Skip to content

Going over bedroom issues in Michael Jackson’s home AGAIN

September 27, 2011

Sorry I was away from the blog when all this unnecessary fighting over Michael Jackson’s sleepover issues took place here.  Actually I was busy writing about the same subject and the reason which started me on this topic again was a reader’s comment which I didn’t like at all. I wouldn’t have reacted to it if I hadn’t noticed that the comment was highly inaccurate and heavily sprinkled with innuendoes – and this in spite of the fact that it is supposed to be coming from a supporter of Michael Jackson.

The reader said:

  • “I don’t believe the sleepovers were sexual, but what Michael didn’t understand is that inviting strange children over to your home and sleeping in the same bed with them is not normal behavior, and given the serious allegations that were made against him, it made him look like a ped-le in the eyes of the public. When I saw the Bashir film, I was very disappointed and shocked when he told Bashir “I’ve slept in bed with many children”.

First, let us cut that crap about “inviting children” and “sleeping in bed with them” which “disappoint” some people as they make him look bad in the eyes of the public. There is no need to feel disappointed because both of the above premises are simply inaccurate. To be more precise they are half-truths and since they don’t tell the whole story they are even balancing on the edge of lies.

The way the phrase about “inviting strange children to his home” is worded it sounds like he wandered along the streets, took strange children by their hand and invited them to his home.

This kind of a statement is similar to a hater’s and absolutely won’t do for this blog. Whenever Michael invited anyone to Neverland he always invited whole families and parents with their children and these people remember it very well that Michael was making arrangements for their future visit to Neverland with parents and not their small ones . So after we make a correction and replace “children” with a more general term the above reader’s statement will sound as follows:

  • “…what Michael didn’t understand is that inviting strange people over to your home is not normal behavior”.

Now the statement looks clearer but manifests another mistake. The word “normal” is absolutely wrong here as it is perfectly normal to invite people to your home – it is inviting “strange” people which may be slightly unusual and is therefore dangerous for the master of the house, because you never know what these strangers may be up to if you don’t know them well enough.

Thus correction of only one word in the above reader’s statement immediately took our conversation into a different direction and made us wonder whether it was really safe for Michael to invite families he hardly knew to stay with him and whether Michael wasn’t too trusting and too believing in other people’s good that he endangered his home and ultimately his life in such a reckless manner.

I am afraid that the danger of coming across rascals and con artists under such a system was really very high. But if you ask me it is this particular Michael’s  feature which tells me of his innocent and trusting nature more than anything else – he had a very pure heart and opened the door of Neverland to almost everyone around as he trusted and believed in the good of other people even if it wasn’t there to be found.

The second statement from the same reader on “sleeping in the same bed with many children”, which shocked the reader so much, frankly shocked me too but in a somewhat different way –  I just couldn’t recall Michael saying anything like that and the bluntness of such a statement looked somewhat strange to me.

In all cases of doubt we should immediately go to the original (in this case to Bashir’s filthy documentary) to verify whether this was indeed said and in what context it was. The transcript of that episode was readily awaiting us on a haters’ site, so we easily learn from there that the above Michael’s statement did take place but came in the following context:

Martin Bashir: “When you are talking about children we met Gavin – and it was a great privilege to meet Gavin because he’s had a lot of suffering in his life – when Gavin was there he talked about the fact that he shares your bedroom?”

Jackson: “Yes.”

Bashir: “Can you understand why people would worry about that?”

Jackson: “Because they are ignorant.”

Bashir: “But is it really appropriate for a 44-year-old man to share a bedroom with a child that is not related to him at all?”

Jackson: “That’s a beautiful thing.”

Bashir: “That’s not a worrying thing?”

Jackson: “Why should that be worrying, what’s the criminal…who’s Jack the Ripper in the room? There’s some guy trying to heal a healing child … I’m in a sleeping bag on the floor. “I gave him the bed because he has a brother named Star, so him and Star took the bed and I went along on the sleeping bag.”

Bashir: “Did you ever sleep in the bed with them?”

Jackson: “No, but….”

Let us stop here for a moment and make a note of a couple of things.

First, both Bashir and Michael are speaking of sharing a bedroom and not a bed and some of us are probably still able to see the difference between the two.

Second, Michael is speaking of healing a sick child and since we know that Gavin was ill with cancer, his request to Michael to allow him sleep in his bed had the power of a law for him – what a child dying of cancer wishes, so the obliging Michael Jackson will do as this is what the basic idea of the “make the wish” foundation is. Our Lynette is perfectly right when she says,

  • After the 1993 case the only way that any child could personally meet Michael Jackson was if it came through the charity ” Make A Wish”. The child had to be terminally ill.

The child had to be terminally ill, and according to doctors Gavin was  indeed expected to live for some three months or so. This is the reason why Michael put everything aside and did his utmost to help the dying child.

Third, we find out that Gavin was accompanied into that bed by his brother Star and that Michael never slept in bed with either of them and that he took a sleeping bag on the floor instead.

The above is easily corroborated by the further transcript found on the same haters’ site. They provide the episode where Gavin says that he stayed in Michael’s bedroom for one night and explains how he found himself there.

Gavin says he asked Michael if he could stay in his bedroom, invited Michael to take a bed with him and even insisted on it, however Michael refused.

Michael didn’t even remember how he slept that night – in a sleeping bag or on a blanket on the floor – and it was again Gavin who explained to him that he “packed the whole mess of blankets on the floor”. This makes it clear that it was a kind of an impromptu arrangement – never planned in advance – which sprang from Michael’s total inability to refuse the wish of a “dying child”. It is noteworthy that it wasn’t his healthy brother Star who was the initiator of that sleeping arrangement but Gavin, ill and bald after the chemotherapy, who wanted to sleep in Michael’s bedroom and take his bed as his “last wish”.

Bashir invites Gavin to say that it was a customary arrangement in Michael’s home but Gavin says that “there was one night” and even that night came only after he asked for it. After a long battle between Michael and Gavin about which of them will sleep on the floor Michael had the final say – his guests will take the bed while he sleeps on the floor:

Bashir: “When you stay here, do you stay in the house? Does Michael let you enjoy the whole premises?”

Gavin: “There was one night, I asked him if I could stay in his bedroom. He let me stay in the bedroom.” “And I was like, ‘Michael you can sleep in the bed’, and he was like ‘No, no, you sleep on the bed’, and I was like ‘No, no, no, you sleep on the bed’, and then he said ‘Look, if you love me, you’ll sleep in the bed‘. I was like ‘Oh mannnn?” so I finally slept on the bed.” “But it was fun that night.”

Jackson: “I slept on the floor. [to Gavin] Was it a sleeping bag?”

Gavin: “You packed the whole mess of blankets on the floor.”

Bashir: “But Michael, you’re a 44-year-old man now, what do you get out of this?”

Gavin: “He ain’t 44, he’s 4!”

Jackson: “Yeah, I’m 4. I love, I feel, I think what they get from me, I get from them. I’ve said it many times, my greatest inspiration comes from kids. Every song I write, every dance I do, all the poetry I write, is all inspired from the level of innocence.” “That consciousness of purity. And children have that. I see God in the face of children. And man, I just love being around that all the time.”

Bashir: “But when people hear that children from other families have come and they’ve stayed in your house, they’ve stayed in your bedroom ..?”

Jackson: “Very few.”

I agree that the number of those children who stayed in Michael’s bedroom was few and we have a different impression of it only because the whole issue was heavily exaggerated and blown out of proportion by the media, prosecution and Michael’s haters.

But how very interesting it is to read and reread those questions and answers again!  When I read it now Bashir’s question about Michael being 44 looks to me like a simple reprimand that he shouldn’t be so much childlike at his mature age. This is probably how both Gavin and Michael took the question too, as Gavin says that Michael is not older than 4 and Michael agrees with it and explains that children’s spirit of innocence is his greatest inspiration and this is why he feels he is 4 years old when he is around them.

But then the conversation suddenly takes a different turn. To my big surprise Michael raises a bed issue himself and mentions that he has been to bed with many children. The listener immediately pricks his ears and assumes that Michael speaks of a succession of children “going through his bed”,  however Michael goes on to explain and eventually it becomes clear that by “many” he means whole families who sometimes spent the night in his bed – for example, the whole gang of young Culkins who occasionally arranged slumber parties in his room.

He names all those who would jam into his bed:

Bashir: “Did you ever sleep in the bed with them?” 

Jackson: “No, but I have slept in a bed with many children. I slept in a bed with all of them when Macaulay Culkin was little: Kieran Culkin would sleep on this side, Macaulay Culkin was on this side, his sisters in there…we all would just jam in the bed, you know. “We would wake up like dawn and go in the hot air balloon, you know, we had the footage. I have all that footage.”

Let me note here that the video for the same episode (spread by Michael’s detractors all over the Internet) is somewhat different from the above text – it abruptly ends after the very first sentence about “many children”. It doesn’t mention the Culkins and stops short after the crucial words thus creating the impression that Michael was bragging about sleeping with many children – in the same way some men brag about how many women they took into their bed.

The fact that the video doesn’t go on with the Culkins story is no small affair. One and the same sentence will sound totally different depending on whether you give details for it or not. Please compare these sentences modeled after Michael’s statement:

  •        I slept with many girls.
  •        I slept with many girls when a whole company of them dropped at my place. One of them was on the left, another on the right, two more in the middle, we all would just jam in the bed.

This small example shows a dramatic difference in the perception of these utterances – the first betrays a womanizer bragging about having sex with many women while the second person is an innocent guy who tells us of his funny experience with girls who for some reason jammed into his bed to spend the night there (which is Michael’s case, only in application to children).

However Michael’s detractors pretend to be blind, deaf and not being able to see the difference. They want to pass one thing for the other and leave us with only “I’ve slept with many children” phrase not specifying that he was talking about the Culkins who crammed into his bedroom and turned it into a common dormitory.

The ‘beauty’ of this small but effective haters’ trick  is that formally we cannot say that it wasn’t true – Michael did say it, only he meant something completely different and they didn’t allow him to say what it was! They knowingly went for half-truth only because it is practically the same as a half-lie and is often much more damaging, as a little bit of truth sprinkled over the distorted facts makes the result more credible than a usual lie.

The hater’s trick brings us to a video filled with innuendoes revolving around that “sleeing in bed” concept. The time afforded for the video could have allowed to add a couple of seconds to tell the whole story, however since the Culkins are not fitting into haters’ ideology out the Culkin family goes and in comes the “dark Jackson’s secret”:

If Michael’s haters were truly unbiased as they say they are (in the comments section), they should have had the decency to at least allow Michael to utter his sentence to the end – however they wanted it to look much more sinister than it is and abruptly cut Michael in mid-sentence so that he can’t explain what he means.

These are their usual tactics and it is only the brainwashed media victims or haters masquerading as fans who repeat that nonsense without verifying it first. It is time to mature, guys, and stop swallowing  their hooks so easily.

Let us go on with what else our reader has to say:

  • ‘To people like Tom Sneddon and Diane Dimond, that was an indication of his guilt and they saw it as a “confession” that he liked to have sex with young boys and thought that there was nothing wrong with it. I think it was not very smart for him to tell the camera that he slept in bed with children, especially given all that he endured in 1993 with the humiliating strip search, the millions of dollars paid, the police raid, the lies created by the media, etc, I really didn’t understand why he continued to say and do things that would cause him to become embroiled in scandal.”

Whether intentionally or not but our reader is conveniently enumerating the whole package of claims usually made by Michael’s detractors and is even taking it much further by claiming that he had ‘sex’ with young boys – which is something that even Tom Sneddon and Diane Dimond never said (as far as I remember).

Nice fans Michael Jackson has if this is what they indeed think of him.

The only allegation this package is actually missing is Velez Mitchell’s idea that Michael orchestrated the scandal himself to get attention to his personality this way (evidence of this crazy thought will be provided further in this post).

I hope to get back to the question if it was smart of Michael to defend his right to share his bedroom with children, but at the moment would like to draw your attention to another thing – questioning Michael’s smartness is in heavy contradiction with the way Tom Sneddon, Diane Dimond and others portrayed Michael as a cunning predator who shrewdly led small innocent children and their unsuspecting parents into his “lair of sin”.

Since one thing contradicts the other he couldn’t be both of them at once – smart and foolish, shrewd and naïve, cunning and honest, secretive and frank. You are either shrewd in everything you do and then your naivety in spreading negative information about yourself doesn’t fit in, or you are a complete idiot working for one’s own detriment but then you should be unable to contrive all those cunning schemes to take advantage of  ‘poor innocent people’ around you.

It is either this or that as one thing rules out the other, and any doubletalk won’t do here – so as a complete minimum let us ask haters to stick to at least one version while we are looking for a third one which will explain it all.

Our reader Stacy continues:

  •  And Bashir’s innuendo voiceovers just made it 10 times worse. When I saw the film for the first time in 2003, I said to myself “Here goes another set of allegations” and that’s exactly what happened 9 months later. I was hoping that the 60 minutes interview would be much better and he would redeem himself from the Bashir film, but he made things worst and dug the whole even deeper by STILL defending the whole sharing your bed issue. I sometimes wondered about his state of mind. Either he was not aware of how serious the allegations against him were or he just didn’t care. Overall, it was just a very sad experience.

No, Michael was very much aware of the allegations as they drained him of life and killed his spirit even before his physical death. And he did care very much too as Thomas Mesereau said that Michael used to call him in terror asking what would happen to his children if he went to jail. So both variants suggested by the reader are incorrect.

When people say he shouldn’t have been defending the giving-your-bed issue they probably mean well, but involuntarily show that they themselves are not ready for the level of honesty which Michael Jackson reached. The majority of people find it easier to pretend and nod their head in reply to a question whether they agree that this kind of behavior is unacceptable (even if they think it is).

But not Michael Jackson. Lying about matters of principle was out of the question for him. If he believed something he stood his ground no matter what and this shows that his beliefs were firm, strong and profound, as is usually the case when they are gained as a result of much personal suffering.

If you come to think of it, Michael’s going back on his words, by saying later that he was wrong when speaking to Bashir (for example), would have been much worse as a person cannot change his views so drastically within two weeks or so. This would have surely been regarded as a lie, further ridiculed by everyone, though initially it could have probably satisfied his blood-thirsty critics who wanted him to “repent” the same way Galileo repented when Inquisition threatened him with torture and death (if he didn’t recant his views on the solar system).

For Michael it was impossible to hurt a dying child by refusing him his wish and even if the whole world was screaming at his door the next day he would still do what he saw right. The strength of his beliefs is probably one of the  several reasons while Michael repeatedly defended the right to behave his way even despite all the ridicule, harassment and severe criticism he faced. When someone’s beliefs are so strong they are not to be easily given up as a result of a bargain or a threat.

I also think that his purity of mind and spirit reached so high a realm that he could not even imagine that people could be serious in thinking him able of such a terrible crime. When you are averse to such type of behavior you think that people must be joking if they apply it to you.  Really, how can people be serious in suspecting you of adopting a puppy with the aim to do harm to it? Such accusers must either be cruel jokers or eat dog meat themselves if they think that you can do it…. When some idea is totally alien to you, you regard it as absurd and it is impossible for you to act upon it as every person acts only within the scope of what he is capable to think of or imagine.

Hence all these Michael’s incredulous questions: “How can anyone hurt a child? They are like innocent little puppies….”. Hence his reply to Diane Sawyer in an 1994 interview that people abusing children should be placed in medical institutions to render them help  – isn’t it interesting that the first thing that comes to his mind is that hurting a child is not just an ordinary crime but sheer insanity and therefore these people should be helped by doctors (rather than placed in prisons like most of us think)?

What I am trying to say is that each person is acting within the range of his own standards or behavioral expectations, and if he knows that it is impossible for him to harm a child he won’t hide the fact of his association with them because doing harm is simply not part of the reality he is living in.  However those who harbor dark intentions towards children will be on their guard and will never show their preferences openly because they know what they are up to and expect that other people might notice it. So where one will take every precaution the other will not – simply because he doesn’t realize that there are so many other things which can be present between a child and an adult apart from an innocent friendship and loving care.

Another reason for Michael being so open about his ways arises directly from the previous two. When you know that you are not doing anything bad, you regard it as a total insult when others publicly demand that you should stop things  which you are not doing anyway. This way they draw you to their own level and you have to give in to their demands and thus confirm in a round-about-way that there were right in their suspicions about you. You said you stopped? So you did it before!

If someone continues with ‘it’ in such a situation it turns for him into an act of defiance and a way to show others that despite their dirty thinking, he will not give in to their innuendoes and will go on living the way he thinks right. He will persist on his ways as a consent to ‘stop’ in these circumstances will be equal to admitting that previously he was indeed engaged in something wrong.

I understand this type of behavior very well because I myself am involved in something similar. No matter how some discourage me from talking about AEG and focus only Murray instead I still write about AEG because I truly believe that they are at least partially responsible for Michael’s death. No matter how unpopular Joe Jackson and Brian Oxman are I will still cite their suit against AEG because in this particular case they are right in accusing AEG for sharing guilt with Murray. I know that it is going against the currently accepted “norms of behavior” within the MJ fan community but the truth is more important to me than any “norms” – so I’d rather wait for the norms to change than bend the truth for their sake.

If you believe in something it makes you persistent in what you do. And Michael believed that he was helping children by providing them with love and understanding the power of which was so big that it could work miracles on ill children (and it did work a miracle on Gavin Arvizo because the boy recovered from his cancer!)

Unfortunately Michael was never good at explaining himself and his ideals to other people and this is why all he said to Bashir was that he was making it all wrong. Here is the full transcript of the “sleepover” part of the documentary taken by me from some haters’ site where Michael is trying to explain his way of thinking:

Bashir: “But is that right Michael?”

Jackson: “It’s very right. It’s very loving, that’s what the world needs now, more love more heart.”

Bashir: “The world needs a man who’s 44 who’s sleeping in a bed with children?”

Jackson: “No, you’re making it – no, no you’re making it all wrong …”

Bashir: “Well, tell me, help me …”

Jackson: “Because what’s wrong with sharing a love? You don’t sleep with your kids? Or some other kid who needs love who didn’t have a good childhood?”

Bashir: “No, no I don’t. I would never dream …”

Jackson: “That’s because you’ve never been where I’ve been mentally …” [meaning the pain he went through when he was neglected or beaten by his father and had not a single happy moment to remember of his childhood] 

Bashir: “What is it, Gavin, about Michael that makes him connect so well with children? What is it?”

Gavin: “Because he’s really a child at heart. He acts just like a child, he knows how a child is, he knows what a child thinks”. “See, because I think that you don’t necessarily have to be a child just because society says that 18 and up you have to be an adult. Doesn’t really matter. You’re an adult when you want to be one.”

Bashir: “Well, you know, but some have, and they say, is that really appropriate for a man – for a grown man – to be doing that? How do you respond to that?”

Jackson: “I feel sorry for them because that’s judging someone who just wants to really help people.” “Why can’t you share your bed? The most loving thing to do, is to share your bed with someone.”

Bashir: “You really think that?”

Jackson: “Yahhh. Of course.”

Jackson: “I’m just very sensitive to their pain and I am very sensitive to the family, the human condition, you know. “On that subject, it means a lot to me and I want to help. Whatever I can to help that you know, it’s like I said before and I’ll say it a million times, I’m not afraid to say it.” “If there were no children on this earth, if someone announced all kids were dead, I would jump off the balcony immediately, I’m done, I’m done.”

Bashir: “I suppose the problem for many people is what happened in 1993, or what didn’t happen?”

Jackson: “What didn’t happen'”

Bashir: “Just cast your mind back, what was that like when you first heard the allegations that were being made against you?”

Jackson: “It was shocking and I’m not allowed to talk about this by way of law, so …”

Bashir: “But how did you feel about what was being said? I’m not asking you to talk about what was said.”

Jackson: “I was shocked because, um, God knows, in my heart how much I adore children.”

Bashir: “Isn’t that precisely the problem, that when you actually invite children into your bed you never know what is going to happen?”

Jackson: “When you say bed, you’re thinking sexual, they make that sexual, it’s not sexual.” “We’re going to sleep, I tuck them in and I put a little like, er, music on and when it’s story time I read a book.” “We go to sleep with the fireplace on. I give them hot milk, you know, we have cookies, it’s very charming, it’s very sweet, it’s what the whole world should do.”

Bashir: “The reason that has been given for why you didn’t go to jail is because, because you reached a financial settlement with the family?”

Jackson: “Yeah, I didn’t want to do a long drawn-out thing on TV like OJ, and all that stupid stuff, you know, it wouldn’t look right. I said, look, get this over with. I want to go on with my life. This is ridiculous, I’ve had enough, go.”

(the source seems to be a hater so beware please:

Please remember that Bashir’s claims about Michael inviting children to bed and not going to jail because of a financial settlement with a family are all wrong. Firstly, Michael didn’t go to jail because there was no evidence, and financial settlements have nothing to do with it (civil suits are always about money only), and secondly, Michael never invited anyone into his bed.

Going back to those bedroom issues again let me say that it was Bryan Oxman’s and Uri Geller’s interview with Larry King (Feb, 21, 2003) that confirmed my thoughts and suppositions about Jackson.

Both of them spoke vehemently in Michael’s defense and said it was unthinkable for him to hurt a child. And Oxman – when explaining why Michael went on defending his views – said that his openness about those issues was an act of defiance on his part and a form of his rebellion against the common dirty interpretation of it.

In the process of the interview we learn a lot of other crucial details  – for example, how Bashir deceived Michael into thinking they would meet Kofi Annan of the United Nations and would create a children’s day and that he even promised it to Uri Geller in writing after which he introduced Bashir to Michael.

We also learn that the so-called Jordan Chandler’s declaration was actually inaccurate, however Brian Oxman couldn’t talk about it due to the settlement agreement the terms of which were protecting the Chandlers in this case. Isn’t it interesting that Oxman didn’t say a single word to the Chandlers’ detriment while Larry Feldman from the other side stooped as low as release the declaration of the boy whose very interests he was obliged to observe? Which was an act that also made it terribly easy to coach Gavin in his turn?

Here are the main excerpts from Larry King’s interview with Oxman, Geller, Grace and Mitchell (the latter two will be mostly ommitted – if you want to smell that crap you can go to

KING: We’re going to start with Uri Geller in London, who introduced Michael to Martin Bashir.

Are you sorry you did?

URI GELLER: Yes, Larry, I am. I introduced Martin Bashir to Michael because Martin Bashir promised me that he’s going to do a constructive and a positive documentary. He said that he’s going to bring justice into the life of this remarkable man. He promised many things. He said that he is going to take Michael to the United Nations to meet Kofi Annan and create a children’s day. He said that he’s going to fly into South Africa to meet sick children. And, you know, Larry, I’ve been around for a long time, but I fell for it. I trust people.

He also promised me this in writing. I only introduced Michael to Martin after I had this promise in writing. And I’m sorry I did that.

KING: All right, one of the most controversial areas of that special “Living With Michael Jackson,” the documentary, was Jackson’s admission that he has shared his bedroom with children, although Jackson denies any sexual misconduct. Here, the British journalist Martin Bashir (ph) confronts Jackson.


MARTIN BASHIR, REPORTER: When you actually invite children into your bed, you never know what’s going to happen.

MICHAEL JACKSON, ENTERTAINER: But when you say bed, you’re thinking it’s sexual. They make that sexual. It’s not sexual. We’re going to sleep. I tuck them in. We put, I put little like music on and do a little storytelling. I read a book. It varies. We put the fireplace on. Give them hot milk. You know, we have little cookies. It’s very charming. Very sweet.  (END VIDEO CLIP) 

KING: Uri Geller, do you believe that Michael Jackson may have done untoward things toward young children?

GELLER: I don’t believe that at all. Otherwise, I would not associate myself with him. I’m a father. I have two children. I think Michael Jackson is a 44-year-old man who has a mind of an innocent child in a way. He’s innocent. He’s naive. I think he’s gullible. I think he’s a wonderful soul. He will never do anything to hurt children.

I’ve seen him around with kids here in England. You see, I invited Michael, Larry, eight months ago to become the honorary director of my football club, Exodus City. And he graciously agreed to do that on the condition that we will bring very sick children to the club, which we have. I’ve seen him hug kids with full blown AIDS. It was fantastic to see.

I know Michael close up. There is such a tender soul, spirit in him. And I understand the problem. I understand the bigger picture where people are surprised and amazed and bewildered that he allows children to sleep in his bed and he says that he sleeps in his sleeping bag. I was never there. I was never on the ranch. But you see there is a way that Michael creates unconditional love. And…

KING: I know, now hold it. Hold it.

GELLER: …. many of those children were very sick. 

GELLER: OK. I understand you. I understand, once again, I understand you and I understand the problem. But unfortunately, once again, when you bring up the word bed, there are immediate, immediately sexual connotations to it. You know, at this time and age we are living in such times where we suspect everything. You know, even here in England, the British educational authorities gave out an order to teachers not to put sun blockers and suntan lotion on children or for nurses not to look for lice in the heads of kids, because, again, you bring up that, the sexual side of it.

GELLER: I do not believe… Michael has ever done anything wrong to a child.

OXMAN: It’s a cancer survivor. This is a little boy…

GRACE: It’s like offering a vodka to an alcoholic. 

OXMAN: All right, understand, this is a little boy whop was on the edge of death. He was told that he had three more days to live. 

GRACE: I understand that. 

OXMAN: There was a call to Michael and said can you help this child? And Michael responded. No one else does it. No one else was interested. 

GRACE: And I credit him for that. 

OXMAN: He responded. He brought the boy to the ranch and this child has survived. And you know something? The parents adore him. The brother adores him. Everyone associated…

CARL: Larry, I want to ask Brian a quick question. OK, let’s not talk about the morality. Let’s not talk about the legality. Do you feel it’s inappropriate? 

OXMAN: I have represented to courts of law on a continuous basis that every child who goes to Neverland Ranch is safe, secure. It is the safest place on the planet. 

CARL: That’s not what I asked. Do you feel that it’s inappropriate for an adult to sleep in a bed with children? 

KING: Yes, OK. Yes. Nothing happens sexually. Is it inappropriate to sleep (UNINTELLIGIBLE)…

CARL: Is it just plain old inappropriate? 

OXMAN: I’m going to tell you that it is certainly not something that we recommend and it is something that Michael does not do. He does not sleep in the same bed as these children. They are sleepovers with cancer survivors, under privileged children. 

KING: OK, let me get a break. 

OXMAN: But he’s separate from them. 

KING: [Brian], you wanted to say something, add something on the boys, because I want to get to another area? 

OXMAN: Yes. The boys. There have been literally thousands of youngsters who have visited with Michael interviewed by innumerable authorities across the world. It was the most expensive investigation in the history of Los Angeles County. And the result was we have one fellow, one young man who makes a complaint, who I can’t comment on. 

KING: That’s the only complaining person ever? 

OXMAN: That is the only complaint that there has ever been. Children have said Michael’s hugged me, Michael has kissed me, but this is all that we have. 

KING: The only thing was this boy? 

OXMAN: Correct. And here’s something about this business about the bed. Michael said in the interview that Gavin slept on the bed with his brother and that Michael slept on the floor. And what we’re so upset with the Bashir documentary is that the anteroom to Michael’s bedroom where the door is open has 24 hour attendance and security, who are watching the entire process. When the child snaps a finger, somebody is there. 

KING: Jane isn’t buying that. 

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I mean when you’ve faced child molestation allegations and you’ve settled for approximately $20 million out of court, wouldn’t it make sense to not say that you sleep over with children? Wouldn’t it make sense not to put yourself in the position? Some people feel that he’s actually orchestrated this entire thing on a very deep subconscious level to get attention. 

…. OXMAN: It’s the absolute opposite. Michael is the target and the entire family is terrorized by this entire thing. 

KING (about the 1993 case): Brian, what is the, what’s the story? 

BRIAN OXMAN: Larry, there is a confidentiality clause which prohibits any of the people who are associated with Michael and the entire matter…

KING: You weren’t the lawyer in that settlement? 

OXMAN: No, Johnnie Cochran was the lawyer.

KING: I met, I had dinner with both the lawyer for one side and the other side and the judge who handled it. And there is a confidentiality and there were no criminal charges filed. 

OXMAN: So it puts a constraint on everyone. 

KING: However, if there is that affidavit, doesn’t Nancy have a point? 

OXMAN: I sit here and boy, do I want to answer that affidavit and do I want to tell you the things that I know, which really amount to a great deal of skullduggery involved in the entire transaction. But this confidentiality clause and this contract constrains me and I’m not able to do it. But that doesn’t mean I don’t want to do it and you can read in my face exactly what I think of that whole thing. 

KING: Well, are you, can you say unequivocally there was no sexual seduction by Michael Jackson of a young child? 

OXMAN: If you’re asking me to comment on…

KING: Can you say that? 

OXMAN: …. the case itself, on the settlement itself…

KING: No, no. It’s a general question. 

OXMAN: …. I can’t. I can tell you Michael does not hurt children. He has never hurt any child. And I think that’s as far as I can go. And I would like to go farther, but I just cannot. 

KING: A criminal charge has never been brought against him, Brian? 

OXMAN: Criminal charges have never been brought. The D.A. refused to prosecute the case for very sound and good reasons. 

OXMAN: The statute of limitations has expired on the entire transaction. 

GRACE: Open but inactive. 

OXMAN: But the file is open and it is inactive. 

OXMAN: And I’ve got to tell you, I want to tell you why that affidavit is inaccurate and I want to tell you about a whole series of things…

GRACE: But you can’t. 

OXMAN: I am constrained and I just, I am burning to do it and I just can’t. 

KING: Brian Oxman, you will agree that since the 1994 allegation and the subsequent settlement and Nancy’s referral to the affidavit, Michael has never fully recovered from that, has he? 

OXMAN: The storm that Michael has experienced, along with the entire family, started when he was 12 years old, and it’s ebbed and flowed over the entire course…

KING: Yes, but that occurrence…

OXMAN: This, without question, casts a shadow and putting doubt in the minds of the American people. But I think his subsequent activities, his subsequent conduct is really something which shows the kind of character the man is. What we got in the Martin Bashir interview, even though there was enormous editorializing which was way out of place and really yellow journalism, we still saw a lot of Michael and the things that he does and his care for people. And it really tells us a lot about his character. 

JERMAINE JACKSON: Hi. Listen, the other two young ladies have never met my brother. They don’t know my brother. And I just want to talk a bit about this case that this boy brought forth, the young kid. In “GQ,” according to what I’ve seen, this was nothing but an attack to set my brother up, because the kid’s father wanted Michael to further his screening career. And it says here: “And if I go through this — go through with this, I win big time. There is no way I lose. I checked that out inside and I will get everything I want and there will be — I will then destroy him forever.” 

This is what he is saying. And then he says, “Everybody will lose.” What he’s saying, his whole thing was to bring Michael down

KING: Jermaine, are you saying that the kid’s affidavit is a lie? 

JERMAINE JACKSON: Well, if you look at — because I’ve had some of the things faxed to me. And it has been contradictory. 

He would start off by saying, several times, he was never touched. But I am very furious, because these two young ladies on the show, they’ve never met my brother. 

GELLER: Yes, I agree with Jermaine 100 percent. 

That affidavit was splashed on front page headlines here in England a week ago. And I read it. And it is just simply hard for me to believe that that comes from a 12-year-old boy. It is quite shocking. 

KING: You think he was coaxed? 

GELLER: That is my opinion, absolutely. 

KING: The boy was coaxed? All right.

OXMAN (about the 1993 case): This was probably the most controversial publicized case in the entire history of American justice. 

KING: Yes, but if he didn’t do it, you don’t settle. 

OXMAN: Ah, but people were paid money. There were people from the Philippines who were housekeepers paid $500,000 by the tabloids for their story, bodyguards who were paid $200,000 for their stories. It became a checkbook journalistic nightmare. 

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I would just love to ask somebody here the burning questions. One, maybe you can answer it or Uri or Jermaine. Has Michael Jackson ever had psychiatric help? Has he seen a shrink? Do they think he needs to? And if he really cares for children that much, which is quite possible — that’s what he’s saying — why he would put himself in such a situation and invite Martin Bashir to take a look at him holding hands with a young man? 

KING: That question should be asked of Brian. 

OXMAN: For psychiatric evaluation, we have the plastic surgeon from the physician’s office that Michael went to have his plastic surgery holding press conferences giving his statements to “NBC Dateline.” Can you imagine Michael Jackson doing anything with any kind of psychiatric provider? It would be…

KING: You mean he can’t seek psychiatric care? 

OXMAN: I would have to say that he cannot. 

KING: Because?

OXMAN: It is not within the realm of reason or possibility because of the hoopla, the magic and the commotion. 

KING: If he just went to a psychiatrist? 

OXMAN: We thought that people, when he went to a plastic surgeon, that they wouldn’t disclose his confidential patient relationship. And he went and did it anyways. 

CARL: But, Brian, isn’t a therapist obligated by law — by law?

OXMAN: So was the plastic surgeon.

CARL: The plastic surgeon has to answer to the exact same criteria that a psychiatrist does? 

OXMAN: Exact same criteria. I teach legal ethics. And the ethical obligation is the same.

OXMAN: I’ve got to tell you that he, along with the entire family — I think with the exception of Jermaine, who is so outspoken — with the entire family, they’re terrorized, Larry.

KING: Jermaine has been on this show. We would be happy to have him back. 

GELLER: You know, Larry…

KING: Yes, Uri, go ahead. 

GELLER: I was going to say that Michael invited Martin Bashir into his home because he has nothing to hide, nothing to be afraid of.

KING: Yes, but he let it be taped. 

KING: Yes, when you tape, you can edit. 

GELLER: You know, Larry, I remember — yes — I remember that, months ago, you called me up and you asked me whether I’ll tell Michael to get on your show. And I said that to Michael. And Michael is so hurt by the attacks, the criticism. The press, the media, in my opinion, are really trying to demolish him and character assassination. 

KING: Yes, but no comment doesn’t work. 

GELLER: That’s why he doesn’t really do an American interview. 

GRACE: That is so not true. 

GELLER: Hey, wait a minute. 

And I think that what made up Michael’s mind, unfortunately, is when Bashir showed Michael a letter that Princess Diana wrote Martin Bashir praising Martin. And Michael adored Princess Diana. And he saw the letter and said: Well, if Martin Bashir interviewed Diana and if Diana wrote that…

KING: He made a mistake.

GELLER: ‘Martin you can come to my home’.  He did — I think it was a mistake. 

OXMAN: … first of all, Michael will not change his character or his manner of operation for anybody. He does his life and he lives his life as God has given him the light to live it. 

And it is almost a form of rebellion, where he says: Listen, I’m not doing anything wrong. So why is it that I should change my way of life? And I’m not going to do it. And he wants to help children. 

KING: He pays a price for that, though. 

OXMAN: He pays a price for it, absolutely. 

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And as long as he keeps doing things like dangling his baby outside of a Berlin hotel balcony. 

OXMAN: Oh, the chestnut of the dangling of the baby. He’s trying to present his child to the world. If you remember, in “The Lion King,” Mufasa presented Simba to the world. 

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You can’t compare him to a cartoon. 

OXMAN: Not a cartoon. How about Alex Haley and “Roots”? We had Kunta Kinte presented to the tribe in the same manner. It is an African tradition.

GRACE: Not off the balcony. Not off the balcony.

OXMAN: And I dislike the insensitivity to the traditional. We admit he didn’t do the greatest job. We acknowledge that. But that’s what his intention was. 

VELEZ-MITCHELL: In fact, there are some people who think that he actually orchestrated all this subconsciously to get attention.

KING: That’s what I was saying. He should be forward more, so we would know him. 

OXMAN: I think you have a point, but the man has been under this kind of commotion since he was 8 years old. And I have been in the crowds. I have seen it. It is frightening. And it is almost a method of coping with the commotion that we take on a childlike attitude. And we say, listen, I’m just going to enjoy the world for what it is. 

OXMAN: Jordy is the one and only individual who has ever made these accusations. 

GRACE: Right. Why no extortion? 

OXMAN: The father wanted a three-movie-right deal. It was absolutely a commotion of major proportions as to what the father wanted. And I don’t think I can comment on really what the nature of the settlement is or why people weren’t prosecuted. 

KING: You don’t think it was prosecutable?

OXMAN: I’m going to step out slightly on a limb and say, in my opinion, no. But that’s all I can say. 

KING: It wasn’t extortion? 

OXMAN: Extortion.

KING: Legal extortion.

OXMAN: Larry, I am burning to tell you my opinion. You can read my opinion in my face. And I won’t answer your question, because I think I can’t go that far. 

KING: Uri, is this going to go away or get worse for Michael? 

GELLER: I think Michael is invincible and he will ride this out. There is a lot more to come from Michael. And before the show is over, I would like to make a very important point, that I managed to negotiate a very, very substantial payment from the makers of the Bashir interview for sick children. So, wherever this documentary will take Michael Jackson, sick children will benefit from it. 


OXMAN: He can’t go places. He can’t do things with people on an ordinary basis. His family says no to him. 

CARL: Like what? What do you mean? Where can he not go? 

OXMAN: He can’t go out and buy shaving cream at the store. 

CARL: Not because people tell him no.

KING: Uri, what do you want to say?

GELLER: Yes, Brian, it is incredible. 

When I took Michael Jackson to Exeter, we went through the Paddington train station here in England. And he was almost killed. 

OXMAN: And people were almost killed, yes.

GELLER: It was unbelievable. He was thrown to the ground. There were 1,000 fans pressing us against a train. I just could not believe what was happening. And this is just one moment in Michael Jackson’s life. I just cannot understand how…

KING: Uri, we’re running out of time.  He can’t lead a life, is what they’re saying.

Even Larry King said that Michael Jackson couldn’t lead a life, so how can any of us apply our own behavioral standards to Michael Jackson? How can anyone ask questions, “Why couldn’t he behave like everyone else and live like we do?”

Here is the remainder of the transcript of Jackson talking to Bashir about the slumber parties in his room:

Jackson:  “You can have my bed if you want, sleep in it. I’ll sleep on the floor. It’s yours. Always give the best to the company, you know. Like to him. Because he was going to sleep on the floor and I said ‘No, you sleep in the bed and I’ll sleep on the floor.'”

Bashir: “But haven’t you got a spare room or a spare house here where he could have stayed?”

Jackson: “No.. yes, we have guest units, but whenever kids come here they always want to stay with me, they never want to stay in the guest rooms.” “And I have never invited them into my room, they always just wanna stay with me. They say, ‘Can I stay with you tonight?’, so I go ‘If it’s OK with your parents then yes you can’.”

Bashir: “Were your parents happy that you were here with Michael?”

Gavin: “Yeah, well, my ma was very, very, very happy. And I know they’re happy, because I’m happy.”

Bashir: “Did they come with you?”

Gavin: “Most of the time I wasn’t busy with my parents, I was mainly with Michael.”

Bashir: “But they were happy that you were here?

Jackson: “Yeah.”

Speaking of the parents let me repeat here what I earlier stated in the comments section to another post.

No matter what the media and general public say about their resentment over Michael’s “bedroom issues” they should have never interfered in Michael’s life in the outrageus, insolent and totally unacceptable manner they did. The only people who could have demanded anything of Michael were the parents of the children who associated with him – these people indeed had the right to wonder why their children wanted to stay with him and what he was doing to them in their absence.

However the cruel irony of the situation is that the parents were exactly the people who – all as one – said that Michael’s association with children was absolutely innocent. They saw it with their own eyes and repeated one and the same thing – Michael and the children were just “hanging out” and the parents also took part, and when there came a moment to part and go to bed some children begged to stay for a little more and just fell asleep there – with all the activities resumed the next morning.

I’ve always said that the only thing parents could reprimand Michael for was lack of proper regimen and not enough discipline, as Kit Culkin did in his book, but apart from that no parent ever saw or noticed anything bad. Some even interrogated their children (father of the Cascio brothers, for example) in reply to which the children looked at their parents in disbelief that they could be crazy enough to repeat that nonsense.

Kit Culkin says that children are perfect reporters on each other and other people’s misbehavior and this or that way something would have transpired. However it never did because Michael’s behavior was impeccable.

Impeccable. And he never discriminated girls – Kit Culkin’s younger daughter was always part of the “gang”, Kit said. The same was repeated by JC Agajanian about his daughter Amy – she was Michael’s best friend, and not her brothers.

I think we should listen to all these people instead of saying that “he should have stopped it”.

If no parent or child ever noticed anything bad about Michael (except those few extortionists) I personally find it totally unacceptable for the screaming media and hysterical public to interfere in Michael’s life and separate him from his friends by a steel hand. And this is exactly what Michael was told to do – to part with children forever and stop helping them or do it,  if he wanted to, “from a distance”. Never see them, never open the doors of Neverland to any of them, never invite any families there again.

And those who commanded were relentless even if he said that there were no more sleepovers and excused himself at every corner. They even went so far as saying they would take his own children from him if he ever showed his child in another window at a hotel.

All these demands of Michael Jackson were especially outrageous as at the very same time when the media and public were harassing him a real pedophile (a priest) was molesting children in the same Santa Barbara but Tom Sneddon refused to prosecute him.

Or Corey Feldman said during his interview with the police that he (and his friend) had been molested by someone in Hollywood but the police didn’t pay attention because they were after Michael only.

Or Lou Pearlman was allowed to have sleepovers with the boys from his boy groups and some boys and their parents even protested – but things were hushed up and it is only now that these boys say that “what goes round comes round”.

Or a film director Christopher Lewis, who was indicted with “soliciting boys ranging from ages 6 to 17 to perform lewd acts in their movies” was charged with “child molestation and filming and distributing child pornography, along with 13 other men” as Wiki says. And what happened to him? He was sentenced to probation and a $500 fine!

If you ask me all this smells of terrible hypocrisy. When you monitor every minor step of one person, though everyone who is directly involved with him says that he is perfectly okay, and ignore all those whose criminal behavior you have direct evidence of, it is sheer hypocrisy and a terrible travesty of justice!

That is why I resent people saying that “he should have stopped it”.

Stopped WHAT?

What do they know of Jackson to demand things they know nothing about? And why don’t they look elsewhere – at those who are the real criminals who molest their children under their very nose?

UPDATE March 4th, 2012:

Here is Frank Cascio, one of MJ’s closest friends and confidantes, explaining exactly why MJ let Gavin sleep in his bedroom:

And here is Bobby Taylor, an artist at MoTown and one of MJ’s mentors, explaining his influence on MJ, including how letting MJ sleep in his bed influenced MJ to let kids sleep in his bed at Neverland:

65 Comments leave one →
  1. September 27, 2011 5:52 am

    Thanks for clearing things up..The only reason why I brought up the issue is because I got into a heated argument with one of my friends, who believe that Michael was guilty, and she used the whole “sleeping in bed with kids” argument to try to prove her point..That’s why I felt the need to express my thoughts about being disappointed by some of the statements Michael made in the Bashir film, that were later twisted by the media.


  2. lcpledwards permalink
    September 27, 2011 6:12 am

    @ Stacy2
    Thanks for your thoughts! That’s the purpose of this blog; we want people of all backgrounds and viewpoints to freely state their opinion on any issue regarding MJ. As a result of your comment, we were able to make a new post out of it, and we’ll use it to further educate not only haters and skeptics, but also less knowledgeable fans about MJ’s “bedroom issues”. Thanks!


  3. Jovana permalink
    September 27, 2011 10:16 am

    Thank you so much for this post, i agree with everything you wrote. Only thing, it makes me really sad that these kind of people call themselves fans. I will never understand how “fans” could judge Michael. I could never do it…


  4. ares permalink
    September 27, 2011 1:50 pm


    I’m sorry but fans can criticize MJ’s public behaviour, since he was a public figure, and very much point out his mistakes or bad judgements. And he did a lot of mistakes and bad choises, like every human being does. Υou can’t say that someone is not his fan because they tend to be more harsh in their view on him and his choises.David, for example,has writen some of the most amazing and thorough post defending MJ and exposing those who led to his downfall. You can’t say that he is not a fan because he sometimes gets mad at MJ’s naivete or stupborness and wishes he hadn’t done some of the things that he did.He is as much fan and supporter as you and me, probably most because he, as all the people that write here, has devoted numerous hours of his life in the defence of MJ. As i have already said MJ was a very unique and controvercial person with lots of flaws but also with extreme virtues. That’s what make him so special but that doesn’t not make him untouchable to critisism. We can’t be blind or negate things that he obviously did wrong because then we will be viewed as blind worshipers and the view of a blind worshiper is never taken seriously be anyone. I for once i’m glad that we had that debate which led to this amazing post. (Thank you Helena) One question thought, Lynette didn’t leave the blog, right?


  5. Maria permalink
    September 27, 2011 5:49 pm

    @ are

    I do not see any errors in Michael. He made ​​no mistakes. About what mistakes you say?. He had to stop to help because Sneddon wanted to destroy him. Many other children would not receive any help. He had to suffer so that others may live.


  6. Maria permalink
    September 27, 2011 5:51 pm


  7. Chris permalink
    September 27, 2011 6:16 pm

    @ Everyone.

    Why is this starting up again? After David said his last comment on his post

    “Guys, This is a very controversial issue, and things got heated earlier, so let’s just drop this and focus on the trial, and the other upcoming issues. Thanks!”

    no1 said anything about it all day. We left our differences aside because we knew more important things were at hand than our own disagreements.

    The disagreements will come up again in the future but not needed right now.

    There’s a voiceless victim who needs justice. End of.


  8. September 27, 2011 7:23 pm

    “The disagreements will come up again in the future but not needed right now.”

    Chris, I’ve looked a little closer into the situation and it turns out that these minor disagreements are not the main factor – they can be surely overcome. Lynette’s decision to stay away is mostly due to the fact that she doesn’t want to introduce here the problems that she is currently facing from some “well-wishers”.


    This is how far haters have gone! Now they are attacking her personally! The thing started with the notorious Desiree who is waging a sort of a campaign against her and now it might be some of her crazy followers.

    If in these circumstances Lynette takes a decision to stay away from Internet activity I will surely understand it (if it helps to solve the problem). However in my opinion her best guarantee of security is openness and speaking about the problem outloud. This is why I am disclosing this information now, though Lynette wouldn’t probably want it. This way if – God forbid – anything happens to her or her siblings we will at least know in which direction to look.

    Lynette, sorry for disclosing this information, but I don’t want people to think that you are able to give up our job due to some minor disagreements. I really believe that your staying with us is your best guarantee of security.


  9. lynande51 permalink
    September 27, 2011 8:58 pm

    I can only leave one very brief comment here at this time. I have been instructed by my place of work and the authorities involved that I should stop this activity at this time. I will add as I said in my email to Helena that the authorities involved have said that it may just be a former patient that managed to find me at an opportune time. It may not have any bearing whatsoever on what I do here. I don’t want anyone to see any correlation between the timing of anything. That is also placing blame where it does not belong and that is wrong. As I said I cannot say anymore about this and I cannot continue to comment until the issue resolves. Thank you.


  10. Gabriela permalink
    September 28, 2011 3:50 am

    Back then, it also whould have been better communicated that MJ’s *bedroom*(according to the Larry Nimmer film) was the size of a small house – two open levels, w/living room-type set-up on bottom level, w/TV, videogames, computers, pinball machine, stereo, etc. – like a recreation room; and upper level had the bed & bathroom. So to say a child spent hours, or the night, in MJ’s *bedroom* is rather misleading, and points up the sick American mindset that any room with a bed in it somewhere always equals sex.


  11. lcpledwards permalink
    September 28, 2011 6:28 am

    @ Ares
    thanks for your kind words! To answer your question, Lynette is having some personal issues at the moment, but hopefully she’ll be back soon. We patched up our differences; it wasn’t anything serious, we just had a minor spat, like all friends and families do occasionally.


  12. Linda permalink
    September 28, 2011 9:35 am

    Sounds like there’s some personal issues going on among friends here. I hope that all gets solved. Friends are like family.

    I like the article, but I will have to read it again to understand it all. I’m not sure if I’ve said this here before, but I’ve slept in the bed with kids who were not related to me. Oh my god, glad I wasn’t the king of POP!!! Nobody, as far as I know thought anything about it. Dang, you go to bed, talk a bit and go to sleep.

    What does a bed have to do with sex anyway? You can have sex anywhere, but when you want to go to sleep, you kind of want a comfortable bed. I will never associate a bed with sex. I think a lot of the public thinks “I went to bed with him or her” as sex, so bed means sex. To me, bed means sleep.

    When you really love kids, they know it. Kids came to my house and bedtime they wanted to be with me. I wouldn’t say no either, so sht, they went to bed with me and we all went to sleep. Well, tabloid jerks didn’t follow me around, so I guess the world didn’t know that I slept with kids. Michael just didn’t understand worldly thinking because he was so innocent. My kids could sleep in my bed, neighbor kids could sleep in my bed. There was no difference.

    What is this thing about related or unrelated anyway? My first husband molested our daughter for years. Relation doesn’t matter. I’m sorry to rant, but every time I hear that he slept with children who were not related to him, I get a flashback of a 21 year marriage nightmare. Kids are kids, whether yours or not. If you’re a molester, it doesn’t matter if they are related to you. I will always let a child sleep in bed with me if they are troubled or scared. I will do what ever I can to comfort a child.


  13. Jovana permalink
    September 28, 2011 1:48 pm

    I never said someone is not a fan. I feel that tabloid trash gets throguh to some fans and they start seeing him throguh the eyes of tabloids.
    I dont see what is so controversial about Michael and i am not a blind worshiper.


  14. ares permalink
    September 28, 2011 2:24 pm


    I never said you are a blind worshiper.I was refering to those few people who view MJ as some kind of God who never did wrong. I don’t want to get in this conversation again.There is a trial that is more important.We all made our points and i personally i’m moving on.


  15. Maria permalink
    September 28, 2011 2:43 pm

    Michael Jackson live for kids. Until the end.
    The last two sentences is a summary of his life. During trial Murray:voice recording MJ:
    “I’m talking that money, a milion children, children’s hopitals the biggest in the world, Michael Jackson’s Children’s Hospital”
    He was the noblest of men. By the end, he speaks: Michael Jackson Children’s Hospital. This recording is a shocking record of how he preached to the rest of his life’s love and care for children. Michael Jackson was crucified because He loved children more than you can imagine. He was the angel children. He lived for the children. MJ was a gift from God.


  16. September 28, 2011 5:37 pm

    “What is this thing about related or unrelated anyway? My first husband molested our daughter for years. Relation doesn’t matter. If you’re a molester, it doesn’t matter if they are related to you. I will always let a child sleep in bed with me if they are troubled or scared. I will do what ever I can to comfort a child.”

    Linda, sorry to hear about this horrendous experience in your family. I am amazed at how often we hear of these crimes! You know better than anyone else that these people are beyond cure. It does’t matter to them whose child it is – they say it is their inbred sexuality and this is why they are working so hard for its acceptance. They claim they cannot help it! So the conclusion you are making is absolutely correct. If you’re a molester, it doesn’t matter if they are related to you. Once a molester, always a molester.

    “I will have to read it again to understand it all”

    English is a foreign language to me and it is often difficult for me to express my thoughts. If the text is totally incomprehensible please tell me – I will try to correct or explain.


  17. Linda permalink
    September 29, 2011 9:05 am

    @ vindicate

    I think you do an excellent job with the English language. I just had a couple of drinks and I knew it would cloud my brain but any time I see a new article on here I have to read it right away, then I have to come back and reread it, lol.

    You guys are all doing a great job on this site. I don’t post very often but I come here every day just to see if there is a new article to read, and every so often I have to give my input. As far as I’m concerned Michael didn’t show any signs of being a ped.

    Media slant and public gullibility is disgusting. I face this crap about Michael at work often and I want to go off on these people and tell them some facts, but unfortunately I’m paid to work not defend Michael. I do get what I can get in there whenever I get a chance, but I am always pissed when I hear people say he was a molester. If all anybody ever did was read the court transcripts of the trial he went through they should know he was innocent.

    If people don’t want to take the time or energy to research a subject, or person, then they shouldn’t have, or give an opinion, because it’s just ugly gossip. I loved Michael, I needed to know if he was guilty or not and I thought 4 or 6 weeks of research, lol. I had no idea what I was getting into. 7 days a week for 2 years. I realized he was innocent after only a few weeks of searching. Doesn’t take very long to find the truth if thats what you are looking for. Your site was one of the first ones that lead me to the truth.

    Hats off to all of you. Keep up the good work. Michael will be vindicated, and justice will be served. watch out for the devil’s distractions. A house divided cannot stand. we all have to keep the goal in mind, which is to vindicate Michael. With Murray’s trial now underway things are going to get really nasty, and the devil and the media are going to be right in the middle of it.

    Sorry if I ranted on too much.

    Love you all


  18. Tahlia permalink
    September 30, 2011 3:55 pm

    This post may seem out of place, but I’ve been trying to get it to as many MJ people as I can. I need help dealing with the people who did this video which potentially millions of people will watch:

    This attack has made me very angry, I’m used to hearing this crap, but not from people who are supposed to be ‘christians’. I have written a letter to them, and hope that others could spare the time to do the same. I believe these people need to be shown that they can’t speak about people this way and get away with it. Here is the link to their contact info:

    I’m hoping that we can kill all the misinformation in this. Here is the letter I sent them:

    To whom it may concern,

    I would like to know where you got your information from on Michael Jackson. I was extremely disappointed to see that you have heavily implied that he was guilty of child molestation. Here are some quick facts for you:
    The settlement was paid by and insurance company and it was for a civil lawsuit. It did not stop the family from testifying in criminal court where it mattered, and they would still get all the money from the civil suit. If he wanted to ‘pay off’ anyone he would have done it months before when Evan first demanded money, that way there would never have been any investigation or press. Explain why he didn’t take that opportunity. This case was wrecked when Jordan failed to accurately describe Michael’s genitals saying he was circumcised, his autopsy report says different.
    If you are interested in the truth as I would expect a Christian site to be, please refer to the following information about the 1993 allegation for thoroughly researched facts regarding the case:
    Jordan Chandler:
    Was it a MATCH or a total MISMATCH?
    Civil suit: a way to TRAP Michael Jackson
    Michael Jackson REGRETTED the civil settlement
    Why didn’t you pay in AUGUST 1993 to avoid all the nightmare?
    SODIUM AMYTAL for Jordan Chandler:
    Proud to be on MICHAEL’S side or why the INSURANCE company wasn’t mentioned in his agreement with Chandlers
    Michael Jackson sequel: Settlement not enough
    In The Beginning There was Truth
    Evan Chandler – David Schwartz phone talk FULL TRANSCRIPT
    Did Jordan Chandler make a DEPOSITION?
    1993 settlement agreement:
    Was it HUSH money if the family could still TESTIFY?
    Tom Mesereau had WITNESSES to prove Jordan Chandler lied!
    Thorough examination of the 1993 case
    If you intend to present warnings to Christians about other people I suggest you get your facts right and research things properly. Many of the things you say in the video about Michael are from unreliable sources, and I’m also very annoyed at the fact that you haven’t bothered to say what your sources are or how well you checked them. I appreciate that you are trying to do the right thing, but saying things about a man you have not got correct information on is wrong. The song We Are The World has been misunderstood by you and I believe you have taken the entire thing the wrong way. I have contacted the owners of the blog which I posted links to, and I believe they will shed further light on the inaccuracies of the things said in your video.

    I know I may have been a bit cheeky saying that the people who write for this blog will help refute this garbage, you already have heaps of info here, but there are things in this video which have not been addressed here, and I have nothing to refute some of their claims with. I know you guys are really busy, but I really hope you can help.


  19. lcpledwards permalink
    October 1, 2011 5:27 am

    Thanks for the info! I’ve seen that propaganda video before, and it’s all garbage. They try to paint Michael in a bad light, and make you feel “guilty” for being a fan of his. I will be doing a post in a few months to refute all of the nonsense that many Christians spew about MJ (which are taken straight from the media and tabloids, and then given credibility because it’s coming from a “person of faith”). Stay tuned!


  20. Tahlia permalink
    October 1, 2011 8:10 am

    Thanks heaps David, I can’t wait to shove your post in their gullible faces!


  21. MiMi permalink
    October 2, 2011 8:06 pm

    Why did Nancy Grace proclaim that MJ died in a bed of his own urine! I am OUTRAGED and wrote to the station to COMPLAIN about that LIE she told over and over and over again! He had on a condom catheter and she shoud KNOW that! I cannot STAND that she said that about him!


  22. Teva permalink
    October 2, 2011 9:03 pm

    Furthermore, Dr. Murray was not his live-in Caribbean doctor. Murray arrived at night and left in the morning. She keeps repeating the nonsense over and over again.


  23. sanemjfan permalink
    November 16, 2011 7:02 am

    Guys, with all of the coverage of the Penn. State University child abuse scandal, it was inevitable that MJ’s name would be brought into the mix, especially in light of Jerry Sandusky’s admission that he showered with young boys, but “nothing sexual happened”. People all over the internet are making comparisons to MJ’s admission that he shared his bed but “you think it’s sexual, but it’s not sexual. I tuck them in, give them a glass of warm milk and cookies“, etc.”

    Here is an excerpt from an article:

    5. You can already see where this defense is heading: Sandusky will follow the Michael Jackson path and argue he’s just a big kid.

    Yes, he took showers with the boys, yes, he hugged and touched them, but none of those acts were sexual in nature. A similar defense worked for Michael Jackson.

    Here are a couple of thoughts on that:

    a. Rural Pennsylvania is not Los Angeles.

    Will jurors in Pennsylvania be willing to buy this defense? It seems unlikely. But, keep in mind, only one person needs to buy it for Sandusky to walk.

    b. Sandusky is not a celebrity in the traditional sense.

    He’s just a regular guy who has been living in Happy Valley for decades. No one is going to be in awe of Sandusky. Does that help or hurt him? No idea. But you definitely got the sense that Jackson was immensely helped by his celebrity status.

    How quickly we forget allegations like these in the event of a not-guilty verdict. When Jackson died how much did you hear about his past as an alleged child abuser? Hardly anything, right?

    The real issue here is that Jackson’s lawyers were able to convince jurors that kids had a motive to lie. That motive? Cash. What motive do Sandusky’s accusers have to make up stories?

    Here’s another excerpt:

    The interview was creepy of course, but very reminiscient of the “Living With Michael Jackson” primetime TV special which was aired by ABC in 2003. If you recall in that interview – Michael Jackson admitted to sharing a bed with children and commented how he would give them “warm milk and cookies.”

    So this looks like the next great big battle that the fan community will have to fight over the next few months, possibly years, as right now this is the biggest story in the country, and will surely be the next big trial, even though the person accused isn’t a “celebrity”. Things are gonna get ugly, so brace yourself!


  24. Teva permalink
    November 16, 2011 7:34 am

    I read on twitter that Mez will be on Bill O’Reilly to talk about why Michael is not like Sandusky. IDK if this is a good idea or not. I know Mez can hold his own against the idiot, but IDK if I like the idea.


  25. Teva permalink
    November 16, 2011 7:43 am

    I really feel sorry for Prince and Paris, especially Prince. They are in high school were kids can be mean, and they are on full blown internet where the freaks attack. They just finished the trial of their dad’s killer where Michael was dragged through the mud, and all his addictions were brought up. Now the media is starting afresh with pedophilia. It has got to be hard.


  26. sanemjfan permalink
    November 16, 2011 9:03 am

    I just saw tonight’s episode of Bill O’Reilly, and he tried to show the similarities between MJ and Sandusky. He didn’t mention bed-sharing and showering together specifically, but he did mention their odd behavior around kids (such as excessive horseplay, etc).

    Yes, it’s going to be rough for those kids. For the rest of their lives, they’ll get to see the good, the bad, and the ugly that comes with being the children of the King of Pop. They’ve already experienced the good, when you consider all of the positive experiences they’ve had with fans at the Cirque Du Soleil concert, MJ’ birthday in Gary, IN, the tribute concert in England, etc.

    And they’re about to experience the bad and the ugly………………….


  27. Suzy permalink
    November 16, 2011 10:03 am

    Someone should tell those idiots that it’s not the “I’m just a big kid defense” why MJ was acquitted.


  28. Suzy permalink
    November 16, 2011 10:16 am

    Bill O’Reilly is the embodiment everything that is wrong with the American right wing. I have seen him arguing with Professor Richard Dawkins (evolutionary biologist) and he was equally ignorant, twisting scientific facts just like he does about MJ.


  29. sanemjfan permalink
    November 16, 2011 10:17 am

    @ Suzy
    I think that’s what Mesereau is going on the Bill O’Reilly show tomorrow to talk about. I will record it and transcribe it and post in on the blog tomorrow. I have complete confidence that he’ll put O’Reilly in his place and debunk all of the myths, the same way he did on Jay Leno a few years ago, after the trial


  30. Suzy permalink
    November 16, 2011 10:35 am

    @ David

    I hope so! Thing is with idiots like Bill O’Reilly that they use the appeal to emotions and people’s biases, prejudices tactic. And sadly that works for many because people are lazy to think.

    It’s very sad that MJ’s name is getting thrown into the mix with the Sandunsky scandal. What does he have to do with anything? Once again his name is used and abused to sell papers and collect clicks on websites. I’m not really familiar with the Sandunsky case, so I don’t know what the evidences are. But I know MJ was innocent and the evidence of that, trial transcripts etc are all there for everybody to see. Too bad most people won’t take any effort to look it up, they will only go with the media soundbites and twists such as what you have quoted.


  31. ares permalink
    November 16, 2011 4:12 pm

    This is inevitable. From what i understand every single case in America is going to be compared to that of MJ’s. We can only hope that people will stop one being being so ignorant about things and believe whatever the media serves them but i don’t count on it. People want to have someone to hate and that someone in the US is Mike?


  32. November 16, 2011 5:41 pm

    Does not most young children want to jump into their parents bed?
    At least if they had a bad dream they cry for their parents at night and on Sunday mornings many parents allow their children into their bed.
    When Michael was a young child he expierienced severe parental abuse by his father.Some time ago I got an article that looked into the effects of child abuse and sexual child abuse.Both have long lasting effect into adulthood. Now it´s known about old Joe´s beatings and cruelty.

    Michael’s childhood was not happy, but I think there were some aspects of it that comforted him.He came to enjoy performing. And while living in that tiny house in Gary all the boys were crammed into one little room at night,and there is also a picture of the sleeping in a heap in the van when returning home. It is natural for young to seek closeness to parents.The memory of closeness as something comforting must have stayed with him.

    He had great difficulty moving out on his own even after he had bought a place (not NL) for himself. It took him years to actually do it. I think the feeling of closeness was missing once he moved out. And I think he may have had some separation anxiety that was especially at night. He came from a very big family.

    Having someone around at bed time may have given him a feeling of security and prevented insomnia. Some of this is based on my own expierienses in childhood, and of myself being a parent. And also professionally I have been involved with these matters.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. November 16, 2011 6:34 pm

    My post just disappeared in the middle of writing it.It was lengthy and I´ll post another time.I just wanted to point out that it is a natural instinct among young children to sleep close to parents or parental figures. Children do not like to sleep alone. There are many cultural differences in this regard.Also there are cultural differences re nudity and it´s relationship to sexuality. Children are attractive and if they are your own you feel like hugging and kissing them when they are little,and that is for sure not sexual. In western culture for some reason it is important to have a baby in a separate room. In Sweden they created something called “family bed” where a newborn and a baby could sleep with the parents.This way a child does not develop separation anxiety. -Even LMP said that the children would follow Michael everywhere,even to the bathroom if allowed.
    I think Michael had separation anxiety and having kids around at bedtime helped him relax and feel safe and “at home” and it had nothing to do with sex.
    We are mammals, and their young stick around for a long time,looking at it from an anthropological point of view.


  34. November 16, 2011 7:02 pm

    Sorry for the 2 posts almost identical. My computer caused some problems and I did not know that the first one went off,thought it just disappeared.I was going to elaborate on separation anxiety and why I think Michael was plagued by it, but I´ll leave that for now.


  35. shelly permalink
    November 16, 2011 8:30 pm

    Thanks God for Mesereau, Yu and Sanger.


  36. November 16, 2011 11:55 pm

    “I think he may have had some separation anxiety that was especially at night. He came from a very big family. Having someone around at bed time may have given him a feeling of security and prevented insomnia.”

    Kaarin, separation anxiety is a term which explains it very well. From the various accounts I’ve heard about Michael he did not necessarily need children around him for sleep – no, he just needed someone nearby to fill the deafening silence of him being alone.

    For example, when he, June Chandler and her two children were staying in a 3 room suite in a hotel in Monaco (where he was to receive an award) the first night they slept all together in one room. Even Tom Sneddon was surprised to hear that when he asked June Chandler questions at the trial. “All in one room?”, he incredulously asked her. “Yes”, said June Chandler not going into the details of it.

    Arnold Klein also said that when he, Debbie Rowe (and probably someone else from his office) accompanied Michael on a tour all of them had to stay with Michael in one room for him to be able to sleep.

    This was probably the reason why he also surrounded himself with life-size mannequins – he wanted to have a feeling that his room was crowded with people.

    He spent his young years in a huge family, stayed day and night with his brothers on innumerable tours, and was trying to fall asleep after the thunderous shows – so the silence of suddenly being alone must have been deafening for him.


  37. November 17, 2011 12:43 am

    “Arnold Klein also said that when he, Debbie Rowe (and probably someone else from his office) accompanied Michael on a tour all of them had to stay with Michael in one room for him to be able to sleep.”

    When did he said that?


  38. November 17, 2011 1:48 am

    “Sandusky took showers with the boys”

    I’ve had a brief look into Sandusky’s case and in NO WAY can it be compared with Michael’s.

    Here are only several points:

    1) In Michael’s case everyone took double or triple effort to find at least “something” about him. The FBI, the Department for children and family services, the police , two district attorneys, numerous well-wishers like Victor Gutierrez and the media – all of them looked for 15 years and didn’t find anything.

    Sandusky’s case was the opposite – NO ONE really looked. During the grand jury investigation there was an “uncooperative atmosphere” from many of the officials.

    2) In Michael’s case all those who allegedly saw something kept silent, never reported anything to the police (there was nothing to report) and began talking only when seeing certain banknotes offered to them. However even in spite of huge money offered by the media for false stories many people refused to slander Michael (see Robert Newt’s story as one of the numerous examples:,2933,152708,00.html)

    In Sandusky’s case all witnesses were extremely distraught and promptly reported what they had seen to the School administration and the police, but no one took action.

    3) In Michael’s case despite the 15 year joint media-police-FBI-public effort they could hardly scrape 2 and a half “victims”.

    The first made serious allegations but they turned out a complete lie as none of his descriptions matched. The second “victim” complained he was molested after the scandal broke out, which is in and of itself is absurd. The third spoke of some tickling which he “recalled” only a decade later while when initially asked questions by the police he said he wanted to hit them on the head for their insistence. Francia said “They made me come up with a lot more stuff. They kept pushing. I wanted to hit them in the head.

    Sandusky’s case if full of victims – there are at least 8 boys several of whom reported things like oral and anal sex.

    4) Michael always vehemently denied any wrongdoing and was always ready to fight his accusers in a criminal court.

    Sandusky actually admitted regularly having showers with the boys and touching them in the process. When asked whether he touched the boys’ private parts he said – “may be”. To the mother of one of his victims he confessed: “I understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won’t get it from you. I wish I were dead”

    5) Despite being tried and fully acquitted Michael was still haunted and harassed.

    Sandusky was covered up by his bosses and lived a comfortable life of a professor emeritus who had access to all the facilities, lockers, showers even after all those huge complaints were made.

    6) All Sandusky’s victims tried to distance themselves from him, never returned his calls and eventually stopped their contacts with him, though Sandusky was insisting and luring them into a relationship by gifts and marijuana.

    Michael was the one who was followed by crowds of children everywhere. All his so-called accusers were dreaming of staying by his side. And when the two grand juries did not indict him in 1993 the first accuser Jordan Chandler even threw himself in his clothes into a pool and when asked by his brother, “Are you crazy?” replied to him: “You don’t understand, but this is a good day”.

    * * *

    See the difference for yourselves – Sandusky’s case:


  39. sanemjfan permalink
    November 17, 2011 1:55 am

    See guys! I told you this was coming!

    Here’s an excerpt from that article:

    Even worse, Jerry Sandusky, who is accused of abusing at least eight young boys over a 15-year-period and reportedly under investigation for more, confirmed that, per former grad assistant Mike McQueary’s grand jury testimonial that he saw Jerry Sandusky sexually assaulting a child in the showers at Penn State in 2002, he was in the shower with a young boy.

    “I have horsed around with kids. I have showered with workouts. I have hugged them and I have touched their legs without intent of sexual contact,” he told Costas, as Jerry Sandusky denied that he was a pedophile.
    That response was eerily reminiscent of those given by Michael Jackson to British journalist Martin Bashir in 2003 for the special Living with Michael Jackson. In that interview, Michael Jackson admitted that he often shared his bed with children in response to accusations that he had molested young boys. Michael Jackson, like Jerry Sandusky, insisted that his actions were not sexual.
    When he spoke with Ed Bradley about this on 60 Minutes that same year, Michael Jackson did not back away from his statements. He told Bradley that he still felt that it was okay for him, a grown man over 40, to sleep in the same bed as a child.

    “If you’re going to be a pedophile, if you’re going to be Jack the Ripper, if you’re going to be a murderer, it’s not a good idea,” Michael Jackson told Bradley. “That I’m not. That’s how we were raised. And I met, I didn’t sleep in the bed with the child. Even if I did, it’s OK. I slept on the floor. I gave the bed to the child.”
    What’s disturbing about Jerry Sandusky’s response Monday night and Michael Jackson’s responses in 2003, before he was eventually acquitted of child molestation charges in 2005, is that the inappropriateness of both men’s actions seemed lost on them.

    Although Michael Jackson was not convicted of child molestation, most people do not co-sign on the concept of grown man having children who are not his own sleeping in his bedroom. This is just not appropriate behavior.

    Like I said, it’s starting to get ugly, and it’s only going to get worse! Let’s hope Mesereau can put a stop to this, or at least slow it down! Considering that Bill O’Reilly has the #1 show in cable news, he’s definitely the guy to talk to!


  40. November 17, 2011 1:57 am

    “When did he said that?”

    Klein said it to Larry King on July 8, 2009 –

    “KING: Did he have an insomnia problem?

    KLEIN: Not that I knew of, except that once we went on tour with him. We were in Hawaii. He couldn’t get to sleep. So the whole — me and my whole office went to sleep in the room with him. So I never knew that he had a problem with sleep until this whole tour came up or basically this problem with sleep at that time”.


  41. sanemjfan permalink
    November 17, 2011 9:22 am

    Guys, here is the transcript, and let me explain why I was disappointed in this interview. I was expecting Mesereau to dispel the myth that MJ lured kids into his bed to spoon and cuddle with him without their parents’ permission, which is why so many people think it was so unacceptable, but unfortunately he didn’t. The O’Reilly show would have been a major platform for him to dispel that myth, since he is the #1 show in cable news.

    My major beef with this interview (and let me be clear, it’s the interview I have a problem with, and NOT Mesereau himself) is the very end when HE DID NOT SWIFTLY AND ABSOLTUELY CONDEMN SANDUSKY FOR SHOWERING WITH YOUNG BOYS! He said that “technically speaking, showering with boys is not sex” , but did not condemn Sandusky’s actions, and the media will take that one line and make it the focal point in all of their future MJ/Sandusky comparisons: “Michael Jackson’s attorney Tom Mesereau defends a grown man who showers with young boys!” I can just see it coming a mile away!

    And yes, technically he is correct; just because Sandusky showered with young boys, it doesn’t mean he raped them, and he’s entitled to his day in court and a fair trial, blah blah blah, but think about this guys: this has been the top story for the last week, and I’m sure each of you has discussed this at least once with your friends and family, right? And I’m sure that each time that Sandusky’s showers with young boys has been brought up, everyone has condemned his actions – regardless of his innocence or guilt – and everyone has called him a pervert, creep, monster, etc., right? What if you had said to your friends and family “Just because he showered with those young boys, it doesn’t mean he raped them!”? Especially in light of the eyewitness testimony of the coach (Mike McQuery) who reported the incident to Paterno (and is now claiming that he did contact the police)!

    Your friends and family would probably look at you sideways, and call you an apologist, and ask you why are you trying to defend a child molester, right? I’m sure they wouldn’t take your defense of Sandusky very lightly, right? I know my friends wouldn’t! And that’s what the media is going to do. They will take Mesereau’s words and make it seem like he’s defending Sandusky’s showering with young boys, and also make it seem like he’s calling McQuery a liar by suggesting that the rape that he claimed to have seen didn’t take place at all!

    Another quote that they’ll use against Mesereau is when he said that he would “consider” taking this case, but not at the moment. They’ll use that to “connect” MJ and Sandusky, and pigeonhole Mesereau as someone who defends accused child molesters!

    One last thing I want to address is when Mesereau was asked he thought MJ was innocent, as opposed to “not guilty”. Mesereau saying that he believes that MJ was 100% innocent really doesn’t hold much weight in the eyes of skeptics (who make up the majority of O’Reilly’s audience) because he’s saying exactly what they expect him to say! They’re going to say to themselves “Of course he’s going to say his client is not guilty! He defended him! Do you really expect him to say that he now thinks MJ is guilty, after all of these years?” It’s just the same as if you were to ask Sneddon or Zonen if they still think MJ is guilty. Of course they’re going to say “yes”! Would you expect them to say “Well, we knew he was innocent, but we prosecuted him anyway”.

    One more thing I want to point out is this: did you notice how when Mesereau started to talk about what the jury said, O’Reilly immediately cut him off? I know Mesereau meant well, but the problem is that whenever you say “well, the jury said this, and the jury said that”, it’s not unimpeachable, because the justice system isn’t perfect, and a skeptic can say that maybe MJ got off on reasonable doubt (in fact, two of the jurors – Ray Hultman and Eleanor Cooke – said after the trial that they thought MJ may have been guilty, and a few months later they tried to write a book saying he was guilty, and of course we refuted them in this post.) That’s why I always recommend that you never, ever say “well, the jury said this, or that”, or “the jury acquitted him 14 times of all charges”.

    That’s my two cents. Here’s the transcript:

    O’Reilly: Joining us now from Los Angeles, attorney Thomas Mesereau, who successfully defended Michael Jackson against child molestation charges back in 2005. Counsel, do you see any similarities in the two cases?

    Mesereau: Yes I do. In both cases you had a grand jury indictment. In both cases grand jury information has been handed to the media. And remember, in a grand jury proceeding, there’s no judge, and no jury, and no cross-examination, so everything looks stacked against the defendant. And in both cases the media has swarmed all over that grand jury indictment, and whatever information they’ve gotten, and they basically have convicted the defendant before the defendant has a chance to even defend himself.

    O’Reilly: Now, isn’t grand jury testimony supposed to be secret? You rightly pointed out that in both the Jackson case and the Sandusky case, the media got a hold of this stuff. Is there something wrong with that?

    Mesereau: Yes, there is. A grand jury proceeding is supposed to be secret. It’s supposed to be closed. In the Jackson case, information was being leaked on almost a daily basis from that grand jury room. And remember, there’s no defense lawyer in sight in a grand jury proceeding. Additionally, on the first day of jury selection in the Jackson case, someone took all those transcripts and handed them to ABC. The judge had ordered that they be suppressed and basically remain secret until they naturally arose during the course of the trial. So people were trying to prejudice everyone against us. I suspect that may be starting in this case too.

    O’Reilly: And that’s illegal, though, for anybody to release grand jury testimony, correct?

    Mesereau: Yes, it is.

    O’Reilly: Alright, but how aggressively authorities are going to pursue that, I don’t know. Now, the Jackson situation was basically one family, one kid against Jackson, that’s what you had to contend with, correct?

    Mesereau: That’s not totally correct. It was one primary accuser, and in California the prosecution introduce evidence of other similar acts. And they introduced evidence that five other young men had been molested as well, and they tried to introduce evidence that more young men had been molested.

    O’Reilly: But they weren’t called to testify, these kids, right?

    Mesereau: I called them to testify. They put on evidence that five other young men were molested, they did it primarily through third-party witnesses, however, one of them did testify, an alleged youth pastor, who said that he had been tickled outside of his jeans. I started my case by calling three of those five as my first three witnesses, all of whom denied that they had been molested by Michael Jackson.

    O’Reilly: Alright, you quickly impeached that scenario, but in this scenario with Sandusky, there’s a lot of kids, allegedly, a lot, and they’re are adults now, they’re not children any longer. And there are two eyewitnesses; the football coach, and a janitor. Now the janitor is problematic because he’s got dementia, he resides in a nursing home, and he’s incompetent to testify, so that’s going to go out the window. Now Mesereau, the football coach, he says he’s an eyewitness, now that………Jackson didn’t have that against him, but Sandusky seems to have that against him.

    Mesereau: No, Michael had witnesses against him. There were people who worked at Neverland who tried to claim that all of these other young men were molested. They got on the stand, one after another, and said they’d seen things in the shower, they’d seen things in the pool, they’d seen things in his room, the prosecution really tried to load up on us in the Jackson case. The problem was, they all fell like a deck of cards when you start cross-examining them! They made conflicting statements, they tried to sell their stories, they had questionable pasts, I mean, it was just amazing to watch them fall like dominoes, and you never know if that will happen in this case.

    O’Reilly: But you didn’t have anybody, and correct me if I’m wrong, testify before a grand jury that he’s witnessed a crime? McQuery testified in front of the grand jury. You didn’t have anybody testify in front of the grand jury that actually witnessed Michael Jackson molesting anybody, did you?

    Mesereau: Yes, we had the brother of the accuser claim that he had walked up a stairwell and had seen his brother being molested. We did have that.

    O’Reilly: Okay. So you impeached every single one of them, and that’s what Sandusky’s attorney is going to have to do. He’s just gonna have to knock them down one by one.

    Mesereau: Well remember, in the world of Michael Jackson, there were so many con artists, and exploiters, and imposters showing up and trying to take advantage of Michael Jackson. He was the best known celebrity, he was fabulously wealthy, and so many people would show up with their hands out, trying to get something, and we were able to not only knock over these witnesses one by one, but show a picture, a broader picture, of exploitation. And it all worked in the end.

    O’Reilly: Now you heard Sandusky say on television that he showered with boys, I mean, that’s pretty damning just in that regard, is it not?

    Mesereau: It is, and I think his statement was very foolish. I don’t know why his lawyer let him do that, and I think it’s gonna hurt you in the long run. But technically speaking, showering with boys is not sex, and what the defense has to do is draw a distinction and say “Look! He’s a big jock, you know, he hangs around football facilities, he hangs around with young people all the time, and never did he do anything sexual.” It sounds like a tall order, but you know it might happen.

    O’Reilly: Would you take this case, Sandusky? Would you take this case?

    Mesereau: You know, I have no interest in this case at the moment, but I do defend difficult cases. I believe in what criminal defense lawyers do, we make the system work, we defend people charged with crimes, who everyone has vilified and attacked, and yes, it’s a case I would consider taking, but it’s not a case that interests me right now.

    O’Reilly: Do you still believe that Michael Jackson innocent of all of this? Not “not guilty”, but innocent?

    Mesereau: I know he was 100% innocent. He wasn’t just acquitted, he was vindicated. The jury said “Not guilty” 14 times, and……………

    O’Reilly: But you personally, now that Mr. Jackson is not here any longer, do you personally, 100% convinced he was not a child molester?

    Mesereau: I’m 100% convinced that he was innocent and not a child molester, yes sir.

    O’Reilly: Thanks for coming on, we appreciate it.


  42. November 17, 2011 11:05 am

    David, thank you for the transcript of Mesereau’s interview. I think he is behaving as a true lawyer and defense counsel who will not pass judgment before the court has its final say. Everyone is presumed innocent until found guilty, and this is what Mesereau it reminding us of – there is still a need to have those terrible testimonies confirmed in court.

    But what they did not mention in that interview is that Sandusky actually confessed his guilt by saying to one of the victim’s mothers: “I understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won’t get it from you. I wish I were dead” (though of course releasing that information from the Grand jury indictment was not a proper thing to do.)

    I think they made those papers public in order to have some food for trashing Michael Jackson again. However these two cases are incomparable even if you do not touch upon the substance of the testimonies and look only at the circumstances surrounding the case (which are undeniable and do not require any further proof):

    the bosses of Sandusky and all officials including the police were extremely slack in their work (while in Michael’s they were overzealous).

    all witnesses who testified about Sandusky behaved the way witnesses are supposed to behave. They immediately reported what they had seen to the police – only no one listened to them.

    In Michael’s case even the former policemen or detectives who served in Neverland and were mandated to report, never said anything until they were approached with money by the media. There was absolutely nothing standing in the way to those reports – even the pay was “minimal” as they complained, so why break law in order to keep this “miserable” job? And why did none of these people answer for “closing their eyes” on the alleged crimes?

    Sandusky’s actions were never in the limelight though I gather that their football team was quite popular. Everything was hushed up.

    In Michael’s case the whole world seemed to be watching his every step – not to mention the FBI, Tom Sneddon who was Michael’s life-long prosecutor and numerous media outlets. The public was encouraged to come up with allegations. Their each and every story was followed by the authorities and the media. And a great number of people said that they were approached with huge sums – like $100,000 – only to say that Michael “touched them”. Very few responded even despite this terrible pressure.

    and what is a VERY big and tale-telling sign is that all the boys in Sandusky’s case tried to avoid him like the plague which is very typical of REAL abuse.

    Needless it to say that all those who ventured their lies against Michael were dreaming of being by his side. The Arvizos grew embittered only when they realized that Michael would not buy them houses and provide for their future. Jordan Chandler was happy when Michael’s wasn’t indicted in the 1993 case. Of course the fact that this was reported by Victor Gutierrez dampens it a bit – but over here he had no reason to lie, it was simply against his interests. Most probably he just missed the point that one day his own book would be used in support of Michael’s innocence:

    “A representative from
    the OA’s office telephoned him, and told him “Michael
    Jackson will not be prosecuted, but if some day you change
    your mind and you want to testify against him, the case will
    be open for another six years.” Upon hanging up the phone,
    Jordie felt “relief and peace,” according to what he told to
    his best friend.
    Jordie went to the swimming pool at his house where his
    stepbrother and Nathalie were, and jumped in with his
    clothes on. When his brother asked him if he was crazy, he
    answered, smiling and hugging him, “You don’t understand,
    but this is a good day.”


  43. sanemjfan permalink
    November 17, 2011 11:53 am

    This is starting to get ugly! And we’re just getting started! This article is indicative of the type of trash we can expect to be bombarded with over the next few weeks, months, and possibly years! The author actually made a side by side comparison between the MJ and Sandusky interviews, in an attempt to show how “similar” they are. Here is an excerpt:

    After his death, Jackson had a multi-million dollar memorial broadcast around the world. Guest included politicians, singers, actors and assorted other famous folks. They recounted the good times they shared with the man from Neverland Ranch. Thousands of fans waited outside just to say they were in the vicinity.

    Sandusky will be lucky if he gets a couple of guys to play the kazoo over his coffin the day his number is called. It makes me think that if indeed pedophilia was the stain of his life on this earth, Sandusky would have been better off learning the two-step instead of the cover-2. If he could belt out a tune instead of calling defensive formations maybe all would be forgiven of him, too.

    That’s not to say that Sandusky isn’t deserving of the vitriol he is currently experiencing. His admission that he bathed with his underage charges is reason enough to ostracize him. But we, as a community, also have to bear some of the responsibility. Our deference to all things famous, infamous, notorious or wealthy led us down this path of blind-eyed fealty to anyone who has acquired celebrity status. In America money is our god and the cult of personality is our church. It’s long past time for us to become heretics.

    While folks are sharpening their pitchforks and lighting their torches, ready to draw and quarter Sandusky in the town square, I suggest a little theme music to accompany the frothing mob, something from Michael Jackson’s discography perhaps.

    I notice a trap that many people are asking MJ fans: regardless of MJ’s guilt or innocence, if it was OK for MJ to sleep in the same bed with young boys (as he admitted to in the Bashir interview when he said “I’ve slept in the bed with many kids”), then why isn’t it OK for Sandusky to shower with them? I’ve seen this question presented over and over and over in various forums and articles. Do a simple google search of “michael jackson jerry sandusky” and see what kind of filth you find!

    The minute fans start defending MJ, even though he didn’t force them, and the parents gave permission, they get smeared as being “apologists” for him because they like his music. One guy asked if MJ had taken showers with boys (as he was falsely accused of doing by Blanca Francia) would fans defend him? We’re being accused of having a double standard, and it’s only going to get worse.

    Yes, Mesereau is a defense attorney, and answered the questions as one would expect a defense attorney to answer them, but he didn’t come down hard enough on Sandusky, and for him to say that he would “consider” defending him will be twisted by the media. In fact, the media is calling Sandusky’s defense strategy “The MJ Defense”, and Mesereau almost confirmed it by saying how the defense will say “he’s a big jock, he likes kids”, etc. And his criticism of Sandusky’s lawyer for allowing him to be interviewed will be applied to Mark Geragos, who represented MJ at that time the 60 Minutes interview was given.

    Ughh! My head is spinning, and it’s only going to get worse as the story drags on and on! I’ve already been asked if I’m going to do a post on this, and we may have to eventually. If we do, one thing we’ll have to realize is that no matter what we say, there will ALWAYS be people who will be critical of MJ’s actions (and that doesn’t mean they’re “haters”), and we can’t expect to force people to accept his actions. The best we can hope to do is dispel all of the myths surrounding the sleepovers, and hope that will change their minds about him.


  44. November 17, 2011 4:03 pm

    I think Mesereau was just explaining what he would do if he was Sandusky’s defense lawyer. I don’t think the interview was bad at all, he was just acting like every lawyer should do.


  45. ares permalink
    November 17, 2011 4:58 pm

    David, i see what you are saying and i agree but things are what they are. No one can change the way things happened in Mike’s life and whenever there will be a case of molestation in the US, Mike’s name will be always brought up.So don’t be frustrated, we can’t do anything to change that except try to present facts that people don’t know, like you guys are doing here, and hope that some day maybe things will improve for MJ’s public image. Unfortunatelly that part of Mike’s life brings a lot of ratings to the stations, site traffic to blogs and web pages and that’s why the “not guilty” verdict and all those evidence that prove beyond any doubt that MJ didn’t do anything to anyone -see the recording by Murray of Mike’s when he was under the influence of drugs- doesn’t matter to them. The haters will have a field day spilling their venom and the media increasing their ratings since anything Jackson especially negative, makes those rating machines explode.We can just hope that rationality and straight thinking will prevail but i doubt it.


  46. Suzy permalink
    November 17, 2011 8:33 pm

    More victims are coming forward in the Sandusky case:

    How is this any similar to Michael’s case where the DA set up websites, toured the world for “victims”, yet found none?


  47. November 17, 2011 9:13 pm

    Whenever something bears some similarity to an MJ-case,the bad old stuff
    about MJ is brought up. When the DSK scandal was hot in NYC his defense lawyer was Benjamin Brafman.And every time the name of Brafman was mentioned so was Michaels.”Was a defence lawyer for Michael Jackson”,
    this though his part was minimal indeed.Now it is this JS from Penn State that is compared to MJ.Michael has to bear the brunt of other peoples crimes!.
    What about crimes against Michael;Fabricated accusations,Martin Bashir, a liar,making promises to Michael to get an interview and then twisting the truth by clever editing to portray Michael in the worst possible way.And many, many people in the media.It seems some people have a licence to commit the crime of bearing false witness in the press.That is also what murray is doing with his documentary.The man who killed Michael now spreading his lies all over the world.


  48. November 17, 2011 9:18 pm

    Isn´t it “Bearing False Witness” that is a sin, I don´t know if there was an addition ie”when under oath in court”.


  49. Teva permalink
    November 18, 2011 6:08 am

    “No one can change the way things happened in Mike’s life and whenever there will be a case of molestation in the US, Mike’s name will be always brought up.So don’t be frustrated, we can’t do anything to change that . . . ”

    Ares is absolutely correct. Michael Jackson’s child m*lestation case was the biggest in the US and all future headline making CM cases will be compared to it, just like all big murder trials will be compared to OJ Simpson. That’s just the way it is.

    Hopefully common sense will prevail. I remember when the Conrad Murray trial started everyone on HLN wanted to compare it to Anna Nicole Smith and Elvis Presley, but Beth Karas stopped that. She said point blank it was nowhere near those two cases, and cannot be compared.

    I don’t think the showering with kids and sleeping in the same bed as kids are worthy of comparison. For starters many parents sleep with their children, but they don’t bath with them. Also you don’t have to be naked in a bed, but how many people shower with clothes on.


  50. lynande51 permalink
    November 18, 2011 6:19 am

    I think the media are hypocrites because just a short while ago Herman Caine a 2012 Republican Candidate for President was accused of sexual harassment and no body compared him to Bill O’Reily. So why are they comparing MJ to Jerry Sandusky?


  51. November 18, 2011 6:26 am

    I like that article

    Michael Jackson on Trial Again — Part I

    In the “trial of the century,” the prosecution rested, the defense rested, the jury can rest now that they’re dismissed. When does Michael Jackson get to rest? To the media this wasn’t the manslaughter trial of Conrad Murray; it was “the Michael Jackson Death Trial.” And much of the time, Michael Jackson, though dead, was on trial.

    Michael Jackson was not treated as a human being, but as a cash cow. His death hasn’t changed that. The exploitation of Jackson was legion — by acquaintances, hired help, colleagues, the music industry, the justice system, by families looking for deep pockets, by hangers-on, sycophants and especially by the media. Millions were made off the Jackson brand. What the public doesn’t know, is how cynical and deliberate the exploitation was. Author Joe Vogel wrote about the widespread cultural abuse of Jackson in a recent article titled “Am I the Beast you Visualized?”

    The latest betrayal is a documentary by Conrad Murray — the very doctor who is convicted of killing Jackson. Murray, charged with manslaughter, struck a deal two years ago with October Films for a documentary about his relationship with Jackson and his final days. Family and fans are asking how could NBC, in good conscience, produce and air a film that exploits Jackson yet again after death and by the very person responsible for that death? Murray inked a contract as Jackson was being laid to rest.

    The documentary included scenes depicting “private rooms” in Jackson’s home with clips recognized as photos of Neverland Ranch taken in 2003 after sheriff’s deputies raided and rifled through it. The same photos, originally used to slant opinion about Jackson’s private habits, made their way into Murray’s “documentary” along with a few contrived comments designed to denigrate Jackson while elevating Murray. How honest is a film and its intentions when cleverly edited for impact and ratings? Reminiscent of MSNBC Martin Bashir’s Living With Michael Jackson, another cleverly edited film called a “hit piece mocumentary” that was cynically produced for ratings and profit was refuted later by Jackson’s own film crew who taped the same footage simultaneously with Bashir’s crew. Murray’s documentary circumvented the justice system allowing in the testimony he refused to give in court despite a family’s frantic search for answers to what happened to their dead loved one, Michael.

    Conrad Murray’s manslaughter trial became “the Michael Jackson Death Trial” because media long ago learned that connecting Jackson’s name to anything increased revenues. People promoting their own brand still cynically link to Jackson knowing that negative stories about him increases attention. Reporters invented stories and not to be left out of the profit making game, mainstream media soon followed suit. A large segment of the population still believes the tabloid caricature of Jackson and the accusations from which he was exonerated. And they mistakenly believe self proclaimed “Michael Jackson experts” — who never even met the man and have an agenda and a reason to perpetuate the caricature myth — to avoid being exposed for their past treachery — using a human being for profit and to future careers. The propaganda about Jackson says more about the writer than it does about their subject. Nick Davies in his Flat Earth News exposé claims the public would be sickened by cynical media tactics and how they manipulate á la tabloid journalism gone mainstream.

    Jackson fans, who have been trying to warn consumers for years about the racist agenda and media exploitation of Jackson, issued a statement this week: “Michael Jackson fans have had enough. Ridicule us if you must, call us names, tell us we only think of Michael as an ‘idol’ — but we are not the ones selling his memory, objectifying him and making money off him.” They have called for a boycott of NBC and its sponsors.

    Murray may have administered the fatal dose of poison, but the media poisoning of public opinion regarding Jackson was relentless and protracted. Did the media torture a man to death for nothing more than ratings and profit? The most famous man in the world was also the most bullied. The tabloid campaign exploiting and lynching Jackson was unparalleled and lasted decades. Jackson’s exploiters hail from every possible position — from cleaning ladies to doctors and a rabbi spiritual director who published recordings of Jackson’s private sessions — all to make a buck off his brand.

    Physicians are outraged by Murray’s reckless treatment and his violation of HIPPA laws and patient confidentiality. They find it incredulous that a doctor, now convicted felon, skirted both the law and testifying in court and pimped his documentary that profits the very man he killed.

    The fans, aware that public opinion about them has also been manipulated, are concerned that the public continues to allow salacious media exploitation of public figures and are duped into its consumption unawares. One fan writes:

    “Our living rooms should not be dumping grounds for salacious materials that strip humans not only of their dignity, but their very humanity — and ours in the process. Where is the public outcry that says ‘enough is enough’? People were outraged when the Rupert Murdoch scandal broke about phone hacking for headlines for front page fodder with ill gotten sensationalized information; where are they now? Airing this documentary is shameful.”
    British Huffington Post journalist Charles Thomson chronicled the shaming irresponsibility of the media while covering the Jackson trial in 2005 in a piece called “The Most Shameful Episode in Journalistic History.”

    It might be worth pondering why a man who appeared to have it all needed such extreme measures to sleep. Why did he require medication that did not just help him sleep but rendered him unconscious nightly in order to rest? How did a vegetarian and purist who hated drugs come to rely on them? Remember, Jackson was found not guilty of exploiting children but the accusation would forever taint his legacy. Yet the Murray trial showcased, in Jackson’s own words, his dream to build a children’s hospital. His attorney, Thomas Mesereau voices concern about the recklessness of a slanted media that capitalizes and exaggerates drama for profit and ratings; he is joined by other attorneys like Matt Semino and Mark Geragos who worry that celebrity cultism and media manipulated public opinion preempt justice.

    Authors Aphrodite Jones in Conspiracy: The Michael Jackson Story, Jermaine Jackson in You Are Not Alone: Michael Through a Brother’s Eyes, and Joe Vogel with Man in the Music: The Creative Life and Work of Michael Jackson, as well as Armond White and others, try to set the record straight by telling the true Jackson story with new books that counter the tabloid trash and chronicle history.

    Even today few people are aware that in both cases accusing Jackson of harming children the same players appear — the district attorney nicknamed “Mad Dog,” the same attorney who recruited and represented both accusing families and the same psychiatrist reporting the accusations. Few people realize this gang still socializes together. Both the FBI and social services investigated Jackson and found no wrongdoing .

    Few understand what really happened to Jackson because his dehumanization in tabloids was so deliberate and the caricature painted so thorough. His ruination by public opinion and the media was so disheartening, the violation of his civil rights by law enforcement so encompassing that it rendered Jackson so dispirited and disillusioned that he left his homeland, the place where a little black kid from the inner city made it to Hollywood.

    The last insult came from Rupert Murdoch’s Sun tabloid publishing a photo of the dead Jackson front page in Britain with the racist moniker “Jacko” — whose origin describes monkeys and can be a slur used for those of African descent. Within hours after the release of that photo on HLN, extremely sadistic and cruel bullies send a copy to Jackson’s children with the message “From Daddy with love.”

    The second generation of Jacksons, including Michael Jackson’s children, have themselves been victims of bullying — their lives, relationships and paternity made fodder for gossip because tabloid reporters apparently eschew the legitimacy of adoption or fertilization techniques for childless families, and find alternative paternity and parenting somehow aberrant. Masks in public prevented them from being recognized at playgrounds later when accompanied by bodyguards who substituted for a father unable to accompany them in recreational outings without causing a media circus and security problems for police. Yet public opinion ridiculed Jackson for protecting his children from harm.

    There are those who seem to insist that public figures and their lives belong to the public instead of to themselves, who expect to be privy to any and all private information, who feel that celebrities are not entitled to the same civil rights everyone else enjoys. And there are those who pander to those compulsions and serve up the dirt whether true or not, for ratings and profits — doing it with illegal phone hacking, checkbook journalism and paying large sums for stories — the more salacious the story, the more zeroes on the check for stories that lynch and carve up real people on front pages — for profit.

    Adults wonder out loud where children get the ideas that seem so cruel and heartless. Enamored by celebrity, kids imitate the most popular, and are keenly aware of the values displayed by the adults around them. The new generation has just rediscovered Michael Jackson since his passing. Do you think they naively miss the tabloid battering of Michael Jackson? Where do they learn bullying? They are watching the media and watching us!


  52. November 18, 2011 8:23 pm

    Shelly,thank you for a comrehensive post re these allegation matters. I want to point out that the infamous Dr.Katz, working in tandem with Larry Feldman, is not a psychiatrist, he is a psychologist.Evan sent Jordan to Dr. Abrahms M D,the idea was that Evan not report abuse ,but someone else. Dr. Abrams being a s.c. obligatory reporter on suspicion
    on CA did so. So That left Evan free of having initiated the whole thing.His goal was to manouver the case to a civil suit.That referral was made October Jordan was seen by Dr.Richard A. Gardener, an MD and child psychiatrist,interested in fathers rights in custody cases.He was a clinical professor at Col. Univ.NYC.The interview
    was on this blog. However it lacked certain necessary parts, anD

    Feldman &Katz did not use it for obvious reasons after Dr. Katz had reviewed it.Dr. Gardener was also a


  53. November 18, 2011 8:36 pm

    My post was suddenly interupted. Anyway Dr.Gardener M.D. was a clinical professor at Columbia University in NYC.He was advocating for fathers rights and also false allegations.The interview was not useful for Katz&Feldman for obvious reasons.It can be read on this blog.


  54. November 18, 2011 8:43 pm

    Sorry for the multiple posts,some problem here. Dr. Gardener was also a specialist in detecting false allegations. The interview with Jordan is suspect, read it and judge for your self.


  55. November 19, 2011 1:24 am

    Sure the Sandusky is the same as the Jackson’s case. It’s from the mother of one of Sandusky’s victim

    “I want Jerry Sandusky to go to jail for the rest of his life.” She also claims that Sandusky took her son out of his classes without her permission.


  56. Jan permalink
    December 2, 2011 9:53 pm

    look at the comments under this article aswell:

    people do not do any research at all


  57. lynande51 permalink
    December 3, 2011 9:39 am

    I especially like the comments that say not guilty does not mean innocent? Um… well, yes it does. Just go to your search engine and type in legal definition of innocent and go the legal dictionary that comes up. The first thing you will get is not guilty. So that means that not guilty means innocent in the legal definition.
    The other thing is entering a plea of innocent and following that is a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That makes any doubters of the innocence of the not guilty verdict unreasonable right?
    A good question to ask that person is, does guilty not mean guilty then? If Not guilty does not mean innocent then guilty must not mean guilty. Yeah that one is just about as lame of an arguement that you can get. I wonder what heading that would fall under when we look at haters arguments? Would that be the big lie or my own personal favorite is a new one. The delusional argument. You can’t argue with a delusion because it is a belief that is held by that person that is not based in reality.That is what the haters arguments are: personal beliefs not held by others or based in reality.


  58. December 3, 2011 12:10 pm

    “I especially like the comments that say not guilty does not mean innocent? Um… well, yes it does. Just go to your search engine and type in legal definition of innocent and go the legal dictionary that comes up. The first thing you will get is not guilty. So that means that not guilty means innocent in the legal definition.”

    The problem is you have very few people who understand that, I don’t know how many “fights” I have on IMDB.


  59. ares permalink
    December 3, 2011 2:57 pm

    -“I especially like the comments that say not guilty does not mean innocent?- Lynette

    Yes, i like when i see people using that agrument because then i know that they are in that category of brainwashed- unable to think for themself- idiots who are repeating what they hear in the media. Their brain is in pension. I remember having a debate with someone and at some point he threw at me that argument and i told him that in the american court system there is not the “innocent” as legal term. So someone is going to be found either “not guilty” or “guitly”.He told me whatever and that MJ was guilty and he stoped talking.I don’t think you can do much with people like this.They have made up their mind about him and they will use any argument, factual or not, in order to support their view. You can’t beat stupidity unfortunatelly.


  60. March 5, 2012 2:40 am

    I added a video at the end of the post of Frank Cascio explaining why MJ let Gavin sleep in his bedroom, as well as MJ’s mentor Bobby Taylor talking about his influence on MJ!


  61. nan permalink
    March 5, 2012 10:28 am

    I saw that on the Icon documentary too.I believe he said MJ would ask if he could sleep in his room , probably because his brothers might have been busy with female fans and that he would stay in his room for a week sometimes..and hound him about perfecting his craft.., something to that effect…Nobody thought anything of it…
    The more you look into this , the more ridiculous this witch hunt becomes..The grifter families , the media , the lawyers …it is all money…..
    I dont know why the press didnt jump all over it when Fred Astair invited a very young Michael over to dinner at his house, just the two of them..
    Sammy Davis, Gene Kelly, and others wanted to hang around with this young man also..
    They could obviously see those were mentoring situation, but for some reason , they could never give Michael the credit due to him ..That people just thought he was an amazing talent and a real role model for young people, which he was …and that they all wanted to be around him 24/7 , just like June Chandler testified to also..



  1. How to Recognize and Refute the Fallacies Used By Michael Jackson Haters, Part 4 of 5 « Vindicating Michael
  2. How to Recognize and Refute the Fallacies Used By Michael Jackson Haters, Part 4 of 5 « Fan Blog for MJ
  3. Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 2 of 5: Michael Did NOT “Channel” Demon Spirits to Help Him Write Songs! « Vindicating Michael
  4. 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

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: