point but here are just two (none of them is from an American, so none of these have anything to do with American celebrity worship, just an admiration of art):

    Chinese concert pianist, Lang Lang:

    Interviewer: Do you think you can equate some of the great classical composers with some of the great pop or rock composers.

    LANG LANG: “It’s not so easy but I really think its possible when you have the right fit and I would say Michael Jackson for example, is promptly — is equally as genius as Mozart [was] two or 300 years ago and I’m sure when they met or when they meet somewhere actually they will be a great synergy.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15213957

    Russian ballet dancer Mikhail Baryshnikov said this about him:

    “I don’t know who you could really put next to him,” said ballet star Mikhail Baryshnikov, reached yesterday in Madrid. “To imitate somebody like Michael Jackson is impossible. Why bother? You just relax and admire.”

    and

    What Baryshnikov remembers most about Jackson, he said, was “not even his turns or his grabbing his crotch. Just his simple, bouncy walk across the stage, that was what was most beautiful and arresting, swinging his hips, kicking his heel forward. That’s to me what he is: that superior confidence in his body as a dancer. You wanted to say, ‘Wow, this guy, what a cat; he can really move in his own way.’ “

  14. Anonymous permalink
    February 15, 2012 1:56 pm

    I’m not a Michael Jackson “hater,” but I do consider him one of the most overrated celebrities ever. Honestly, he wasn’t any more talented in pop music in his era than Justin Bieber is today, and his cult following is just as bad, if not worse. I just wish that Americans would get over their celebrity worship syndrome.

  15. lynande51 permalink
    November 18, 2011 6:47 am

    well it would seem that another college coach has been accused.

    http://www.chron.com/news/article/Syracuse-puts-Fine-on-leave-for-police-inquiry-2275218.php?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

    Is he guilty or innocent.What is that I smell? NAMBLA? Funny how all of these victims are coming out isn’t it.

  16. Tahlia permalink
    November 18, 2011 6:30 am

    Thanks for the compliments vindicatemj, those debates can stress me out quite a lot, but the advantage there is that since it’s the internet I don’t have to reply right away, I can cool down first and then think about what I want to say and how I want to say it. There have been different articles I’ve gone to and defended MJ, but I’ve taken a break from it for a while, I didn’t want the stress and I needed to take a break from it. When talking to people about Conrad Murray there is a very obvious lack of knowledge about what exactly he did, many people don’t realise how involved the doctor was, it seems that most people are under the impression that Murray gave Michael Propofol and he took it himself, many people don’t know what propofol is and they seem to think it’s like a street drug that a dealer can give to a person and they can take it on their own and not need a doctor there.

    I have the list of violations of the standard of care, and I send it to people who didn’t know exaclty what the doctor’s role was. I’ve seen many comments where people have said that people are just looking for someone to blame and since the doctor made the drug available to MJ people are blaming him. This comment makes it obvious that they have no idea what actually happened, and I’m sick of talking to people who look at me like I have 3 heads when I tell them what has been on TV and in newspapers isn’t always correct… it’s sad that people have become so ignorant to what’s going on around them and assuming that they’re getting the complete truth from the media, some people won’t believe they’re unreliable until there’s a story about them or someone they know that doesn’t come out accurate. I’ve had it happen to my family and people we know, you don’t have to be anyone special for them to twist the story, so if they twist the facts in articles where the person isn’t a celebrity what makes anyone think they won’t do it with a celebrity and to a more serious extent? Humans are supposed to be the most intelligent life form on the planet, but sometimes I have grave doubts about that!

  17. ares permalink
    November 17, 2011 4:42 am

    David, this post was just amazing and i feel that it came in the most appropriate time. The media have started their little game again by comparing Mike’s name to that dude’s – not going to mention it.Some how i feel that this text is going to help very much from now on. Thank you.

  18. November 17, 2011 3:09 am

    Tahlia, sorry for reading your great message only now. I was somewhat distracted by other things.

    Let me express my complete admiration for you and your mother (my best regards to her) and the way you are explaining things to these totally ignorant but terribly self-conceited people. They are ready to call Michael names without knowing a thing, and when you try to educate them with facts they use the usual method – they say it is only your “opinion” which you are trying to “shove down their throats”.

    Oh my God, how very much familiar this accusation is to me…

    Tahlia, at the moment I will simply repeat your message, but in the future we should make a post out of it.

    This is a splendid illustration of how sensible people are trying to talk to stone-headed trolls who (frankly) don’t deserve the effort you put into a conversation with them. They spare no time to wag their tongues about Michael being a “junkie” but when it comes to getting familiar with facts they never have time for it – they “have other important things” or “better things in life than worry how a dead man died”.

    When it comes to trashing Michael they are over-enthusiastic but when you mention facts they suddenly get bored and disinterested and use the usual diversions – from “Who cares?” to “You spell my name wrong and this is a fact”.

    They themselves believe every lie told by the media but when you state undeniable facts discovered at the trial get on their high horse and ask why you believe that everything said on the Internet is correct.

    You say you are talking about the testimonies (under oath) and they raise their brow and say “how sad” it is that you never heard that testimonies are changed…

    All of it is hypocrisy in its pure form.

    We need another Moliere here. The modern day Tartuffes are preaching their piety to people and teach them how to behave and what to believe in. They will disregard your facts and will accuse you of shoving down your “opinion” down their throats while this is actually what they are themselves doing. If only they practiced their own preaching.

    And what is interesting – they always start with saying “they love MJ”.

    In short your conversation is a complete marvel and is a sort of a text-book for studying all the tricks of these people’s profession. Let me repeat it here in full. I hope we will return to it one day:

    “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.

    Terri
    And you are one of those people taking thing sensitively Tahlia and are you the bees knees on this cause you have researched it all by the sounds of thing you are being a stalker. It is plain rude to call someone a troll for having and opinion. You are not an expert on the situation Tahlia so stop with the I know everything act

    Tahlia
    I just feel it’s important to make sure that when things are being said about other people that they’re correct. Nobody likes it when things are being said about them that aren’t true. I don’t think I’m the ‘bee’s knees’ for researching, I believe it’s the responsible thing to do. I never said I knew everything, I just wanted to bring clarity to this. Seran was called a troll for commenting when she admitted that she didn’t know much about the situation due to lack of research.

    Terri
    So what if someone admits that they don’t know something it’s right to call them a troll? I hope you aren’t a parent or a teacher because that is a bad lesson you are teaching.
    And evidence you can supply all mj’s medical records for when he was born can you? Well that is mighty good research you have done there.

    Sue
    Sorry Terri, but I believe I was the one being attacked for having an opinion. Apparently some people are allowed to have opinions whether or not they are based on fact and others aren’t even when they back up their opinion with factual evidence. I’m sorry you missed the trial, it was very interesting and very informative.

    Tahlia
    If someone admits they don’t know something but talk about it anyway and try to state things as facts I would say, yes, that’s a troll. I never said I had MJ’s medical records from birth, just his autopsy report, which was released to the public early in 2010.

    Terri
    You gave your opinion and then when others commented again and you didn’t agree you decided to share your opinion again. If you didn’t notice I didn’t comment after your first opinion so you cannot say that you couldn’t have your opinion

    Sue
    I didn’t share my opinion again, I simply gave evidence to back up what I believed and why.

    Tahlia
    I didn’t accuse anyone of not letting me have an opinion. It’s not me people are disagreeing with, it’s the medical evidence.

    Terri
    You say you have researched this matter have you only researched what you want? In that case you don’t have or know all the facts correct? So if you only have his autopsy report then how can you say he was not a junkie? Tahlia the comment about opinions was not directed at you sorry for the misunderstanding with that. And giving evidence to back up what you believe is giving your opinion twice sue

    Tahlia
    The autopsy report includes the toxicology report, which has what medications were in his system and how much. There is also a list of medications he was tested for which weren’t in his system. That is the evidence that was used in court, so… yes, it is everything. The only other medical evidence presented in court was to help the jury understand what medication was being used and what it was for and what it does. Do you have any medical evidence that supports the addiction theory? No problems about the misunderstanding with the other post Terri, I’ve done that too

    Terri
    I am just saying that his autopsy and toxicology was for his time of death and say 2 weeks prior to his death of what was in his system, is there any evidence for before that time that suggest that he wasn’t a junkie?

    Tahlia
    Yes. Here’s a list of prescription medications that were found in his home, it has when they were prescribed, how much was there to start with and then how much there was left. You can see that the medication wasn’t being overused. You can see this on this link, pages 5-10 http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/09/mj_autopsy.pdf

    Sue
    Sorry Terri, I disagree, I was merely backing up what I was saying with evidence.

    Terri
    ok so that was what was found in his home, and you think that was it? Everybody has a price, money can make people do anything

    Tahlia
    The problem with that is that everyone would have to have predicted MJ’s death and get rid of the evidence before the day he died so nobody would find it.

    Terri
    So what you are saying is people don’t come in give him drugs and take the evidence with them? You think people are that stupid? The only person that know the truth and whole truth has gone to his grave taking his secrets with him

    Tahlia
    There were a lot of empty propofol vials in his home. If the doctor didn’t want to get caught why didn’t he throw them away?

    Terri
    That is only 1 doctor. And he got caught and is paying the price for that.

    Tahlia
    Murray is the only one who was giving MJ propofol, and that’s the only drug he wasn’t meant to be taking. I haven’t seen any medical evidence that supports the drug addict theory, only media speculation. The press is about ratings and money, it hasn’t been about truth for a long time, particularly with the American media, they’re the worst.

  19. November 17, 2011 12:08 am

    This was a Brilliant post. Thank you so much for breaking everything down.

  20. lynande51 permalink
    November 16, 2011 6:42 pm

    @ Victoria Please read through the links I will provide. One will give you a history of behavioral addiction and one will give you a link to the DSM V which is the diagnostic manual that is now being used at the facility that I work in. Secondly I will ask you to please provide me with your research so that we can discuss your talking points. One of course is not an academic site but the other is the site for the new DSM V manual. When you read the new manual you will of see that there is now a differentiation between substance abuse disorder and behavioral addiction maybe that will clear up a few things for everyone here. I forgot that the public at large has not caught up with us yet and that may be where the problem arises. Though again I would like to ask you to provide me with your research that states that Michael took propofol for sleep years before he met Dr. Murray. If you cannot find anything definitive about it please show me that research and see what there is that lead you to that conclusion.

    http://addictions.about.com/od/howaddictionhappens/i/real_addictions.htm

    http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx

  21. Victoria permalink
    November 16, 2011 6:02 pm

    @Carm “Since when is dysfunctional a good thing? Stop being so outrageous.”
    From what I have read I don’t think Ameera is being outrageous, I just think you don’t understand what she is trying to communicate. I didn’t feel she was saying dysfunction was a good thing. But it is something that all of us humans have, some more than others.
    “I agree with Lynette there is no evidence that Michael used propofol as a sleeping aid before he met Conrad Murray.” I politely suggest then that you do some more research.

  22. Carm permalink
    November 16, 2011 5:09 am

    @ Ameera
    “In that sense, the use of propofol, monitored and under the care of a licensed doctor with the proper resuscitating equipment was a proper use, operating normally in the sense of what Michael needed it for – though admittedly unorthodox.”
    Sorry but you are wrong.
    Propofol is not meant to be used as a sleeping aid and any doctor using it for that purpose is not following the standard of care and would be reprimanded. Also it has to be administered by an anaesthesiologist, not “a licensed doctor”.
    I agree with Lynette there is no evidence that Michael used propofol as a sleeping aid before he met Conrad Murray.

    “Dysfunctional behavior in an abusive family, for example, will “work” and serve a proper function, if it enables a child to protect itself from the abuse.” Since when is dysfunctional a good thing? Stop being so outrageous.

  23. lynande51 permalink
    November 16, 2011 2:50 am

    @ameera I know that you feel that way however it was a simple question to a remark that you had written.If you would just give me a link or answer where that information came from so I could further research it it would be appreciated.

  24. November 16, 2011 12:06 am

    @ Lynette, I’m sorry but I no longer feel comfortable having this conversation so I’m not going to go any further. I don’t feel like I’m being read/received with the intention that I have been writing.

  25. lynande51 permalink
    November 15, 2011 11:31 pm

    @ameera
    “In the past, during tours, Michael used propofol as a means to go to sleep because he was so charged from his performance he could not come down.”

    Who does that information come from?

  26. November 15, 2011 8:33 pm

    @Lynette I know that you have talked about addiction and dependency on other posts as a commentator, but I can´t find any post that focuses solely on this topic. If it really exists I would thank anyone who could guide me to it through this site. ( This site is growing faster!!)
    I understand what you are talking about because , although this is not my specialty, I remember quite well the terms that you are talking about since I studied them at the time in the course of psychology during my degree on nursing, now I blame myself for not choosing psychiatry during my period of practice. I firmly believe that would be great to pick up everything you know about it and relate it to MJ, so more precise tools could be handle when we get into this issue with other skeptics ( we are talking about educate skeptics, am I right?, because at the end is more productive than to fight with haters). I think this is a current topic because of Murray´s documentary and i would thank you for writting an article about the matter.

  27. Suzy permalink
    November 15, 2011 8:25 pm

    According to those who have read it yes, Frank writes about the allegations. Here are some extracts from summaries:

    “Speaks about hanging out with Jordy, thought he was a normal kid, he spent a bit of time around him, his mother, his sister, they all went to Disneyland and Neverland together

    Found out about the child molestation accusations like this, back home in New Jersey after school had started:

    His mother came in and asked him if he knew a kid named Jordy

    Frank says yeah, he was a nice kid, hung out with him in NL

    His mother hesitated for a moment and then blurted out: “Well, he is accusing Michael of child molestation.”

    His mother was upset, Frank didn’t know what molestation meant. When he asked, she turned back to laundry and said, “Did Michael ever do anything inappropriate to you or anyone else that you know of?”

    “What are you talking about?” Frank asked, realizing she was crying

    “I feel so bad for Michael,” she said

    Seeing the look on her face he realized that Michael was being accused of doing something wrong to Jordy. He was beyond shocked, the idea didn’t even make sense to him. He had spent plenty of time with Mike and Jordy, and when he was at NL, Jordy had even stayed in Michael’s room with them. “Not once. I had never seen anything out of line happen, and I didn’t believe anything had happened, not for a single second. Furthermore, Michael had never acted in any way even approximating “inappropriate” toward Eddie or me. This story was utterly unbelievable; I simply couldn’t imagine Michael as a molester. Nor could I imagine Jordy making such an accusation.

    “Is Michael going to be okay?” I asked.

    “Yeah, he’s going to be fine,” my mother replied.

    As this disturbing news sank in, I couldn’t help remembering some of wha Jordy had said about his father during the trip we had taken to Disneyland together and later at the ranch. Jordy was an open, honest kid, and I didn’t have the sense that he was hiding anything. The night we’d gone to Toys R Us, he told me that his father, a dentist, and aspiring screen writer, Evan, was extremely jealous of Michael. He volunteered the information that his father thought it was weird that Mcihael was so close to Jordy and the rest of the family and that the relationship had become a problem for the Chandler family. Thinking back on it, I remembered how Jordy had said that Evan had a terrible temper, that when he was upset he’d scream and bang things around the house. In retrospect, it’s not hard to see that Michael was a father figure for Jordy, that Jordy’s mother was attached to Michael, and that this most likely made for a problematic dynamic. But at the time, I wasn’t thinking in these larger terms. All I knew was that I was certain Michael was being falsely accused – whether it was because of Jordy or his father it doesn’t matter.”

    “For all the hard work he’d put in during his own childhood, for all the perfectionism that drove his music, Michael craved the simplicity and innocence of the youth he had never fully experienced. He revered it, he treasured it, and especially through NL, he tried to offer it to others. People had trouble understanding all this, and many assumed the worst. This misunderstanding was the greatest sorror of Michael’s life. He carried it with him to end. I am here to say that I knew the real MJ. I knew him throughout my childhood. In all that time, never showed himself to be anything but a perfect friend. Never did he make a questionable advance or a sexual remark. My parens were older and wiser than my broher or I. If anyhthing, their POV was broader and more encompassing than ours. And they trusted Michael implicitly.”

    “As far as what was going on with Jordy’s family, we only talked to Michael about it when he brought it up. When he did speak about it, it was often in a wistful one, and I could tell he was still trying to comprehend the fact that this horrible thing had occurred.

    “I did so much for his family,” he’d say.

    I would almost always respond with anger, saying things like, “I just don’t understand how he could do such a hing.”

    “You don’t understand,” Michael would reply. “I don’t blame Jordy. It’s not his fault. It’s his father’s fault.”

    Michael forgave Jordy. Hew knew that a child wouldn’t come at him and ruthlessly attack him of his own volition. He believed it all came from the father. Later, when I was older, Michael would tell me that Jordy’s father had wanted Michael to inves in a film he wanted to make. Michael initially liked the idea, but his advisors were against it. They dismissed Jordy’s father rather thoughtlessly, and Michael, not one for confrontation, blew him off, too. Michael thought that this, more than anything else, had set Evan Chandler off. (The movie Chandler had written, Robin Hood: Men In Tights, was eventually produced and directed by Mel Brooks and came out that same year.) [I think he's wrong about this. Robin Hood MIT was made before Michael met the Chandlers. It was another movie Evan was trying to prepare.]

    Michael was upset about what was happening, but kept his composure because they were kids. He was sensitive to the effect it would have on their lives as well.

    At a certain point, Frank’s father had to go back home to his restaurant and his mother. At first Michael accepted this, but when when the time came for us to go, he went to my father and broke down crying.

    “I know you have to get back to work,” he said through tears, “But I’m asking if Frank and Eddie can stay here with me. I would really love for them to stay. You have no idea – just having you all here for this short amount of time has helped me so much. I promise you, Dominic, I’ll take care of them and watch over them as if they were my own.”

    We’d already missed a week of school. If we continued our stay with Michael, we would be traveling with him from country to country, finishing the European segment of the tour and then heading to North and South America. We wouldn’t be home until December.

    Missing school for a rock tour was a big deal, and my parents weren’t cavalier about the decision. But my father saw that Michael was alone. He had no family or friends near him on tour, just the crew, and he was dealing with just about the wors kind of accusations an innocent man could imagine facing, internationally famous or not.

    One thing that was not a factor in my parents’ decision was the allegations that had been leveled against Michael. People might question my parents’ judgement in sending two young boys off to spend time alone with a man who had been accused of molesting another boy. But to us, the suggestion that we were in any danger was completely absurd. My parents knew that Michael was innocent. They had known him well, for years, and to them he was family.

    Though they were aware of how odd he seemed to the outside world, they understood Michael’s idiosyncracies from his POV, and from this angle, they came into focus and made some sense. When he wore a surgical mask, people thought he was hiding some new plastic surery, in reality he was at first protecting himself from getting sick before performances; then he found that wearing the mask made him feel like he was in disguise (when in fact it called more attention to him); and ultimately he turned it into a one of a kind fashion statement, having his silken surgical masks custom made.

    To us, Michaelw as the funniest, nicest, and most playful friend imaginable. With my parents, his behaviour was that of a humble, kind, and mature adult, a brilliant well read man with interesting thoughtful opinions. My parents spent entire evenings talking with him, learning from him. They saw him as a good influence on their sons.

    Above all, my parents knew Michael’s heart. They were well aware of how responsible and loving Michael was, and they had absolute trust in him, his staff, and his security guards. My father had already spent a substantial amount of time with us on tour, so he knew the crew personally and knew what the schedule was like. He also had a very close relationship with Bill Bray, who ran security.

    In my dad’s book, never mind prison, pedophiles should be thrown to the wolves (he’s from Sicily after all). If he and my mother had any doubts about Michael’s innocence, no matter how small believe me, my brother and I would not have been there, much less stayed.”

  28. Monica permalink
    November 15, 2011 6:35 pm

    David either font is fine. The content always overshadows…:)

  29. November 15, 2011 12:17 pm

    From Frank Cascio’s new book:

    “I don’t live with chronic pain, but as I dealt with my leg, which took a month to heal, I had a taste of what it was like to be hurting all the time. It was hard to sleep.All I wanted was for the pain to go away, and I could see how someone in this situation might become increasingly desperate for relief. I also saw that relief from physical pain came with a seductive side effect. If you were unhappy with your life, the drug had the power to make you forget your unhappiness.”

    “I want to be precise and clear, on the record, so that everyone can read and understand: Michael’s love for children was innocent, and it was profoundly misunderstood. People seemed to have trouble accepting all the good qualities of this incredible man, and were always asking how it could be that he was the greatest singer on earth, and yet enjoy hanging around children all day? How could he perform such explosively sexual, complex songs, and then have nothing but harmless interactions with the kids with whom he surrounded himself? How could he have so many idiosyncracies that seemed weird to the outside observer – the plastic surgery, the bizarre purchases, the secrecy and then not be weird, in other, more offensive ways?

    Yes, Michael had different personas. The same way I became a different person depending on whether I was home with my family, traveling with Michael, or back in school in NJ. The same way we all put on different faces for dealing with different parts of our lives. If Michael’s different images seemed extreme, it was only because his life was more extreme than anyone else’s.”

  30. November 15, 2011 11:44 am

    Lynette, I do not have an agenda. I’m sorry that you believe that I do and this is the second time I’ve been accused of that; first with the the Dr. Klein comments. I have been trying to articulate my beliefs and feelings, as you asked.

    Dysfunctional, by definition has a few meanings, one of which is: “Not operating normally or properly.”

    I do believe, as I stated in my very first comment here, that there is a negative connotation attached to the word “addict” that causes most MJ fans to flinch when they hear the word stated in connection with his name, and I believe that is a mistaken reaction.

    In the past, during tours, Michael used propofol as a means to go to sleep because he was so charged from his performance he could not come down.

    In that sense, the use of propofol, monitored and under the care of a licensed doctor with the proper resuscitating equipment was a proper use, operating normally in the sense of what Michael needed it for – though admittedly unorthodox.

    However, under Murray’s care the use became improper and dysfunctional because of the gross acts of negligence that were outlined during the trial.

    Dysfunctional behavior in an abusive family, for example, will “work” and serve a proper function, if it enables a child to protect itself from the abuse.

    After the child has grown up, in a normal, healthy relationship, the behavior has to be abandoned or altered because outside of the abusive family, it doesn’t work and does not serve it’s proper function of protecting the child from abuse; that’s another example.

  31. lynande51 permalink
    November 15, 2011 11:25 am

    Ameera I think there might be an agenda that you might be following here.What is your final point that you would like to make? Only you can answer that.I don’t follow your belief so is there anything further that you would like to add?
    Dysfunctional by definition is impaired functioning or abnormal functioning.I don’t think that anyone would see the term dysfunctional and think that it is not negative.

  32. November 15, 2011 11:21 am

    @Lynette – you edited your comment while I was answering.

    “You also say that it is not rationalizing or approving because you do not believe in enabling or tolerating dysfunctional behavior but you understand it.So you are pointing out that addictive behaviors are dysfunctional which in anyones language is a negative label.Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t that being judgemental? You sort of contradict yourself from what you have said in previous comments.”

    IMO, dysfunctional is not a negative label.

    Dysfunctional just means that something is not working and needs to be replaced with behavior that does work. Behavior that works in one environment might not work in another and needs to be adjusted or fixed. It’s not negative, to me. We are all dysfunctional in our own way (including myself) because none of use are perfect and all of use have something that we need to learn, that will remain true as long as we live.

  33. November 15, 2011 11:17 am

    @Lynette: Michael when he was talking to Cherilyn Lee was asking about propofol and asking her to monitor him in other words it was suggested to him by someone he did not suggest that himself he was told that it would work by someone else.
    _________________________

    We are all responsible for our own actions. Murray can’t blame Michael for “making” him give Michael propofol, and it can’t be suggested that whoever suggested that Michael use propofol (if that’s the case) is responsible for him asking for it.

    But I don’t think it matters ultimately, (at least it does not to me), whether it was suggested to him by someone else. Propofol was something Michael could never have obtained without the assistance of a professional doctor and so anyone who supplied him with it would be responsible for making that choice.

    @Lynette: “Now was he seeking propofol for how it made him feel or to sleep. How does it suggest that he wanted it for anything else than sleep when he went along with Cherilyn Lee’s suggestion that she do a sleep study on him?”
    ____________________________

    I really don’t see a distinction between whether he was seeking propofol for how it made him feel or sleep. To me the two are so intertwined. And they don’t make me think any less of Michael if it was either or.

    The goal was sleep. Propofol was just an ends to a means. I don’t believe for one minute that Michael was addicted to the substance propofol, mind you but there is a whole emotional/mental component that cannot be dismissed.

    Michael hated to tour. Just the idea of touring would have put so much pressure on him; think of what that would feel like on top of everything else he was dealing with? It would have either triggered the insomnia or exacerbated it. It would have made his insomnia worst.

    @Lynette “Asking for help sleeping does not indicate that he liked how propofol would make him feel and it would make him feel different.”

    Yes, but it also doesn’t indicate that he didn’t. IMO, what Michael liked and wanted was a good night’s sleep.

  34. lynande51 permalink
    November 15, 2011 10:50 am

    And there in lies the rub.Michael when he was talking to Cherilyn Lee was asking about propofol and asking her to monitor him in other words it was suggested to him by someone he did not suggest that himself he was told that it would work by someone else.Now was he seeking propofol for how it made him feel or to sleep. How does it suggest that he wanted it for anything else than sleep when he went along with Cherilyn Lee’s suggestion that she do a sleep study on him? He did that she educated him about sleep hygiene and he showed her that he could not sleep. Asking for help sleeping does not indicate that he liked how propofol would make him feel and it would make him feel different.
    You also say that it is not rationalizing or approving because you do not believe in enabling or tolerating dysfunctional behavior but you understand it.So you are pointing out that addictive behaviors are dysfunctional which in anyones language is a negative label.Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t that being judgemental? You sort of contradict yourself from what you have said in previous comments.

  35. November 15, 2011 10:38 am

    Okay, well, let me then make this clear from the outset. I am not a recovering addict. I have never taken any kind of drugs or even smoked.

    I do not have anyone close to me who is a recovering addict, although I have participated in seminars for recovering addicts at womens shelters, (I was there to talk about recovering from childhood abuse.)

    Re: Michael, I see you make a distinction between addict and an addict in control of his addiction.

    I have stated previously that there is no such thing as an “ex” addict. I believe once an addict, always an addict; that it is a life long struggle.

    I also believe the labels don’t matter much. An addict in recovery and an addict who has gone “off the wagon” so to speak still has the underlying factors driving the behavior to contend with, and so I what I see is a person in pain, struggling to deal with their issues.

    I respect your field of expertise and your point of view, and I am in no way dismissing it. My view on addiction is that a lot of us have them.

    Some of use are addicted to food, to work, to dysfunctional relationships, to television, to gossip, to exercise, to drinking, to gambling, to sex, to the internet, etc. I can go on.

    This pretty much sums up my beliefs on the matter:

    How is a behavioral addiction similar to a substance behavioral addiction?

    “In actuality, all addictions are the same and a substance is no different than a behavior. There must be something reinforcing, it must make you feel better for you to do it again. If you go gamble and you go to Las Vegas, you get excited, you win a big amount of money, you’re gonna feel good, it’s just like doing a drug. There is an emotional component or people don’t to return to it. People don’t become addicted to celery because it doesn’t make them feel better. So a process or a behavior is just as addicting as a substance because it has the ability to change the way the person feels or experiences something.

    Is the physical experience of behavioral addiction the same as the physical experience of substance addiction?

    Pharmacologically, biologically, it’s exactly the same with substance versus a behavior. One is just with the outside substance; the other one is sort of part of the process, part of doing it over and over again. There is a reward in it. People do not do things if there’s no reward in it unless they feel better after it’s all done. Like video games, it’s fun. What’s fun? A feeling.”

    http://www.videojug.com/interview/behavioral-addiction-basics

    There’s lot’s more on the link which articulates my beliefs.
    __________________________________

    N e way, that is why I said that Michael, I’m sure, “liked” the feeling of propofol — he wanted to sleep; if propofol didn’t “work” in his mind; if he didn’t like it, he wouldn’t have asked for it. People do what seems to “work” for them and what makes them feel good. I’m sure getting a good nights sleep felt good to Michael; that’s what he wanted. He wasn’t trying to get high. He was trying to sleep.

    Like Maya Angelou says, we do what we know how to do until they know better. I have absolutely no judgement of Michael or anyone about it. We’re all on this Earth to learn, IMO and I disagree with anyone who would judge Michael or anyone who develops an addiction, for trying, in the way that they know how, to feel better.

    It’s not rationalizing or approving, because I do not believe in enabling or tolerating dysfunctional behavior, but I do understand it.

  36. lynande51 permalink
    November 15, 2011 10:18 am

    I do not know if it is you that is a recovering addict or if it is someone you love? It might be the latter. In any case I applaud you if you are because as I said before that is a struggle that I would never wish on my worst enemy.If it is a loved one all you can do is stop rationalizing it and love them.

  37. November 15, 2011 10:11 am

    @ Lynette – I’m still unclear in what you’re asking me. When you say is this projection on your part, are you asking me if I am a recovering addict?

    Before I explain why I believe the way I do, I want to know if that is what you are asking me.

  38. lynande51 permalink
    November 15, 2011 10:05 am

    Ameera we all have our individual ideas about what Michael was like. When I read through your comments I see someone who is willing to adhere to the idea that Michael was an addict and that you somehow see that as more acceptable than a person that has control of his addiction. Why is that a better Michael for you to embrace than the Michael that I see who was in control of his addiction. I do do this for a living, I really do. I deal with addicts’ everyday and do know that there is no evidence what so ever that Michael had addictive behaviors. I work in a state psychiatric hospital and can tell you that everything that has come out has everything to do with what Murray said. Why is it that it is your version of Michael that you have come to embrace? What is it that makes you feel the way you do?

  39. November 15, 2011 10:01 am

    @Lynette: I guess we’re both confused then.

    I explained why I liked the story at the end. I think we convert others by how we treat them. I think actions speak louder than words and if we are respectful, reasonable and open to hearing other people’s thoughts (as long as they treat us the same) they will be more open to hear what we have to say and more willing to believe as we believe, or at least consider that our beliefs might be valid. I am speaking more in person than online, though and about relationships overtime.

    I hope this helps you understand me better.

    Now, please can you tell me what you meant by this question: Is this also projection on your part? Because if it is we should be aware of that as well.

  40. lynande51 permalink
    November 15, 2011 9:51 am

    ameera I am not sure what your parable was implying? Perhaps you should just clarify it for me so I do not misunderstand.

  41. November 15, 2011 9:44 am

    @Monica, living with a hater can’t be easy, I hope you have success in changing their mind. Thanks for saying you understood my Christian right analogy; I was trying to be as clear as I could.

    @Lynette, I don’t understand your question. What are you asking? What do you think might be projection on my part?

  42. November 15, 2011 9:40 am

    @Lynette, there’s this story that I love, it’s about a Christian missionary named John. He somehow lost his way, and became separated from his party and stranded on an island of natives. He ended up living with them many years. He taught their children, help their sick, and worked along side them for many years. The people he traveled with gave up searching for him and thought he was dead.

    Much later, another missionary party came to the same island, preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. As the missionaries described Jesus, the natives became very excited. They said that they had heard of Jesus Christ and new him personally.
    The missionaries were pleased, thinking that the natives had already converted to Christianity, but instead the natives took them to John, and the natives said, “This is the Jesus you’re speaking of!!!!”.

    Anyway, I like the story so much because I think how you really convert people is not by what you say so much sometimes but how you say it and how you live.

  43. monica permalink
    November 15, 2011 9:32 am

    Of course, thank you David. These posts are so necessary in preventing further damage to MJ’s image and legacy. I really want to applaud you. Funny…close to two years ago I went into my, “Current Issues and Enduring Questions” from college because I decided I had had enough and was going to refresh my memory on fallacies and put them to use where MJ was concerned. I didn’t get far. I actually began that because, unfortunately, I live with a hater…a very sad fact. I will utilize the tools provided in the unlikely event the issues are ever discussed again. However, in the meantime it is so useful where it relates to others…online, etc. I usually don’t go the route of conversion in regular, daily life either (ameera). Again, David thanks…your voice in your writing is always refreshing and practical.

    Ameera, just wanted to say that I understand what you meant in your Christian-right comparison. Sometimes I think that our truest intentions are lost in translation even though we do our best to convey what is on our minds. You have much to contribute as does everyone here.

    We are all here for the same reason (person):)

  44. lynande51 permalink
    November 15, 2011 9:31 am

    Ameera of course the idea that Michael liked being put under is speculation on your part. I now have a question for you that I have long postponed because I did not want to be confrontational but here it is.Is this also projection on your part?Because if it is we should be aware of that as well.

  45. November 15, 2011 9:26 am

    @Lynette, even though I think Murray is a complete liar, I do believe that Michael struggled with addiction. It doesn’t matter to me whether it was active or he was in recovery, because anything can cause a relapse.

    I think, even though it’s pure speculation, it’s not unreasonable to believe that Michael “liked” the feel of being put under when propofol was introduced into his system, because he was having such a hard time falling asleep.

    Either way, that has nothing to do with what Murray did and his culpability in Michael’s death. Murray was guilty as sin.

  46. lynande51 permalink
    November 15, 2011 9:26 am

    Ameera the title of our blog is Vindicating Michael which should tell you what the goal is at least for me.I think we all have different motivations here but we all have the same goal.What we want to see is the day that Michael Jackson is not only respected as an artist but as the man he was which was a good man.That is why each of us address a different aspect of the gross misrepresentation in the media of what kind of man he was.Our goal is to have the world understand that what many believe about him is based on lies generated through yellow journalism.Do I want to convert the indifferent population? The answer to that is yes.Because once they are educated they will come to respect Michael the man.

  47. November 15, 2011 9:11 am

    @ Karrina,“In the last paragraf re people among other ideas YOU state”they may not be psychologically healthy,both fans and haters”,And You continue:” ofcourse you don´t know before you start talking to them”..Did you mean
    Mentally ill people?-Nothing ill about you,you just tend to jump from a concept to another somewhat frivolously.Ie the Converting,Christian
    right and not psychologically un-healthy.”

    _______________

    @Karrina, I agreed with what you said, that’s why I quoted you. I agree that there are more categories than just hater, skeptic and fan.

    When I asked: Is it the goal to convert all indifferents, I was asking a question, not just of you specifically but in general, of everyone. I was not making a statement.

    I’m sorry you’re having trouble understanding me.

    @Karrina: “@almeera,there has for sure been mentally ill people who have hurt Michael in a most shrewd and conniving manner.And many with considerable peronality disorders,+combinations of the 2.”

    ______________________

    Yes, I agree, but I’m not sure what you mean by “+combination of the 2″. I think we don’t share the same native language and that may be the source of problem

    Christian rights can have a certain personality that can be very forceful and dominating, where they need people to make people believe as they believe and they cannot “hear” others; that is why I used them as a comparison. I have seen MJ fans like that.

    I was not saying that you are like that. My comment was not personally directed to you.

    I hope this is more clear.

  48. lynande51 permalink
    November 15, 2011 9:04 am

    Is Franks book available yet? Did he ever say anything about Jordan?

  49. lynande51 permalink
    November 15, 2011 8:54 am

    I have said some things too especially leading up to the trial.I do know what addiction is.I know how it works because I see it every day which is why it is so important to clarify what it is when we refer to it in Michael.I think alot of it has to do with timing just before the trial and during it.I knew from the get go that Murray was going in that direction and what he was going to do with it because his only defense was to paint Michael as an addict. He tried to use a complete falsehood about a propofol addiction. Let me try to explain what a propofol addiction is so that it can be better understood.
    The only people to date that have had propofol addictions are usually CRNA’s,Anesthesiologists and Nurses.Some of those cannot be confirmed because they were ruled suicides. The way that it is discovered that a person has an addiction to propofol is because they die from it. Now there is no such thing as a physical addiction to propofol because the brain does not contain propofol receptors like it does opiate receptors.The reason for that is opiates exist in nature, whereas propofol is a synthetic drug evidenced by it’s rapid metabolization.
    What the people that abused propofol were seeking is a very brief euphoric hallucinagenic effect much like LSD only happier. They liked that effect and would give this to themselves to produce it.That is a psychological addiction which is considered addiction behavior.It is that behavior that is missing in the Michael equation.
    Michael if you listen to what Cherilyn Lee says was looking for sleep. He was told by Dr.’s that it would be safe if someone were to monitor him.That is not someone that had experience with propofol or knew how to use it.It was someone very naive to it’s use and believed what he was told by these doctors.It also does not say that he really liked how it made him feel that is what is missing in all the equations of Michael’s addiction.Not at anypoint does he say “but I like it so I want to use it”.
    Murray was the only person that suggested that Michael had an addiction to propofol and that came from his statement to police.Murray was the one that suggested that Michael was relapsed into addiction of opiates.To me to believe that Michael was actively addicted to anything would be to believe the words of the man that killed him and simply put I do not believe a single word that man said.
    From now on one of the first things I am going to ask someone is please tell me when you heard Michael Jackson say that he liked how the drugs made him feel.

  50. Teva permalink
    November 15, 2011 7:33 am

    @Shelly & Carm
    I think fans don’t like to hear anything that puts Michael in a negative light even if true because he has a precarious public image, and the need to protect it from further degradation. Personally they are things I could have done without knowing.

  51. sanemjfan permalink
    November 15, 2011 7:16 am

    Guys, I’m getting mixed reviews on the Arial 14 font, so for the next post I will use Arial 12, which is smaller than the 14, but larger than the WordPress font. We’ll see how that looks! I’m sure that will be acceptable for most people. Personally, the WordPress font is very small for me, and I prefer a larger font. I will post part 2 on Wednesday!

  52. November 15, 2011 5:59 am

    @almeera,there has for sure been mentally ill people who have hurt Michael in a most shrewd and conniving manner.And many with considerable peronality disorders,+combinations of the 2.

  53. Tahlia permalink
    November 15, 2011 5:52 am

    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.

    Terri
    And you are one of those people taking thing sensitively Tahlia and are you the bees knees on this cause you have researched it all by the sounds of thing you are being a stalker. It is plain rude to call someone a troll for having and opinion. You are not an expert on the situation Tahlia so stop with the I know everything act

    Tahlia
    I just feel it’s important to make sure that when things are being said about other people that they’re correct. Nobody likes it when things are being said about them that aren’t true. I don’t think I’m the ‘bee’s knees’ for researching, I believe it’s the responsible thing to do. I never said I knew everything, I just wanted to bring clarity to this. Seran was called a troll for commenting when she admitted that she didn’t know much about the situation due to lack of research.

    Terri
    So what if someone admits that they don’t know something it’s right to call them a troll? I hope you aren’t a parent or a teacher because that is a bad lesson you are teaching.
    And evidence you can supply all mj’s medical records for when he was born can you? Well that is mighty good research you have done there.

    Sue
    Sorry Terri, but I believe I was the one being attacked for having an opinion. Apparently some people are allowed to have opinions whether or not they are based on fact and others aren’t even when they back up their opinion with factual evidence. I’m sorry you missed the trial, it was very interesting and very informative.

    Tahlia
    If someone admits they don’t know something but talk about it anyway and try to state things as facts I would say, yes, that’s a troll. I never said I had MJ’s medical records from birth, just his autopsy report, which was released to the public early in 2010.

    Terri
    You gave your opinion and then when others commented again and you didn’t agree you decided to share your opinion again. If you didn’t notice I didn’t comment after your first opinion so you cannot say that you couldn’t have your opinion

    Sue
    I didn’t share my opinion again, I simply gave evidence to back up what I believed and why.

    Tahlia
    I didn’t accuse anyone of not letting me have an opinion. It’s not me people are disagreeing with, it’s the medical evidence.

    Terri
    You say you have researched this matter have you only researched what you want? In that case you don’t have or know all the facts correct? So if you only have his autopsy report then how can you say he was not a junkie? Tahlia the comment about opinions was not directed at you sorry for the misunderstanding with that. And giving evidence to back up what you believe is giving your opinion twice sue

    Tahlia
    The autopsy report includes the toxicology report, which has what medications were in his system and how much. There is also a list of medications he was tested for which weren’t in his system. That is the evidence that was used in court, so… yes, it is everything. The only other medical evidence presented in court was to help the jury understand what medication was being used and what it was for and what it does. Do you have any medical evidence that supports the addiction theory? No problems about the misunderstanding with the other post Terri, I’ve done that too :)

    Terri
    I am just saying that his autopsy and toxicology was for his time of death and say 2 weeks prior to his death of what was in his system, is there any evidence for before that time that suggest that he wasn’t a junkie?

    Tahlia
    Yes. Here’s a list of prescription medications that were found in his home, it has when they were prescribed, how much was there to start with and then how much there was left. You can see that the medication wasn’t being overused. You can see this on this link, pages 5-10 http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/09/mj_autopsy.pdf

    Sue
    Sorry Terri, I disagree, I was merely backing up what I was saying with evidence.

    Terri
    ok so that was what was found in his home, and you think that was it? Everybody has a price, money can make people do anything

    Tahlia
    The problem with that is that everyone would have to have predicted MJ’s death and get rid of the evidence before the day he died so nobody would find it.

    Terri
    So what you are saying is people don’t come in give him drugs and take the evidence with them? You think people are that stupid? The only person that know the truth and whole truth has gone to his grave taking his secrets with him

    Tahlia
    There were a lot of empty propofol vials in his home. If the doctor didn’t want to get caught why didn’t he throw them away?

    Terri
    That is only 1 doctor. And he got caught and is paying the price for that.

    Tahlia
    Murray is the only one who was giving MJ propofol, and that’s the only drug he wasn’t meant to be taking. I haven’t seen any medical evidence that supports the drug addict theory, only media speculation. The press is about ratings and money, it hasn’t been about truth for a long time, particularly with the American media, they’re the worst.

  54. November 15, 2011 5:51 am

    @ameera,in the first paragraph it is YOU who state ,”but is it a goal to convert all indifferents” and then go on to compare this to the Christian right.You inrtoduced this idea.I never talked about “convesions”that idea came from you.Neither do I believe in preaching of any kind.
    In the last paragraf re people among other ideas YOU state”they may not be psychologically healthy,both fans and haters”,And You continue:” ofcourse you don´t know before you start talking to them”..Did you mean
    Mentally ill people?-Nothing ill about you,you just tend to jump from a concept to another somewhat frivolously.Ie the Converting,Christian right and not psychologically un-healthy.I am a sceptic re converions of any kind(in people).There can be a change of mind,but that is more of a process.
    PS I prefer the old font.

  55. November 15, 2011 5:24 am

    Acutally, some fans started to insult Frank Cascio because of that. I found that stupid.

  56. Tahlia permalink
    November 15, 2011 5:05 am

    Here is a short debate I had with a hater on Yahoo a while ago:

    Hater:
    I think Dr. Murray should get to house hunt in Liechtenstein as Wacko Jacko and his family were doing in 2004…..you know, just in case the trial’s outcome is less than favorable. Dr. Murray should get a chance to run – you know, like Jacko and his leeches (AKA “family”) were looking to do “just in case.”

    Why Liechtenstein? Well, that little nation had no extradition treaty with the United States…..just like Bahrain.

    The whole idea of the Jacko family escape plan was spoken by brother Jermaine, remember. Don’t conveniently forget about that just because it wasn’t the brightest thing any Jacko ever freely spoke. You know, such as “I have slept in a bed with many children.”

    Me:
    How long have you researched this, and what documents transcripts and evidence do you have to prove what you’re saying?

    Hater:
    Tahlia, go ahead and do a search on the phrase/headline “Jacksons look for home in Liechtenstein: report” – you should find what you need to know about the house hunting they did there. That was in August of 2004, or nearly a year before the molestation trial.

    Me:
    If somebody is found guilty in a court of law they go straight from court to prison, no exceptions. Michael’s lawyer has said that in the case of a guilty verdict Michael would have been taken straight from court to prison via helicopter.
    Hater:
    Then why else would they have been looking at escape routes to at least two nations with no extradition treaties with the United States? Think about it.

    They understood what Roman Polanski did and sought to copy him. Going to France would’ve been too obvious, of course, so they had to look elsewhere to throw off the dogs.

    I understand that the Jacko fan pages probably wouldn’t mention the lack of extradition treaties, but that’s all true as well.

    Me:
    Michael bought property all over the globe, property overseas is good for investment purposes. The fact stands that he would have gone from court straight to prison in the event of a guilty verdict, it was all organized. Have you studied the trial transcripts?

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/71600.pdf

    You are correct about Bahrain having no extradition treaty, but Liechtenstein does:
    Liechtenstein International Extradition Treaty with the United States
    May 20, 1936, Date-Signed
    June 28, 1937, Date-In-Force
    STATUS:
    Treaty signed at Bern on May 20, 1936. It was Ratified by Liechtenstein on October 30, 1936. Senate advice and consent to ratification on April 27, 1937. It was Ratified by the President of the United States on May 19, 1937. Ratifications exchanged at Bern on June 28, 1937. Entered into force on June 28, 1937. It was Proclaimed by the President of the United States on July 8, 1937.
    EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE PRINCIPALITY OF LIECHTENSTEIN

    http://internationalextraditionblog.com/2011/05/17/liechtenstein-extradition-treaty-with-the-united-states/

    Bahrain is a place that isn’t crawling with press, and Michael went there after the trial was over. Jermaine was the one trying to organize all that, and kept Michael in the dark about this plan.

    http://www.panamalaw.org/USA_and_extradition_treaties.html

    Interestingly, this person didn’t reply to me again after that.

    I love this post David, I can relate to almost every one of those hater arguments, I’ve debated with haters many times, and they all use the same tactics. I always refer to this site as my primary source of information when debating with people, and I’m happy to be taught how to better debate with these people.

  57. Carm permalink
    November 15, 2011 4:29 am

    Excellent post, as usual.
    Roger Friedman has written an article about Frank Cascio’s new book. According to Friedman Frank goes into great detail about Michael’s relationships with children in order to put to rest this fallacy of inappropriate behaviour with kids. I think this book will be an invaluable resource since Frank was a very close friend to Michael and spent a great deal of time with him at Neverland–no one can give a better first hand account than he can. He also said that Michael had a problem with drugs, which I know will upset fans. But let’s get real–Michael was only human. If I had to deal with all the crap Michael had to deal with I’d have a problem with drugs too. What’s truly important is that Frank stands behind his friend and refutes ALL the allegations against him.

    http://www.showbiz411.com/

  58. November 15, 2011 4:03 am

    @kaarin22 : “ameera,in comment below I said”no one can be compelled to have a great interest…” In your response you agree and continue”but is the goal to convert all idifferents..” and then you go onto the Christian right- some controversial logic here.
    _____________________________

    I was asking a question. I used Christian’s rights as an example. I said: “I know that many Christians believe that it is their calling to convert as many people as they can; Do some MJ fans believe this, too?”

    Do you have a question about what I wrote? I can clarify what I meant if it’s unclear.

  59. Truth Prevail permalink
    November 15, 2011 3:36 am

    wow that about article slamming michael as a parent is completely discusting and false after reading that i am fully aware jus like i was before that michael was truly misunderstood!! without a doubt he was the one who was abused to the max! in that about article they describe michael as some crazy kid collecting witch doctor!!! with is jus sad and flase as i have seen the shameless bashir documentary and fully understand why he had his kids wear a mask! the article also says michael was begin rough on baby blanket while feeding him that is also untrue they just like ti pick on him! they investigated all they like but his kids werent taken away from simply because he didnt do anything wrong to them!

  60. November 15, 2011 12:30 am

    ameera,in comment below I said”no one can be compelled to have a great interest…” In your response you agree and continue”but is the goal to convert all idifferents..” and then you go onto the Christian right- some controversial logic here.

  61. November 14, 2011 11:54 pm

    I don´t preach “Michael Jackson”.When you are with friends it is only natural to put out feelers in aereas that you yourself are interested in.Many people know that there has been a trial and to mention that is enough to understand how they feel and they can continue on the topic if they wish. What you say about apathy and people in general ,well it is just so.There are many important things in life worth discussing , topics people may want or not want to discuss.

  62. November 14, 2011 11:52 pm

    Great post, thank you very much. I´m enjoying every word you have written on this one.
    You know,some times, talk about MJ with some people it´s like unravel a tangle of thread; you are on the brink of despair and frustration, but you can not stop. With perseverance and patience you get to have unraveled the thread so that your interlocutor is able to see the thread as it is. And most people are surprised how the thread is, and like it.

    “What do you think of the larger font that I’m using? Instead of using the standard WordPress font, I’ve been using Word’s Arial 14pt font. I think it’s easier on the eyes because the words are larger and easier to read. I plan on using this font from now on. Do you guys like it?”

    My eyes will thank you.

  63. November 14, 2011 10:26 pm

    @ kaarin22 “I think there are more categories than haters or fans They are the indifferents. Now no one can be compelled to have a great interest or knowledge about Michael though he was famous,great etc.If you open a discussion with these indifferents they may have some scanty info re Michael. ”

    I agree with this statement but is the goal to convert all indifferents? Personally, I don’t strike up conversations about Michael with people who are disinterested – it reminds me sort of like the Christian rights who turn every conversation into a conversation about Jesus, and ultimately turn people completely off. I know that many Christians believe that it is their calling to convert as many people as they can; Do some MJ fans believe this, too?

    I’ve often had people ask me completely surprised, You’re a Michael Jackson fan? Because in the circle that I associate with them, I haven’t mentioned it. When they do and mention the charges, then I go into the truth, but not overbearingly. Sometimes I’ve even said to a person who is really intent on pushing the lie that Michael was guilty: Please don’t talk like that about Michael; it really upsets me – and then I’ll explain why.

    I think telling the truth about Michael is most effective if a person already has an interest or if the topic has just naturally come up.

    Apathy is just a plague, at least here in America. Too many people don’t care to involve themselves in anything that doesn’t directly affect them. Also, people have different personalities. A person who is indifferent may not even be capable of having a rational conversation or the least bit interested. They may not be psychologically healthy, and unfortunately those types exist in both categories of fans and haters. Of course, you won’t know that until you start talking to them.

  64. November 14, 2011 10:10 pm

    Thank you, thank you for this! I don’t know how many times I have sat with gritted teeth, longing to throw something at the TV, andnot because of “haters” or “skeptics” but so called “supporters” who don’t even know how to effectively argue the facts! To be honest and fair, however, sometimes MJ supporters are given so little air time that it’s hard to make a truly effective rebuttal. They are constantly being rushed, butted in on by over zealous hosts, and interrupted for commercial breaks, all while being reminded, “We have five seconds left…” In that kind of circumstance, it would be hard for anyone to make an effective arguement. But so often, these well meaning guests do not even have the facts at their disposal, or like the skeptics and reporters themselves, tend to tiptoe around the issue of calling out MJ’s accusers because-well, God forbid we should sully THEIR names. Unfortunately, tiptoeing around the issue is not going to make it go away, and presenting fallacy for fallacy is not going to solve anything, either.

  65. Susan permalink
    November 14, 2011 10:06 pm

    @sanemjfan;

    Another brilliant post! Thank you. This is the go-to site for the facts, for sure.

    I would pay good money to see you in a debate with Dimond. You know you would mop the floor with her!

    Very much looking forward to your continuing articles.

    I prefer the older font. Many thanks.

  66. November 14, 2011 5:42 pm

    I think there are more categories than haters or fans. They are the indifferents.Now no one can be compelled to have a great interest or knowledge about Michael though he was famous,great etc.If you open a discussion with these indifferents they may have some scanty info re Michael. Often it is negative as they only have had a glance at some cheap articles.Some are willing to listen and hear some more, especially now that the murray trial has been on. In my expierience,(BTW it is not that large)people are more willing to listen and learn.

    I think this is a good time to talk about Michael,starting from the verdict and then go backwards. Fortunately or unfortunately I have very little to go on here when it comes to books or newspapers.I have lived in UK and the states for decades ,but no longer, Most of his best songs have also been removed from youtube here.That is a big loss.I have good sound system on my computer and used to listen to MJ´s music.Now most of the best cannot be shown due to producer rights. You can easily get Madonna,Lady Gaga and so on.
    PS I liked the old font.

  67. Susanne permalink*
    November 14, 2011 4:04 pm

    This is an excellent lesson for the fanbase, David. Very much needed! I am so often disappointed about comments of fans I read on FB in various groups. It is wonderful that MJ attracted and was loved by so many different kinds of people, but on the other side it is necessary that we are all on the same level of information, argumentation and the ability to convince.
    But I also realized that in other countries it is often a language problem when fans are not well-informed, because their English knowledge ist not good enough and most of the important information, like trial transcripts, is only existing in English.

    I am also looking forward very much to your post on Christmas Day.

  68. lynande51 permalink
    November 14, 2011 10:05 am

    @ Nan yes I think Murray counted on the decades of negative press being on his side. I think that one of the most telling things that he did that day was when he was first talking about propofol he said ” it’s just a drug, and anesthesia that they use to sedate people”.You could already tell that his intentions were to downplay the role of propofol and point at opiates.
    It was that kind of thinking that made him think he could get away with what he did.It also made it incredibly hard to charge him with anything if he was going to take it to trial because of finding a jury that was not prejudiced against himm because of the bad press.
    The reason that this post is so necessary is that up until now almost all advocates of Michael have either been weak or angry when they reply.I can give you a good example that happened within weeks of his death.TMZ put an article up about how Michael lived in this messy house and used photos of post 2003 Neverland to show how messy he was.When I replied to the post that this article was erroneous because it was Neverland and not the house he was living in when he died the comment was removed.I was very polite and simply pointed out that they had the wrong pictures.My comment was deleted.TMZ and Harvey Levin do not want rational they want the angry commentator on their site because that is what drives the site..
    The same thing happened the other night on the Murray documentary.They knew they were in front of a camera and that one day the public would see the photos that they put up as to how he lived.So they show how messy the bathroom was.There was one problem with it.One of the photos shows the same jacket and pants on the floor that were taken by Elisa Fleak so obviously if it was fairly neat the evening that he died the viewers were once again lead to believe something that was not true.That is why it is always best to check for fact before you comment to some things otherwise a fan will just come off as weak or angry.

  69. nan permalink
    November 14, 2011 8:57 am

    @sanemjfan..
    I think she reads this because parts have been posted from here on her page and some of the info regarding Guiterrez from this site has been on the daily beast remarks and she has responded to it and I just think it gets under her skin..so yeah..I think she checks this site..
    I happen to have been on that same thing you are talking about on her page..The guy you were talking to was Glen..You can have a rational conversation with him..
    I really dont like it when people go on a rant on her page..It is rude and it reflects badly on all advocates for MJ..
    Besides , I am not on there to have a war with someone, and obviously Diane is certainly not going to change her stance..but some others on there could be reachable if they are not attacked for having a different viewpoint ..
    media had a 20 year head start with the negativity..just have to chip away at it..
    Not easy though..My daughter goes to a prep school in Conn. and I had to to a mothers dinner in the Sept after MJ died..
    Here is this sweet looking headmistress with the silver hair and pearls launching into an attack on “Michael Jackson!!”….I was stunned..
    But people have preconceived ideas about him because he has been public fodder for so long..
    Look at how Murray walked in and told the cops that line of b.s. in his interview.At that time the press was all about secret rooms and veiled kids..I think Murray felt pretty confident they would believe anything he said…
    So I think progress is being made ..
    And this site has been a tremendous help with getting info out there.
    BTW..I googled the headmistress and she has ties to John and Martha Mitchell from the Nixon era..MJ was never convicted of a crime but i believe Mr Mitchell was ..hahaha..:)

  70. sanemjfan permalink
    November 14, 2011 8:53 am

    @ Jovanna
    Thanks! I updated the caption under that photo of MJ with makeup based on your comment!

  71. Jovana permalink
    November 14, 2011 8:13 am

    Thank you for another amazing post. I will just add one thing, I hope that people understand that Michael used make up because of his condition, because he had too, not because he wanted to.

  72. November 14, 2011 8:01 am

    @ David, yes, that reply was in the cesspool that is known as Topix! lol! God, but there are some deranged characters posting there!!!

    I’m just so sick and tired of seeing fans who are unable to effectively defend MJ! Watching Manning and Garcia debate Dimond was the last straw!

    I, too, think those interviews are staged to paint MJ in a negative light, with the producers choosing the most inarticulate and uninformed, sort of like the news always picks the most ignorant person on the street to comment on a tragedy. It IS very frustrating to watch, especially when you’re sitting there thinking, YOU SHOULD HAVE SAID THIS!!!!!

    But I have to say, I love the motivation you have for writing this piece:

    “I jumped in the thread and politely conversed with Dimond’s fans, and explained that MJ was innocent and why so many MJ fans dislike Dimond. One guy actually THANKED ME for being so level-headed, and he said that he doesn’t hate MJ, but hates the way that MJ’s fans act in their attempt to defend him. Writing hateful messages on Dimond’s wall accomplishes NOTHING, and it makes us all look “crazy and rabid”. He also said that he had some real concerns about certain aspects of MJ’s life, such as sleeping in the same bed as other people’s kids AFTER 1993, among others. We had a civil conversation, and I gave him a link to Charles Thomson’s “Most Shameful Episode……” article, and he said he’d read it. That experience was a real eye opener for me, and it shows that not everyone who has doubts about MJ’s innocence feels hatred or malice towards him. There needs to be a better dialogue with fans and skeptics, and I hope this series can help be a catalyst for that.”

    Too many people observe the hateful and nasty ways that some MJ fans behave and then attach those attributes to all MJ fans; it is why I’ve always hated the word “fan” because it sounds too much like fanatic, and certain MJ fans act the part! I am not fanatical and I don’t want to be treated like a fanatic either.

    I love to converse/communicate, even debate but I hate senseless arguments, name-calling and just down right nasty behavior. I don’t see how anyone can engage in that type of behavior and not see that they are a bully. Plus, it is so removed from the man who Michael was. I don’t see how one can say they love and admire Michael but not embody some of his most apparent qualities or at least aspire to.

    So if this series can help those who are passionately devoted to defending Michael, and who need to, learn a better way to dialogue with those who may have a negative view point of him, then I think that is great!!!!

    p.s. My two cents: I rather like that former font better. : )

  73. Hannah permalink
    November 14, 2011 7:53 am

    P.S…. I like the new font :)

  74. Hannah permalink
    November 14, 2011 7:52 am

    David,
    I didnt even finish the article yet but when I got to the part when you talked about pastors trash talking MJ I had to leave a comment so I wouldnt forget! I love how you are posting a blog refuting what they say. When I read what you were saying about the pastors and churches talking bad about MJ I said “AMENNNN” out loud. I can count at least 2-3 times when I have been in church and my own pastor or pastors wife have said something about MJ, and let me tell you… I walked out. Let alone the countless videos I have seen on Youtube of some “self-righteous pastor” going on and on like they know everything when really they know NOTHING because the do not know the facts. I just think its sooo unfair and I cannot tell you how happy I will be to see that post. Im just sad I have to wait till Christmas :(

    Thanks for everything!

  75. sanemjfan permalink
    November 14, 2011 7:44 am

    Guys,
    What do you think of the larger font that I’m using? Instead of using the standard WordPress font, I’ve been using Word’s Arial 14pt font. I think it’s easier on the eyes because the words are larger and easier to read. I plan on using this font from now on. Do you guys like it?

  76. sanemjfan permalink
    November 14, 2011 7:42 am

    @ Nan
    How do you say you are his friend , his soul mate like LMP would lead you to believe , but are too lazy to READ??

    This is the EXACT mentality that I motivated me to write this series! But my ire has been directed at people who call themselves diehard fans, but only have a rudimentary knowledge of the allegations! I’ve once talked to a person whose FB page is practically a shrine to MJ, she has gone to Forest Lawn and many other MJ landmarks numerous times, yet didn’t know how Victor Gutierrez is? It’s crazy!

    What makes you think that Dimond reads this blog? Have people tweeted her links to this blog? I know that some have posted my rebuttal to her on her FB page. I would assume that she would dismiss this blog as “just another fansite”, but if she really is reading this, then I’m flattered! LOL!

  77. nan permalink
    November 14, 2011 7:30 am

    Thank you for writing this..
    As for D Dimond , my theory on her and panel discussions , is that they purposely dont put someone with facts against her..they use a novice to the tv business
    Because they want MJ to appear guilty..
    They dont put Geraldo up against her, they put people with little or no experience on tv on and they cant say something in a sound bite…
    They end up saying how nice he was…pfft
    In that in session thing ,I saw one of MJ defenders basically hand her a gift, and I wont put it here because I believes she reads this blog..
    I did however see Larry Nimmer on one of those shows and the guy who was interviewing, brought up the allegations and masterfully switched into another subject, BUT Larry went right back to the allegations and got his point across…not everybody is as good at it because they are out of their element…
    Some people are just excited to be on tv..
    There are many of his so called close friends that have never read any of the transcripts.I emailed the Rabbi when he was on tv one time saying he wasnt sure and gave him a link to Mesereau closing argument and told him to start there..

    How do you say you are his friend , his soul mate like LMP would lead you to believe , but are too lazy to READ??
    I look forward to your next installment..:))

  78. sanemjfan permalink
    November 14, 2011 7:23 am

    @ ameera
    Thanks for your compliments! Yes, this was a labor of love for me. it’s around 80 pages, but it only took around 3 weeks to finish, which is much faster than many of my previous posts! I guess I’m getting more efficient, huh? LOL!

    You made some valid points about dealing with haters. I guess I should rename the post to “How to Recognize and Refute the Fallacies Used by MJ Haters WHO ARE WILLING TO ENGAGE IN INTELLIGENT DEBATE!” lol!

    I’m just so sick and tired of seeing fans who are unable to effectively defend MJ! Watching Manning and Garcia debate Dimond was the last straw! From my experience, most haters can be refuted with facts, and I’m fortunate to never have encountered someone who acted in the ways you described (insulting my character, etc.)

    Another motivation I had for writing this post was a conversation I had with someone on Diane Dimond’s FB page. After I posted my rebuttal to her a few months ago, some fans started posting hateful comments on her wall, and some of Dimond’s fans responded equally with hate. I jumped in the thread and politely conversed with Dimond’s fans, and explained that MJ was innocent and why so many MJ fans dislike Dimond. One guy actually THANKED ME for being so level-headed, and he said that he doesn’t hate MJ, but hates the way that MJ’s fans act in their attempt to defend him. Writing hateful messages on Dimond’s wall accomplishes NOTHING, and it makes us all look “crazy and rabid”. He also said that he had some real concerns about certain aspects of MJ’s life, such as sleeping in the same bed as other people’s kids AFTER 1993, among others. We had a civil conversation, and I gave him a link to Charles Thomson’s “Most Shameful Episode……” article, and he said he’d read it. That experience was a real eye opener for me, and it shows that not everyone who has doubts about MJ’s innocence feels hatred or malice towards him. There needs to be a better dialogue with fans and skeptics, and I hope this series can help be a catalyst for that.

    In a future post, I will included several foolproof questions that fans can ask to anyone who thinks MJ was guilty in 1993 and/or 2005. These questions are based on facts, and require much research and intelligence to answer, and they’re designed to silence anyone who tries to rely on fallacies.

    I think I also saw that same hater mention my name change, too! Was it on Topix? I know they slammed this blog when I posted those new photos of the Arvizos!

  79. November 14, 2011 5:50 am

    Well, I was waiting all weekend for this post and I must say, you’re out did yourself!!!! Thank you so much. I especially love this line:

    “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.”

    Now I want to say something: I think the post excellently describes and gives examples of many ways that “haters” (for lack of a better term) use fallacies to support their positions but I have to say, I don’t believe anyone can successfully debate a hater because you know what? They lie!!!!!

    I believe you can say your piece and be done with it but if you have noticed haters have the unique ability to turn off their hearing when they hear/read anything that doesn’t jive with their POV. They will also lie about what they’ve said or try to twist it and make it into something else.

    So you can tell them the truth and they will completely ignore you and repeat what they’ve said (or change it) or they will attack your character, your spelling, the fact that your mother has red hair-whatever they can say to detract from the great point you’ve just made.

    I really think it is fruitful and worthy to engage skeptics in conversation but better to just point out to haters that their argument is fallacious and that’s it.

    My favorite question is to ask them to do is prove what they are saying. Since they are lazy and do not have any foundation for their beliefs other than hate they most likely won’t or can’t and instead will sputter and pull out a fallacy.

    In the past, I’ve simply said, That’s a fallacy, because and then followed my statement with the question: So please prove to me that . . . and then you can add in what you want.
    I also like to have fun with them and ask, “What?” What abuse?” What inappropriate behavior?” What are you talking about? Let them explain themselves, they usually can’t.

    This is not for everyone because in my experience what invariably happens is the hater will become FURIOUS and start slinging insults left and right to get you to shut up. This is great in a way because most sane people will see this and know that they are crazy but often times other haters will gang up on you to get you to shut up, too so you have to have really tough skin and not be affected by words on a computer screen (or in person). The last thing haters want is any truth infused in their conversation and they will attack relentlessly to stop that from happening.

    So I don’t know if I’m convinced that it makes sense to debate haters unless you are willing to fight your way to through lies, personal attacks and distortions but I am very interested to read the follow up pieces. This must have taken you a lot of time and energy, so thank you for that. It is a very much needed piece and I enjoyed reading it.

    p.s. I read a hater the other day say that “VindicateMJ” had changed “his” name to “sanemj” and that you were really all one person on this site. Now how do you refute that kind of crazy? : )

Trackbacks

  1. Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith Part 1 of 7: Michael was NOT a Devil Worshipper « Fan Blog for MJ
  2. You Don’t Have To Be a “Crazy, Rabid Fan” To Know That Michael Jackson Was INNOCENT!! « Vindicating Michael
  3. Summary and Analysis of the Testimonies of Stacy Brown and Bob Jones, the Authors of “Michael Jackson: The Man Behind The Mask”, Part 3 of 3 « Vindicating Michael
  4. Rebutting Schaffhausen and The “Stuck In Childhood” Myth | AllForLoveBlog
  5. Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 3 of 5: Refuting A Racist Rabbi! « Vindicating Michael
  6. Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 2 of 5: Michael Did NOT “Channel” Demon Spirits to Help Him Write Songs! « Vindicating Michael
  7. Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 1 of 5: Michael was NOT a Devil Worshipper! « Vindicating Michael
  8. How to Recognize and Refute the Fallacies Used by Michael Jackson Haters, Part 5 of 5 « Fan Blog for MJ
  9. How to Recognize and Refute the Fallacies Used By Michael Jackson Haters, Part 5 of 5 « Vindicating Michael
  10. How to Recognize and Refute the Fallacies Used by Michael Jackson Haters, Part 1 of 5 « Fan Blog for MJ

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,109 other followers

%d bloggers like this: