Skip to content

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

November 18, 2011

Let the takedown of Gloria Allred begin……………….

Allred should do this more often!

The Half Truth (also Card Stacking, Incomplete Information). A corrupt argument from logos, the fallacy of telling the truth but deliberately omitting important key details in order to falsify the larger picture and support a false conclusion (e.g. “The truth is that Ciudad Juárez is one of the world’s fastest growing cities and can boast of a young, ambitious and hard-working population, mild winters, a dry and sunny climate, low cost medical and dental care, a multitude of churches and places of worship, delicious local cuisine and a swinging nightclub scene. Taken together, all these facts clearly prove that Juarez is one of the world’s most desirable places for young families to live, work and raise a family.”)   

This is probably the second most used fallacy (behind the aforementioned Big Lie and ad hominem techniques). Dimond repeatedly used this technique in her roundtable discussion with TruTV’s “In Session”, as well her partners in crime Nancy Grace, Maureen Orth, and Gloria Allred.

Speaking of Allred, I scanned the chapter of her 2006 book “Fight Back and Win: My Thirty-year Fight Against Injustice” that is dedicated to MJ and the 2005 trial, and I almost fell out of my chair when I read her “analysis”! She should be utterly ASHAMED of herself for peddling such biased trash to her gullible readers! Here is a verbatim copy of everything she had to say about the trial, beginning on page 254 (my commentary is in red): 



In December 2002, Michael Jackson, hobbling on crutches (reportedly from a tarantula bite), made his way through the press crowd outside a Santa Maria, California, courthouse for an appearance in a $38 million civil case—a contractual dispute filed against him by a concert promoter.

“Michael! What do you think of Gloria Alfred?” called out Jane Velez-Mitchell from TV’s Celebrity Justice.

From underneath a black umbrella held by his security guard to shield him from the sun’s glare came the response, delivered in his trademark breathy baby’s voice.

“Who’s Gloria Allred?”

The question drew chuckles from some of the press corps. How could Michael Jackson not know who I was? I had briefly represented a young boy in 1993 who accused him of child molestation. More recently, on November 26, 2002, I had filed a complaint with authorities in Santa Barbara, California (the jurisdiction that includes his Neverland estate) after seeing him dangle his nine-month-old baby, Prince Michael II, over the side of a fourth floor hotel balcony in Berlin, Germany.

Mitchell replied, “She’s the attorney who’s filed a complaint against you with Child Protective Services.”

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

Some reporters told me later that they were stunned by the response—not by the words, but by the tone in which they were delivered. The baby voice was replaced by a deep, angry adult male voice no one had ever heard before in public. I suspect that the real Michael Jackson temporarily peeked through the crack in his carefully maintained facade.

His “tell her to go to hell” comment played over and over on the evening news and reporters called me for a response.

I said, “While Michael Jackson wants me to go to hell, I want him to go to parenting class to learn how to protect rather than endanger his baby. My hope is that, upon reflection, he will realize that this is not about me, but about his behavior.”

Michael Jackson needed a wake-up call. He appeared to live a sheltered life surrounded by people who might only tell him what he wanted to hear. He seemed to think that what he did was okay. Well, I wasn’t a member of his entourage. I didn’t think that he deserved special treatment or that he should be allowed to take advantage of his fame to engage in actions that endangered a child—actions which, if engaged in by a non-celebrity, would have been condemned and investigated.

Dangling his baby over the side of the fourth floor balcony was reckless and irresponsible conduct. It demonstrated a complete lack of parental awareness of the substantial risk of great bodily harm or death that could have resulted had he dropped the baby. I told reporters that if Michael Jackson was truly sorry, he should demonstrate that in deeds not words by voluntarily submitting himself to a Child Protective Services investigation into whether he had endangered the baby and whether the child should be removed from his care. I said that children of celebrities deserve no more and no less protection than any other child. Rather than attacking me, Michael Jackson needed to address the problem. I felt that he needed to recognize that his baby was not a toy and that he had a duty to keep the child safe. I said that he should attend parenting class as soon as possible to learn how to become a responsible parent.

That he was able to avoid many of the consequences of his questionable treatment of children is disturbing to me. Acting as a private citizen following the child-dangling incident, I wrote to Child Protective Services and the district attorney of Santa Barbara County, Tom Sneddon, asking that they investigate Jackson’s behavior toward children. This was not the first scandal involving Michael Jackson and children, but it made me wonder why the system seemed to give the one-gloved wonder the kid-glove treatment. The mystery behind this apparent special treatment for Jackson dates back to a 1993 incident in which a young boy accused him of sexual abuse.

Law enforcement has publicly confirmed that the child made serious allegations against Jackson and cooperated with police and the district attorney’s office by providing statements. In fact, I took that child to the district attorney’s office in Los Angeles myself when I briefly represented him, and the child gave extensive and detailed answers to those who questioned him. At least one law enforcement officer involved in that investigation said publicly that he found the child to be credible.(As you can see, she’s trying to validate Jordan Chandler’s claim by reminding her readers that the police believed him; this is the fallacy of blind loyalty.)

At the time, I noted that children everywhere were watching to see how this child, who had bravely come forward with allegations against a celebrity, would be treated. Other children might fear what could happen to them if they accused a celebrity or other powerful person of child sexual abuse. Many people loved and trusted Michael Jackson. This thirteen-year-old boy loved and trusted him as well. Unfortunately, that trust was destroyed. At the time, I waited to see if Jackson would be held to the same standards of conduct as any other person. I wondered if he thought that he was above the law.

The outcome was disturbing. In 1994, while the criminal investigation was being conducted, a settlement was reached in a civil lawsuit brought by the boy against Jackson. Another attorney represented him at that time. Although the amount was confidential, reports put the possible settlement at between $ 15 and $20 million.

After that settlement, Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti and Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon announced that there would be no criminal prosecution of Jackson. They said that the child in question now refused to testify, and without his cooperation, the case could not be proven. Was there a connection between Jackson’s civil settlement payment and the sudden implosion of the criminal case? That mystery would take almost a decade to unravel. (Allred just used the “post hoc” fallacy, which will be discussed later.)

In the ensuing years, Jackson married twice and became the father of three children. His 1994 marriage to Lisa Marie Presley ended after twenty months. During his three-year marriage to Debbie Rowe, from 1996 to 1999, she gave birth to a son and daughter, Prince Michael I and Paris. The mother of the third child, Prince Michael II, is unknown.

Just months after the baby-dangling incident, in January 2003, ABC aired a British documentary about Jackson that was taped with interviewer Martin Bashir. Its contents were shocking and ultimately set off Jackson’s latest legal battle. Jackson said that he had slept in his bed with young children unrelated to him and admitted to sleeping on the floor while a child named Gavin slept in his bed.

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

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

Jackson then interjected, “I slept on the floor.”

Later in the interview, Jackson said, “I have slept in a bed with many children. I slept in a bed with all of them when Macaulay Culkin was little. Kieran Culkin would sleep on this side, Macaulay was on this side, his sisters in there—we all would just jam in the bed . . .”

My concern deepened when Jackson said during the same interview that he would allow—and even condone—his own children sleeping with unrelated adult males.

Bashir said, “But Michael, I wouldn’t like my children to sleep in anybody else’s bed.”

Jackson responded, “Well, I wouldn’t mind if I know the person and, well, I am very close to Barry Gibb. Paris and Prince can stay with him anytime. My children sleep with other people all the time.”

I was extremely upset by these new revelations and by Jackson’s seeming total lack of understanding of the true significance of his behavior. I believe it is highly inappropriate for a young child to sleep in the same bedroom with Jackson, in light of the prior accusations of child sexual abuse made against him. A vast number of child psychologists would recommend against such behavior.

Jackson’s apparent condoning of it flew in the face of what many would approve and of common sense.

Jackson’s conduct once again demonstrated a lack of good judgment and a failure to appreciate appropriate adult/child boundaries. Once again, I filed a complaint with the Santa Barbara County Department of Child Welfare Services and forwarded a transcript of the interview. I also sent a complaint to Child Protective authorities in Los Angeles. I urged them to “interview the child named Gavin and any other child who has been in Mr. Jackson’s home and/or bedroom without the presence of their parents.”

Although I received a letter from the Santa Barbara authorities acknowledging receipt of my letter, I had no idea if they acted on it because that information is kept confidential. During Jackson’s 2005 criminal trial, however, a social worker from Los Angeles testified that my name was on her referral—and that this was the reason she went to interview Gavin.

There was another part of the Bashir interview that I believe offered new insight into the sudden implosion of the 1993 child sexual abuse criminal case.

Bashir asked Jackson: “The reason that has been given for why you didn’t go to jail [in 1994] is because you reached a financial settlement with the family?”

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

To me, Jackson’s comments answered the question that had been hanging in the air since 1994: Was there, at a minimum, a connection in Mr. Jackson’s mind between payment to the child to settle a civil suit and his being spared from a criminal prosecution which might have resulted in his going to jail? (In this example, Allred is using the post hoc fallacy to try and show a connection between the settlement and the collapse of the criminal case.)

The answer, if one listened to Jackson’s own words in the Bashir-Jackson exchange, seemed to be yes. The “long drawn-out thing on TV like O.J.” to which Jackson was apparently referring was the criminal trial of Mr. Simpson, since the civil case was never televised. Arguably, in this context, the only way that Jackson could go on with his life when he’d “had enough” was for the criminal case to “go” or disappear. That is exactly what happened after the settlement.

I took my concerns to Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley in March 2003. I asked him if the payment of the civil settlement might be viewed as an effort on Michael Jackson’s part to obstruct justice in the criminal case. California law makes it a felony to bribe a witness not to attend trial or withhold testimony. The purpose of these laws is to assure that the justice system can operate fully and fairly, without improper interference. It must not be corruptible. While civil settlements may be reached in cases that may also allege acts that could be criminally prosecuted, those agreements may not include promises not to testify in a criminal case. If they do, the settlement itself would be void and parties to it might be subjected to obstruction of justice criminal charges.(Gee Gloria, if MJ was never charged with obstruction of justice, shouldn’t that tell you that the settlement wasn’t “hush money”, and that it didn’t include any promises not to testify?) I felt that a grand jury should have been impaneled years ago by former DA Gil Garcetti to determine whether or not there was an obstruction of justice or an attempt by Michael Jackson to obstruct justice.

DA Steve Cooley and I agreed that victims of child sexual abuse should know that civil settlements can’t preclude a victim or witness from talking to law enforcement about a crime. A person cannot enter into a legally enforceable contract to conceal illegal activity, such as child abuse. In other words, a person accused of such a crime can’t buy a child’s silence. (Thanks for letting us know that, Gloria! You just answered your own question! All that money you spent on law school really paid off, huh?)

Unfortunately, even if a crime had been committed, it was now too late to prosecute—the six-year statute of limitations on the case had expired. I was concerned that Jackson had left the impression that the rich and powerful can buy their way out of the criminal justice system. The public might have been left with the impression that the system allowed poor defendants to be prosecuted for child sexual abuse, while it spared the rich, who could afford multimillion-dollar civil settlements.

I appreciated the opportunity to meet with District Attorney Cooley to discuss these important issues with him and I vowed to continue to be alert to both public and private reports about Michael Jackson and his behavior with children.

In November 2003, those reports became very public indeed. Jackson was arrested on seven counts of lewd and lascivious acts with a child under the age of fourteen, and two counts of using an intoxicating agent to commit those acts. An article in Vanity Fair suggested there might be evidence that Jackson placed alcohol in the soda pop cans of the minor and showed pornography to him.

I again filed a formal complaint asking the Santa Barbara Department of Child Welfare Services to open an investigation into whether Michael Jackson’s children should be removed from his care and custody and whether the Juvenile Court should immediately assume jurisdiction over the children for their protection.

California law provided that the Juvenile Court could step in when “there is a substantial risk that a child will be sexually abused by his or her parent or by a member or his or her household.”

In light of the criminal charges against Jackson, coupled with the 1993 sexual abuse complaint and his own admission that he has slept with young children in his bed, I felt there were more than sufficient grounds for such an action. Authorities have the right and responsibility to protect children who are at substantial risk or harm, even before a conviction or acquittal in a criminal case. Protection of children is always paramount. Many people feel that if Jackson were not a celebrity, but had the same history with children, his own children would have been temporarily removed from his care long ago.

On January 14, 2004, after Michael Jackson moved his legal residence from Neverland in Santa Barbara County to Beverly Hills, in Los Angeles County, I filed a similar complaint with the Los Angeles County Department of Child and Family Services asking that it temporarily remove the children from his care. The next month I filed a formal application with department director David Sanders, asking that Juvenile Court proceedings be started.

In March I was notified that the department would not be taking any court action. Based on that decision, I felt it was absolutely necessary for me to file directly with the Juvenile Court, which I did on March 17, 2004. The Court now had to review the decision of the social worker who had decided not to remove the children, and it could either affirm his or her decision or order the social worker to commence Juvenile Court proceedings. The response of the Court was that that matter was still being investigated. It remains a mystery to me why Jackson’s children have not yet been temporarily removed from his care, in light of the known facts.

I was happy to hear in April 2004 that Jackson would go to trial. All of the facts could now come out in a court of law, where Michael Jackson would not be able to hide behind his fame, money, or power. The public would finally be able to see the face behind the mask and the life behind Neverland’s closed doors. “Mr. Jackson, the gloves are off!” I said at the time.

Michael Jackson went on trial in March 2005. As it unfolded, we saw and heard a great deal of new and deeply troubling evidence in regard to his behavior around children. The alleged victim, first seen in the Martin Bashir TV interview, claimed under oath that Jackson molested him on a minimum of two occasions when he was thirteen years old. According to the child, the two were alone in the master bedroom suite of Neverland when Michael Jackson offered to teach him how to masturbate. The child testified that he hesitated, but Jackson explained to him that men who did not masturbate could become unstable and rape women. He said that Jackson told him “It was okay—it was natural .. . that’s when he put his hand down my pants.” The child went on to relate in some detail his allegation that Jackson molested him that night, and again on the following night.

The child’s younger brother testified under oath that he personally witnessed Michael Jackson masturbating his brother on two occasions, in Jackson’s bed. “I saw Michael’s left hand in my brother’s underwear and saw his right hand in his [own] underwear,” he testified. “He was masturbating. He was rubbing himself.” The younger brother also testified that Jackson had provided him, his brother, and other boys with wine, adult-oriented magazines, and access to sexually explicit Internet sites.

Both brothers testified that on one occasion Jackson appeared in front of them naked, with an erection. The alleged victim testified that [the brothers’| response was, “Euwwww! . . . [because] we never really saw a grown man, like, naked before.”

They also testified that Michael Jackson provided them with wine and hard liquor on multiple occasions. The alleged child victim said that Jackson routinely gave him wine in soda cans, encouraging him to drink it and referring to it as “Jesus Juice.” He described his feelings when he drank vodka that he testified Jackson supplied: “. . . it smelled like rubbing alcohol … I chucked it back really quick … it really burned. And then like two or three seconds later my head started . . . like it looked like the room was spinning, so I put my head inside the couch.”

The alleged child victim testified that he’d had concerns about all the liquor he was drinking with Jackson, because it might show up on routine urine tests he underwent as part of his treatment for cancer. The child said he asked Jackson what to do about it and Jackson replied, “Doo-doo, just don’t take the test.”

A former Neverland housekeeper and former Neverland house manager testified that they had seen children intoxicated on the estate on multiple occasions. The former house manager testified that he once saw three boys whom Mr. Jackson had taken on a tour of the wine cellar come out “drunk.”

A twenty-four-year-old man gave emotional testimony that Jackson had molested him multiple times when he was a young boy staying at Neverland while his mother worked as Jackson’s personal maid. After the first incident, which the man testified began as a “tickle session” but escalated into unwanted sexual touching by Jackson, the pop singer allegedly slipped the boy a $100 bill and said, “Don’t tell your mom.” Similar incidents of tickling-into-sexual-touching by Jackson continued for approximately three years, until the child was ten-and-a-half years old, according to the witness.

The same man’s mother, the former personal maid, testified that she had seen multiple boys spend the night in Michael Jackson’s bedroom. She had seen one young boy she could identify taking a shower with Jackson, as their underwear lay together on the floor. She had also once seen Jackson in bed, nude from the waist up, watching TV with a boy. She also testified that child actor Macaulay Culkin had spent nights in Jackson’s bed with him during her employment there.

A man testified that he was once called to bring French fries to Jackson and Macaulay Culkin at around 3:00 A.M. When he arrived with the snack, he testified, he saw Jackson fondling the child: “Jackson’s left hand was inside the pants of the kid , . . down in the pants … in the crotch area. I was shocked. I nearly dropped the French fries.”

Macaulay Culkin denied that Michael molested him, but a former security supervisor at Neverland testified that he witnessed a late-night Jacuzzi session with Michael Jackson and Culkin, after which the two disappeared behind a locked restroom door, then emerged wearing only towels, with Jackson carrying the child “piggy-back” style into the house and locking the door behind them. The security supervisor noted that in the past he’d “never recalled Mr. Jackson locking the house.” He later observed two pairs of swimming trunks about two feet from each other on the stone floor of the restroom. A former Jackson security guard also allegedly witnessed this incident; he testified that, out of curiosity, he peeked into the restroom containing Jackson and Culkin and observed Jackson kneeling down to perform oral sex on the boy.

Still, Michael Jackson was acquitted on all charges on June 13, 2005. (Gee Gloria, would you mind explaining to your readers WHY he acquitted? How about being a little fair and balanced, you know?)

Several of the jurors said later that they believe molestation had occurred. Juror Raymond Hultman said on the Today show that he believed Michael Jackson has a pattern of molesting young boys, although he was not persuaded of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in this case. (We debunked them in this post, and in this post.)

Given the serious and substantial new evidence provided under oath during the criminal trial, I again sent a complaint to Santa Barbara Department of Child Welfare Services requesting that they initiate a much-needed investigation into Michael Jackson’s activities with children at Neverland. I urged that the Jackson children be immediately removed on a temporary basis from his custody during the investigation.

Although in a criminal case the prosecution is required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to obtain a conviction, the burden of proof for removal of children by Child Protective or Child Welfare Services is much less. There must be clear and convincing evidence of a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if left in parental custody, and there must be no reasonable means of protecting the minor’s physical health without removing the child from parental physical custody.

Therefore, whether or not Michael Jackson was convicted is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not his children should be temporarily removed from his care and declared dependent children of the court. Given the testimony at trial by the alleged child victim in the criminal case, his brother, and other witnesses, I believe that the Department of Child Welfare Services of Santa Barbara County should have immediately intervened in order to protect the health and welfare of Jackson’s three minor children. I am convinced that they would have done so if that parent had not been a celebrity.

Children of celebrities should not receive less protection than children of non-celebrities.

You’ve got to be kidding me, right? This should prove, once and for all, that MJ’s haters are not ignorant of the facts; they know EXACTLY what they’re doing when they smear MJ! She researched the case well enough to be able to describe the testimonies of the Arvizos, Jason Francia, the Neverland 5, etc., yet she didn’t devote a single sentence to Mesereau’s demolishment of them under cross-examination! This is the very definition of not only a half-truth, but also the blind loyalty fallacy as well! Her readers will proudly admit that they believe her analysis solely because of her extensive legal record (as if that makes her analysis above reproach!)

For more examples of Allred’s treachery, look no further than her involvement with Daniel Kapon, one of the many “phantom victims” whose claims of molestation dissipated like smoke in a summer breeze once they were scrutinized!  For more information, please read this post on MJ’s phantom victims, and this post on how MJ’s settlements were not signs of guilt.  This post deals with Allred’s minor involvement with the Chandler family in 1993, prior to their decision to FIRE HER for trying to thwart their plan of suing MJ first by going for a criminal trial.  Here is an excerpt from All That Glitters, page 167, where Ray Chandler describes the rationale of Evan’s decision to fire her:

By the conclusion of the meeting, June and Dave, like Evan before them, had no doubts about switching from Gloria Allred to Larry Feldman.  The choice came down to either waging an all-out media campaign to pressure the DA to seek a Grand Jury indictment, or conducting subtle, behind-the-scenes negotiations toward a quick, quiet and highly profitable settlement.  Avoiding the trauma that a lengthy criminal or civil lawsuit would bring to the entire family, especially Jordie, was a no-brainier.

Gloria Allred’s Termination Letter from the Chandlers

If you want to see something truly hilarious, look no further than this interview Allred granted to Hollywood TV on July 29th, 2009, where she reminds everyone that Conrad Murray is entitled to the presumption of innocence, a fair trial, blah blah blah, yet certainly she didn’t give MJ that presumption, as evidenced from her book!

Ironically, a few weeks ago she gave an interview to Radar Online, and she proudly proclaimed that the public should “remember” the allegations against MJ! Click here to listen to it. (The interview is around 40 minutes long.)

And for additional laughs, let’s look at this literal TRIFECTA of MJ haters sit there and pretend that they give a damn about who gets custody of Prince, Paris, and Blanket! Allred, her daughter Lisa Bloom, and Wendy Murphy (who once called MJ the “Teflon Molester”) go toe to toe with each other over the appropriateness of Debbie Rowe getting custody!

Here is a recent tweet from Lisa Bloom, who criticized the Jackson family for what she perceived as hypocrisy from them. If you think her feelings on MJ have changed because he’s dead, think again! You can see how she used the Blind Loyalty fallacy to make her followers think that MJ’s refusal to testify was a sign of guilt!

This is typical from a Michael Jackson hater!

In Part 4, I will give readers a list of bulletproof questions that they can ask to any skeptic who is willing to engage in civil discourse about the allegations……

The fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree!

Update January 5th, 2012

Here is the transcript of Gloria Allred’s interview with Bill O’Reilly on February 10th, 2003, just a week after the Bashir crockumentary aired! The executive director of Prevent Child Abuse America, Sid Johnson, was also a guest that night.  The main topic of discussion was the leaking of Jordan Chandler’s declaration (not a deposition, as we clearly delineated in this post), and it’s interesting to note that both Bill O’Reilly and Sid Johnson expressed their doubts about Jordan’s claims, due to the fact that his words didn’t sound like a typical 12-year old, thus implying that he could have been coached to lie (which he was!). My commentary is in red!

Personal Story: Interview With Attorney Gloria Allred, Prevent Child Abuse America’s Sid Johnson

The O’Reilly Factor (Fox News Network)

February 10, 2003 | Bill O’Reilly

O’REILLY: Thanks for staying with us. I’m Bill O’Reilly.

In the “Personal Story” Segment tonight, a Web site called has released a 1993 court document by a 12-year-old boy alleging a sexual relationship with Michael Jackson.

You may remember Jackson, according to “The New York Times”,” paid the boy $25 million to settle the case. The deposition’s very graphic, very disturbing. I’m not going to go further than that.

Joining us from Los Angeles is attorney Gloria Allred, who was involved in the case, and, from Chicago, Sid Johnson, the executive director of Prevent Child Abuse America.

Gloria, I’m going to start with you. I was going to start with Mr.

Johnson, but something caught my eye here, and I want to start with you.

On August 30, 1993, you were retained by the boy, and then, about 10 days later, you quit the case. Why did you quit? (She didn’t quit; she was FIRED!!!)

GLORIA ALLRED, ATTORNEY: Well, I really can’t comment on that. But I am concerned about Michael Jackson and his admission in the documentary last week that he sleeps with young children, and I think it’s highly inappropriate that an adult male like Michael Jackson, who’s 44 years old and who has prior accusations against him of child sexual abuse, be sleeping with young children…

O’REILLY: OK. All right.

ALLRED: … and…

O’REILLY: But we all know that. We all…

(CROSSTALK) ALLRED: … lack of judgment.

O’REILLY: That was — we covered that last week ad infinitum.

But you’ve got to give me some kind of hint, Gloria, here because it’s important. It’s important for the nation to know and be fair to Michael Jackson. I mean, I don’t want to — I’m not here to ruin anybody. (O’Reilly obviously had a change of heart in 2005 during the trial, and after his death!)

Now you quit this case. I know you very well, all right. You have very high standards, and you represent your clients very aggressively.

Everybody knows that, Gloria.

For you to walk away from a case, there had to be something there that disturbed you. Can’t you give us some kind of parameter here?

ALLRED: You know, I really can’t comment on that. All I can say is that I am concerned about his present conduct…

O’REILLY: All right. Let me — let me ask you…

ALLRED: … and I have been concerned about his past conduct.

O’REILLY: All right. Fine. The — do you, in this case — are you comfortable with the deposition that was released today as being true?

ALLRED: You know, I can’t comment on whether it’s true or not. It was a court filing, and I think it speaks for itself. We don’t know what the exact settlement. We — that the confidentiality…

O’REILLY: All right. If you were my producer…

(CROSSTALK) ALLRED: … involved in the settlement would…

O’REILLY: If you were my…

ALLRED: But we don’t know that…

O’REILLY: If you were my producer, Gloria — look, if you answer my questions, you’re not going to get in any trouble, and you’re not going to violate anybody’s confidence. If you were my producer on THE FACTOR tonight, would you tell me to be very skeptical of that deposition?

ALLRED: Well, I think everybody has to judge for themselves.

O’REILLY: But we can’t because we don’t know. We don’t — the 12- year-old boy says things that are very beyond a 12-year-old boy. We know that. I mean, the deposition’s beyond a 12-year-old boy — what an ordinary boy at that age would say, but I don’t know whether this kid was making this up or not, you know.

ALLRED: Well, it’s obvious that Michael Jackson by his own admission says he sleeps with young children. So, if an adult male like Michael Jackson sleeps with young children, this is the kind of harm that one is worried about and adults would be worried about would occur if…

O’REILLY: All right. Now I’m going to assume…

ALLRED: … an adult is sleeping with young children.

O’REILLY: I’m going to assume, Gloria, since you are still speaking out on this case, since you are still anti-Michael Jackson, all right, that what you learned in the 10 days that you were a part of this case, did not give you any reason to feel sorry for this man, Michael Jackson. I’m going to assume that. Is that OK if I assume that?

ALLRED: I think it’s fair to assume that I’m always concerned about protecting children from child sexual abuse…

O’REILLY: All right.

ALLRED: … and that’s what I’ve been doing for 26 years…

O’REILLY: OK. Good. I think we’ve got it.

ALLRED: … and I do have concerns about Michael Jackson, about a substantial risk of harm if children are in his bed or in his bedroom or at Neverland without the presence of their parents. (This is false! Parents -who were close friends of MJ, not strangers – always gave their permission for their children to sleep in his bedroom, and many times they slept there with them! JC Agajanian explains this in this post.)

O’REILLY: All right. We got it. Now that wasn’t hard, Gloria. It only took me two-and-a-half minutes to drag it out of you.

Now, Mr. Johnson, you heard Gloria Allred, all right, who, obviously, knows things that we don’t know. She’s involved with this case for 10 days, saw things, interviewed people, talked to the little boy who’s now 22 years old, OK. What should be done now? Because the Santa Barbara D.A.

doesn’t look like he’s going to do anything.

SID JOHNSON, PREVENT CHILD ABUSE AMERICAN: Clearly, Bill, there should be an investigation, and we wrote to the district attorney and asked for one. He decided not to do it. If he’s unable to do it, child protective services in Santa Barbara should start an investigation.

O’REILLY: All right, but you know what a bureaucracy that is, and, basically, the D.A. out there — and he’s a cocky guy, this guy Tom Sneddon. He said, oh, it’s not against the law to sleep with any — with a child, you know. That’s a stupid statement. He should be ashamed of himself. But, anyway… (The PDF of Sneddon’s press release is included below.)


O’REILLY: Wait a minute, Gloria. I’ll — I’ll give you…

But, anyway, look, you need a complainant here, Mr. Johnson. You need somebody to come forth and say, look, I want to press charges. It looks like this kid and his family had been bought off for $2 million to $25 million.

JOHNSON: We wrote the district attorney because that ’93 case, which was settled out of court, is still active. It has not been closed, and we thought the district attorney might investigate. If he doesn’ t feel he has the facts to investigate, child protective services can investigate without a victim coming forward.

O’REILLY: Yes, but they won’t.

JOHNSON: Here’s a fundamental question. If you knew your neighbor was engaged in this kind of activity, wouldn’t you report that for an investigation?

O’REILLY: Of course you would. But, look — look, we filed a complaint — Mr. Johnson, we filed, you may know this, against Whitney Houston…

JOHNSON: Right, right.

O’REILLY: … for using drugs or — you know, in front of her kid or saying she did and having this chaos. Jersey social services – – they don’t care. They didn’t do a thing because they’re afraid of the rich people, aren’t they, Gloria?

ALLRED: Well, I am always concerned, as I know you are, Bill, with whether there are two standards of justice — one for celebrities and one for everybody else — and there should only be one standard of justice and the same standard for everybody, not better or worse for celebrities. But sometimes it does seem that celebrities get the benefit of the doubt…

(CROSSTALK) O’REILLY: Absolutely. They’re afraid of them.

Now this guy Sneddon — he’s not going to do it. You’ve talked to him, Gloria, have you?

ALLRED: Well, I’ve — I’ve communicated with him and he’s communicated with me by letter.

But let me just say over the baby-dangling incident — let me just say that, of course, if there’s not a full investigation, then there can’t be a prosecution and there can’t be a conviction, which is not to say that Michael Jackson has committed a crime.

But you’re right. Children’s protective services, which is known as children’s welfare service in Santa Barbara should investigate. That’s what I asked them to do when I faxed them a letter early Tuesday morning and gave them the entire transcript of the documentary where Jackson admits sleeping with young children.

O’REILLY: They’re not going to do it. They’re just…

ALLRED: And they don’t — they’re — they don’t have to believe that there was a crime for them to investigate. All they have to do is believe there’s a substantial risk of harm, and I think that Michael Jackson has demonstrated that through his conduct.

O’REILLY: All right. What do they…

JOHNSON: And it’s everybody’s…

O’REILLY: Go ahead, Mr. Johnson.

JOHNSON: … best interests. It’s in the best interest of knowing the children are protected or it’s in the best interest of clearing Michael Jackson if nothing happened.

O’REILLY: All right.

JOHNSON: But there are four reasons that this — this is not an isolated example. The deposition with the graphic and disgusting information…

O’REILLY: It was. And wasn’t that far beyond a 12-year-old, Mr.

Johnson? You’re an expert here.

JOHNSON: It certainly was.

O’REILLY: It was way beyond a 12-year-old~!

JOHNSON: And then there was Michael Jackson dangling his infant from a balcony over…

O’REILLY: Yes. All right. Let’s — that’s been…


O’REILLY: Look, let me — I’ve got to stop you because I’ve got to go. We’re going to put in a call to the head of the California social services child protection agency.

But I guarantee you they’re going to say, well, it’s private, we can’ t — they’re going to do the dance. They’re going to do the dance they always do.

But both of you stay on this…

ALLRED: And they’ll say that because, in the law, it’s confidential.

O’REILLY: OK. Let’s stay on the story, and we will see if anything happens.

ALLRED: Thank you.

O’REILLY: Thank you very much. We appreciate it.

Here is the press release from Prevent Child Abuse America that was issued on February 6th, 2003, asking for MJ to be investigated after the aftermath of the Bashir documentary:

Here is the press release from Sneddon that Bill O’Reilly said was a “stupid statement” for which Sneddon “should be ashamed of himself”:

And here is the DCFS report’s report following their investigation that Prevent Child Abuse America lobbied so hard for. It speaks for itself!

It was quite refreshing to see O’Reilly actually be fair to MJ, but it’s too bad it didn’t last very long! As for Allred, she was her usual pathetic, dispicable, vindictive self, as always…………………………….

Here is an interview of Gloria Allred conducted by Geraldo Rivera on November 21, 2004 in which she discusses the upcoming trial. At the beginning of the video, an editor of The Smoking Gun discusses the leaking of the above DCFS report, and how they were attacked for being on MJ’s side!

34 Comments leave one →
  1. lynande51 permalink
    November 18, 2011 8:06 am

    David I think she needs a better editor.It was Ralph Chacon that saw MJ in the pool house with Brett er um I mean Jordie not Mac.No wonder the Chandlers fired her.You have looked at that letter haven’t you? Maybe we should post that just as a reminder to her as to why she stopped working for the Chandler’s.I think she might be getting forgetful.Isn’t she the one that represented Daniel Kapon? What ever happened to that case.Oh yeah that’s right it was thrown out of court after she petitioned the judge to be relieved from the case.


  2. sanemjfan permalink
    November 18, 2011 8:51 am

    Thanks for the tip! I just added a photo of Allred’s termination letter to the post!

    Yes, she represented Kapon, and I included a link to the post we did debunking him and the other phantom victims.

    How do you know she petitioned to be relieved from the case? I know it was dropped because Kapon refused to show up on his court date, but I never knew she tried to recuse herself of him. Do you have a link?


  3. Suzy permalink
    November 18, 2011 12:29 pm

    “Who’s Gloria Allred?

    The question drew chuckles from some of the press corps. How could Michael Jackson not know who I was?”

    Oh, the ego! And all the fake concern for Michael’s children.

    And of course the argument MJ gets “special treatment” from the authorities or even the media, when the truth couldn’t be further to the truth.

    Or to be precise: Michael got “special treatment”, only not in a positive, but a negative direction. Allred seems to mention a lot this “special treatment” thing and MJ thinking “he’s above the law”. Why would he think he’s above the law? It seems like much of the venom, at least on Allred’s part (but I think from many others) to MJ comes from jealousy of his celebrity. Michael never suggested he was “above the law”, yet haters keep accusing him of this. It looks like projection of their own jealous perception of celebrity. It’s similar to when fans defend Michael and the next thing you get from a hater: “MJ was a good singer/dancer but that doesn’t mean he’s a saint/God”. Who said he was? Just because we don’t think he was a pedophile and a criminal doesn’t mean we thing he’s a saint/God. But haters often make this logical fallacy as well and it’s an appeal to people’s biases and jealousy regarding celebrity: “the guy is rich/famous, he must be thinking he’s above the law, above us, above everything”.

    You gotta love how Allred details the testimonies of the Neverland 5, while she writes a half sentence about “Macaulay Culkin denied that Michael molested him” – and then goes on with the Neverland 5 allegations as if it doesn’t matter what the boy (now young man) himself says. And of course, he totally omits information about the background of the Neverland 5 and those allegations which would put their claims into a perspective.

    Paris’s speech at Michael’s memorial and calling him the best daddy in the world and seeing how much these kids love their father and how well they were raised must have been a kick in the guts for Allred after all those years of trying to remove his children from his care.

    BTW, I can only echo Michael: “Go to hell, Gloria!”


  4. Suzy permalink
    November 18, 2011 12:50 pm

    Yesterday David linked an article that compared the Sandusky case to Michael’s and once again the argument was that MJ “got away with it because he was a celebrity” – so it seems like a common argument by haters, this appeal to people’s prejuduces regarding celebrity. The article went as far as suggesting Michael was treated with a kid’s glove by the media and that was because of his celebrity as opposed to Sandusky who is treated with such venom because he is not a celebrity and unlike MJ he cannot sing and dance.

    This argument includes making up false premises. In this case the claim MJ was treated with a kid’s glove by the media is a totally false premise. Did the person who wrote this article live under a rock in 2003-2005 (or even 1993-til today)? He/she complained that after Michael’s death many articles were praising him, the artist, instead of reminding readers of the allegations. For 16 years people got CONSTANTLY reminded of the allegations, never giving MJ a break, so how is it kid’s gloves treatment? It seems for haters the only satisfying thing would be if every single article about MJ would be a reminder about the allegations.


  5. Susanne permalink
    November 18, 2011 4:30 pm

    You can read from Allred’s chapter that she was deeply insulted that Michael said: Tell her to go to hell. She wasn’t above that, especially when the comment “played over and over on the evening news”. Like Suzy said: the ego…
    Her following hateful actions and commitment seemed to be based partly on that, almost irrational. And then the Child Protective or Child Welfare Services were also in contradiction to her efforts. Her ego must be terribly damaged.
    I always loved Michael’s reaction to that question.You cannot always hide your feelings! It is appropriate when someone wants to take your kids away.


  6. JM51 permalink
    November 18, 2011 6:12 pm

    I honestly don’t know why on earth there is even a comparison of the two situations. In the Sandusky matter – once one of the mothers found out about it she went straight to the authorities. SHE DID NOT go to a civil lawyer and file a civil suit while the investigation was ongoing to get money. Believe me once the lawyers start sniffing out of the victims (Gloria Allred comes to mind) – there will most likely be lawsuits and money to be made off of everyone involved. That mother did what any mother would do who fears her child has been molested and went to the authorities. We are only hearing about it now because of the grand jury findings and Sandusky’s arrest.

    That is what totally gets me about the entire mess is that people (haters) don’t seem to be bothered in the least that all three parents who came after Michael Jackson claiming molestation sought money first rather than any type of justice whatsoever. The other damning thing for Chandler is that recording where he basically lays it out. He was angry because he was being pushed aside by Michael Jackson and he was going to get revenge because of his own jealousy. He never once says one thing about fearing his child was molested. Had he had legitimate concerns — he would have been saying that all over that recorded message, but he didn’t. It’s very telling to me!

    In your post about Sunny Hostin (which I could barely stomach that scene with her, Tucker (the dork) Carlson and Sean Hannity (I can no longer stand Fox News as a result of him and O’Reilly) — she contradicts herself. She says, “Ok, I’ll give you the one kid…but it’s a known statistic that boys don’t lie about being molested…” before she repeatedly screams about the transcripts. Ok, so boys don’t like but the one kid (Arvizo) she’s not so sure about. Whatever!

    I did notice that O’Reilly didn’t do his usual mess with Mesereau and actually acted somewhat professional. I only wish Mesereau had reinforced the fact that the families suing Michael were all asking for money above justice.

    I tried to listen to Frank Cascio on Dr. Drew, but Drew kept yelling over him and would not let him finish answering any question. It was embarrassing on Drew’s part. He was extremely unprofessional. I don’t know why he even had Frank on the show. He might as well have just stood up and given his own monologue about Michael. He tried in the beginning to make something out of the age difference between Frank and Michael and Frank was at least able to get the fact that Michael embraced the entire family.

    It’s like the media never wants to hear anything positive about Michael Jackson. Frank to me reinforced the fact that Michael had issues with pain medications at certain times in his life, but then would be able to rise above it.


  7. lynande51 permalink
    November 18, 2011 8:35 pm

    I watched Dr. Drew interview Frank and that is when I asked a question under the last post.How do we as advocates defend MJ against someone shouting over us.I think from now on when someone like Frank who is not used to being interviewed gets on a show to promote his book they should remind the host of that show that they were asked there as guests and if they aren’t going to be allowed to speak the host should explain why.


  8. lynande51 permalink
    November 18, 2011 8:37 pm

    @ David I will look for the article about Kapon where it says that she asked to be relieved from the case.It might take me a while because I work tonight so I won’t be able to get to it until probably Saturday afternoon.


  9. lynande51 permalink
    November 18, 2011 8:51 pm

    Frank Cascio is on Live Stream right now. Let’s listen.


  10. November 18, 2011 9:17 pm

    People should tell Gloria Allred to go to hell on a regular basis–at least once every day.


  11. Maria permalink
    November 18, 2011 11:25 pm

    Disgrace. Great disgrace. American journalism is a pathology. All this is a big disgrace to America. No need to defend Michael showing filth these journalists. Michael was such an innocent that people with dirty minds does not fit in the head. Michael’s defense should be based on showing the truth. He was so innocent, gentle and good. It must be shown. Show MJ with children. These pictures speak for themselves.


  12. lynande51 permalink
    November 19, 2011 6:53 am

    This is why Michael Jackson left Neverland like I said a thousand times before no one was going to let him go back.The fact that she admitted to filing charges how many times defies logic.At what point does the world understand that Gloria Alred is not only biased but unbalanced when it comes to Michael.She could and never should be asked for or listened to about Michael.How many times did she file?How many times did Child Services investigate? How many times was she told there was no danger to those children by professionals trained to investigate child abuse? Finally what did she think was going to happen to Michael Jackson’s children in the California Foster Care system.Who was going to take them and what would they have done to them.She has the most unbalanced thinking I have seen in regard to Michael it even tops Diane Dimond.

    “Given the serious and substantial new evidence provided under oath during the criminal trial, I again sent a complaint to Santa Barbara Department of Child Welfare Services requesting that they initiate a much-needed investigation into Michael Jackson’s activities with children at Neverland. I urged that the Jackson children be immediately removed on a temporary basis from his custody during the investigation.

    Although in a criminal case the prosecution is required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to obtain a conviction, the burden of proof for removal of children by Child Protective or Child Welfare Services is much less. There must be clear and convincing evidence of a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if left in parental custody, and there must be no reasonable means of protecting the minor’s physical health without removing the child from parental physical custody.

    Therefore, whether or not Michael Jackson was convicted is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not his children should be temporarily removed from his care and declared dependent children of the court. Given the testimony at trial by the alleged child victim in the criminal case, his brother, and other witnesses, I believe that the Department of Child Welfare Services of Santa Barbara County should have immediately intervened in order to protect the health and welfare of Jackson’s three minor children. I am convinced that they would have done so if that parent had not been a celebrity.

    Children of celebrities should not receive less protection than children of non-celebrities.”

    Yes they should be protected against people like her!


  13. anniedomino permalink
    November 19, 2011 1:50 pm

    I also noticed O’Reilly was very respectful towards T-Mez. He is usually rude and disrespectful towards his guests. I think he understands that T-Mez is cleverer than he is! And more respected. So he behaved accordingly. What also struck me is that O’Reilly knows nothing about the 2005 case.


  14. Maria permalink
    November 19, 2011 9:23 pm

    O’Reilly – he does not know that MJ had vitiligo. After his death, still reproached Michael’s skin color. He should apologize. Skin disease Michael is a fact.


  15. Maria permalink
    November 19, 2011 9:49 pm

    That is why now Michael is dead. Propofol is the effect of persecution. Michael had a broken heart. It is a shame even read all the dirt. They can at best serve as evidence of the crimes of those journalists, and other horrible people. These are such filth, so far from the magical and beautiful world of Michael.


  16. November 19, 2011 10:00 pm

    A “half-truth” is in reality a full-blown lie.

    Before I forget, I hope that Allred can invest in getting rid of that turkey neck she has, too! It keeps distracting me.

    I have seen the video of MJ telling her to “go to hell” and it was NOT anything like she or the media made it out to be–he said it just as he speaks normally. I get so sick of these lies. In fact, MJ should have said she needed to go to hell in a MEAN tone rather than his nonchalant tone that one can BARELY hear.

    Do people really not see that MJ was being brutally honest about sharing his bedroom with multiple kids? He did not take one child at a time–he did not hide any facts, either. He was just open and HONEST. He had boys and GIRLS in the room, too. I sometimes think that what MJ was doing with these “slumber parties” is not much different than what may go on at camp. The only difference is I cannot see MJ really enforcing any rules upon the kids (ex. no real bedtime, it is okay to OD on candy).

    So many people want MJ to have been guilty so they do not look like complete and total fools when they really are fools who cannot accept the facts. Hell, they cannot even pretend to write any facts–they can be so easily discredited. They need to be discredited on an international scale. I am so tired of people hearing only the lies.


  17. Maria permalink
    November 19, 2011 10:48 pm

    Michael’s behavior with the children was so natural and innocent. The children were his inspiration, as he said many times. MJ loved children. Children loved Michalea. Called him an apple-head, as in this film. Such films should see the light of day. Show MJ with children. Show how much good he did in the world for children. He helped so many sick children. Tom Sneddon and others, they had no clue about him. Michael’s behavior with the children was so natural and innocent, that you can not fail to notice.


  18. November 20, 2011 12:11 am

    The sad truth is for the most part, people see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe. Any contact with a child can be sexualized if the observer has a mind; an innocent hug, hand holding, a touch on the shoulder.
    People who work with children or spend any time with them, will always have contact with them that is affectionate because children are naturally affectionate and inspire affection. Anyone who is inclined can look at a person who works with children and say, OMG, what s/he did is sexual if they want to see it that way.

    That is why the comparison be. Sandusky and Michael is apples and oranges and completely inaccurate. While Micheal’s innocent behavior and intentions are questioned and reinterpreted to assign him heinous motivations, Sandusky’s behavior is clearly horrific. No one is going to walk in and see grown man taking a shower with a little boy, relation or not, and think, awww, that’s so cute. Everyone will think. accurately, That is inappropriate; what the hell is going on here.

    When people compare Michael’s statement that it is okay to “share” your bed (share, as in let borrow, let use) to Sandusky’s horseplay statement, it is totally, again, apples and oranges. Showering involves completely removing your clothes, leaving a child in a vulnerable, intimate state; the child is expected to touch his genitals and move his hands over his body while the adult is doing the same; it’s an intimate act that people don’t usually share unless they are intimate. (By the way, it is totally different from “jocks” showering together after a game. There is a power dynamic present, you are talking about a group of equals as opposed to a one on one child/adult dynamic).

    Sleeping in a bed involves . . . sleeping in the bed. Period. Unless people read more into it.
    With Michael, people who are inclined speculate: “Don’t you think . . . isn’t it strange . . . why would he . . . there’s no way that” . . .

    Gloria Allred is a perfect example of people reading into behavior and assigning their own suspicions and negative thoughts to the person they are observing.


  19. Vicki permalink
    November 20, 2011 12:13 am

    SPOT ON, as usual!!! Wish you could forward all of this to her partner (s) in crime.. daughter Lisa Bloom, Dimond, and the others mentioned, David??? They certainly need to read what others think, and how ridiculous they are.. I as stunned that InSession had Dimond as part of that panel, and more stunned that those who knew MJ well on that panel let her get away with what she was saying and her above them stance she took.. Ryan Reynolds was certainly told off by many, he should have been more prepared if he were going to do such segments, and he wasn’t..


  20. lynande51 permalink
    November 20, 2011 1:47 am

    What I see in Gloria Alred is Diane Dimond with a law degree. She calls and petitions the court how many time to have Michael’s children removed from their home 4, maybe 5 times? Each time she did that she called into question the social workers that investigated him all the other times. What is the matter with these people? How can you do that time and time again and people not see that it is harassment? That is exactly what her actions and her filings were.


  21. sanemjfan permalink
    November 20, 2011 4:07 am

    @ Vikii
    Thanks for the comment! I think this is the first time you’ve ever commented on the blog! I hope its the first of many!

    Good news! I have decided to join the 21st century, and I will make a twitter account! My username will be sanemjfan, of course! I will make it in the next few days (I want to learn how to use it and get comfortable before I make an account). Once I start, I’ll begin tweeting links to this blog to fans and foes alike!


  22. sanemjfan permalink
    January 6, 2012 8:47 am

    Guys, I added an interview between Bill O’Reilly and Gloria Allred from Feb. 2003! It’s amazing to see that Bill was actually fair to MJ for once, and he expressed doubts about the validity of Jordan’s declaration! (Although he referred to it as a deposition, unfortunately!)


  23. sanemjfan permalink
    January 10, 2012 4:35 am

    I added new video at the end of Geraldo interviewing Gloria Allred about the state of the case in November 2004, and the editor of The Smoking Gun about the leaking of the DCFS report!


  24. sanemjfan permalink
    January 19, 2012 10:54 am

    It looks like Brian Oxman is going to get disbarred!,0,5631564.story

    The State Bar of California has recommended that attorney Brian Oxman, whose high-profile client list has included pop star Michael Jackson and the 1-800-GET-THIN surgery marketing company, be disbarred for several violations of bar rules.

    In a Jan. 13 order, the State Bar Court said Oxman should lose the ability to practice law because of dishonest and unethical conduct, including failing to advise the bar after he had been fined by a judge and commingling personal funds in a client trust account.

    Under the order, Oxman will become inactive Feb. 2, pending a final ruling by the state Supreme Court. It typically takes several months for the Supreme Court to issue a final ruling.

    Oxman did not respond to a request for comment.

    In its order, the bar cited Oxman’s two past disciplinary cases as evidence that he should face the maximum penalty.

    “Oxman’s three disciplinary proceedings show a disturbing disregard for the administration of justice, including misrepresentations to courts and a failure to cooperate in disciplinary proceedings,” the order said.

    As a result, the bar said, “We recommend that Oxman be disbarred to protect the public, the courts and the legal profession.”

    Oxman has made numerous appearances on television as a legal expert. He was part of the defense team during Jackson’s 2005 sexual molestation trial. Most recently, he has represented the 1-800-GET-THIN marketing company and its affiliated Lap-Band surgery centers. Last month, he represented the companies during a hearing before the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

    On Tuesday, Oxman was named as a defendant in a whistle-blower lawsuit filed against 1-800-GET-THIN by former workers at the surgery centers. Among other things, the lawsuit accused Oxman of attempting to bribe a surgeon to sign a statement that would falsely accuse an opposing lawyer in a wrongful-death lawsuit of ethical violations. The wrongful-death lawsuit had been filed by relatives of a woman who died following Lap-Band surgery at a clinic in West Hills.

    I put that story under this post about Allred because Oxman has been fraternizing with the enemy lately! Here are photos of him with Allred and Jane Velez-Mitchell from his facebook page! He attended a book release party for Velez-Mitchell:
    Oxman and Velez-Mitchell!/photo.php?fbid=10150128115322262&set=pu.269101212261&type=1&theater

    Oxman and Allred!/photo.php?fbid=10150128472212262&set=pu.269101212261&type=1&theater


  25. David permalink
    June 3, 2012 7:57 pm

    Gloria Allred has sunk to an all time low! She is representing the girlfriend of a man who was arrested after he ate the flesh away from a homeless man! After he was confronted by police, he growled at them like a zombie and forced them to shoot and kill him! This woman is truly desperate for publicity!


  26. lynande51 permalink
    June 3, 2012 9:37 pm

    First, just like everyone else, I have to ask why his girlfriend would need legal representation? I can think of only one reason and that is if the police thought she might have supplied or had knowledge of his use of Bath Salts. Bath Salts when smoked is a powerful hallucinogenic and causes instant and sometimes permanent psychosis.As a matter of fact whatever it is in the BathSalts it causes the person to run an extremely high internal temperature and they become enraged and attack with their jaws for whatever reason it seems to effect people that way. This is not the first case of an attack by someone under the influence of this substance it is just the worst and probably most publicised one. Then for someone to actually say that they though he was a victim of a voodoo curse? This woman truly amazes me.I see Gloria Allred as a danger to others in some of the thigns that she does. I truly do.


  27. June 3, 2012 11:58 pm

    I heard that during the height of psychedilic abuse a person got an uncontrollable urge to eat raw meat.The perpetrator may have a yet undiagnosed CNS disease, maybe an unusual form of epilepsy as result.So what is Allred´s role in all this?


  28. nannorris permalink
    June 4, 2012 7:16 am

    David, you leave these people like Gloria Allred and Nancy Grace to their own devices and they start self destructing…Michaels problem was that he was so famous and just had such a presence, people always concentrated on him , not the people pointing fingers…She was a joke in the legal community before this stunt..
    Next she will be working side shows or
    Sad thing is I remember her on Merv Griffin as a young girl and she was going to defend women who didnt have a voice etc., make a real difference…Somewhere along the line , she went off the tracks..


  29. Rodrigo permalink
    June 4, 2012 8:08 am

    She was naive, like a lot of young journalists. They come into it, expecting to do their own thing, do some good, then they’re exposed to how the business really works. Soon, it’s saying this and that, forgetting and selling their values. Why? Cause in the business, it’s all about making as much money as you can with the crap you write. You make it bigger and badder, then the better it is for you.

    So it’s really a shame a lot of do gooder journalists lose their way in the end. But yet so ignorantly blind to the fact, that they’ll actually believe what they write about, cause to them, it’s still a story written with so much ‘pride’. And we see them all the time, Dimond and Orth, actually believing their lies, and being proud of it…Cause they are writers, and are proud of the material that they’ve written, it gets them praise and gains them money…Which is every journalists/writers ambition, no?



  1. Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 1 of 5: Michael was NOT a Devil Worshipper! « Vindicating Michael
  2. You Don’t Have To Be a “Crazy, Rabid Fan” To Know That Michael Jackson Was INNOCENT!! « Vindicating Michael
  3. Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith Part 1 of 7: Michael was NOT a Devil Worshipper « Fan Blog for MJ
  4. Take A Stroll Down Memory Lane with “Michael Jackson Was My Lover” Photo Album « Vindicating Michael
  5. Take A Stroll Down Memory Lane with the "Michael Jackson Was My Lover" Photo Album « Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0

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: