Skip to content

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

November 20, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They both had their own style!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

O’REILLY:  All right.

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

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

HUGHES:  Okay. 

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

HUGHES:  Right.  Yes, okay. 

O’REILLY:  Now what say you, Madame?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This line of questioning usually shuts them up really quick!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

O’REILLY:  And you base that on what?

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

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

HUGHES:  Okay. 

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

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

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

HUGHES:  Right. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HUGHES:  That’s fine.

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

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

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

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

HUGHES:  Oh, then you could too. 

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

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

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

HUGHES:  Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The questions about the 2005 case are far more complex:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terri well said chris

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

38 Comments leave one →
  1. nan permalink
    November 20, 2011 9:31 pm

    Wow..!!very well done..Terrific job!!
    I think the thing with Bill ORielly and Geraldine might have been before he settled with someone regarding a sexual harassment suit with someone who worked with him..
    He shouldnt be throwing stones…

    Some people will always come back to that settlement but Imo, MJ did everything he possible could as a person to prove his innocence to the d.a. and no matter what , just like in 2005 , Sneddon saw what he wanted to , much to Larry Feldmans advantage..
    In the end I think 93 was settled because MJ was a corporation , much like jc penny etc, to the people in business around him…….then the bloodsucking began..
    Until more people see that SNEDDON had a vendetta against MJ and are made to see that it was premeditated , malicious prosecution of 2005, and the fact that even now the media goes along with it…we will have to keep advocating..
    Even as Ron Zonen was retiring , the SB newspapers gave him a free pass on the trial of MJ..never mentioning the complete vindication of Jackson by those verdicts.
    on a different note , I noticed someone showing how these people are all friends of each other in fb..The thing I noticed the other week or so ago was that , Gavin was friended by zonen , (Star isn’t on his list)…………but Star was friended by DD.(and gavin isnt on her list)
    Why both brothers would not be on each others list makes me wonder…

    I know that sounds confusing but I have noticed that a lot of times people like Jason Pfieffer, Arnie Klien were frien ed by DD and then they are used in an article by her., so I am hoping there isnt some more garbage this family wants to put out,,btw I noticed Gavin has the message button back on his page..I almost think he misses the attn/connection to MJ…

    Thank you for all your hard work,,really appreciate you sharing all this knowledge.


  2. anniedomino permalink
    November 20, 2011 9:40 pm

    Oh sweet Jesus. I have never heard of that MJFacts place but went in there to see what it was about. I cannot for the life of me believe that someone actually would invest their time in slandering another human being like this. I glanced through it. And what I saw was a lot of generalisation about paedophilia and not much about Michael’s specific cases. It is also very well written! I suspect a professional attempt to blacken MJ’s name. I also went into the “contact us” section. And surprise, surprise you cannot communicate with them! Well – we are not afraid of debate.
    My heart is actually racing I am so upset!


  3. anniedomino permalink
    November 20, 2011 10:08 pm

    Those debates are so typical. They start with an ignorant person (possibly hater) making broad statements that MJ was a CM, addict, whatever. Then we point out the facts. Then they ask if we are naive to believe everything we read (LOL). Then we reference the facts. Then they say they have better things to do than research this stuff. Then they accuse us of not having lives and finally it ends in namecalling. Sad.
    I had a huge argument with my mother- who should know bloody better- about Conrad Murray. I have not discussed this case with her as I had been away for a few years. She likes MJ in her way – but believed that MJ had “forced” Murray to give him the Propofol. She knew nothing of the phone calls to his GF’s, of him not calling 911, she did not consider the nature of the doctor patient relationship, nothing! All she “knew” is that Mike had a “drug problem” and he had a “strong personality” and it was not the doctor’s fault. I blew my stack. Told her that it is stupid to have an opinion about something when you know jack shit about the issue. Michael would not have approved of my behaviour!!


  4. Suzy permalink
    November 20, 2011 10:50 pm

    I’m glad Frank addressed this sharing bed thing in his book. This is unfortunately something that needs to be addressed again now that the media compared it to Sandusky’s habit of showering with boys.

    It’s also worth noticing how the media often uses emotionally loaded terms, such as this from one that you quoted from Bashir: “You’re fundamentally saying that this cancer victim, and his entire family, are liars.”

    They had to put “cancer victim” there for sympathy. As if a cancer victim is not able to lie. Similarly when they kept calling Jason Francia “a youth pastor” in every second sentence when his testimony was discussed in 2005 as if that alone would make him credible. (It’s pretty sad if as a youth pastor he doesn’t know his Ten Commandments…)

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

    Yes, there are people who turn a blind eye, but in this case when parents found out, they did what you would expect from a parent in such a situation – and no, that’s not going to a lawyer, but to the police. Unfortunately the police then, however, covered up the case:

    “One child’s mother reported the incident to Penn State police when he came home with his hair wet. After an investigation by Detective Ronald Shreffler, Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar chose not to prosecute. Shreffler testified before the Grand Jury that director of the campus police, Thomas Harmon, told him to drop the case.”

    “And of course, when I pointed out other facts to her, she defended herself by insulting me and saying she had a life and didn’t have time to read the facts.”

    That’s the big problem and I’d attach that to the fallacy of reductionism. It IS a fallacy but unfortunately a very effective one because people are generally lazy but at the same time they like to give their two cents on everything, even on things they are ignorant about. So a catchy soundbite will always have more effect on the masses than facts for those they would have to work. Someone calls the MJ and Sandusky case similar and people buy it because it sounds so catchy about the MJ sharing bed stuff. But if you want to present the facts to them you will have to write an essay because you just cannot talk about a case like this in soundbites. But after you wrote your essay often people are lazy even to read that, because it’s long and not as catchy as the soundbite the media offers to them. Of course, you have to try nevertheless because if you can reach just one person with your essay and start to make them think, then it was already worth. But fact is most people don’t want to know, they just want to judge and hate.


  5. November 21, 2011 12:03 am

    Really excellent work on behalf of MJ and the truth. Yay for Tahlia and Sue and their persistance with education. It’s hard to reason with people who refuse to look at facts but getting frustrated and angry with them doesn’t help. Yep, being armed with the facts and being persistent is the key. Will try to do better in future.

    This reminds me of something that happened here years ago. A company produced a card for its employees who were constantly being harassed by questions and denigrating statements about the company they worked for. The card was about the size of a credit card and on it were short, stock phrases and answers the employees could give in reply to questions or damaging statements directed at them personally. It was a way for the employees to handle criticism just because they worked for the company. Not saying criticism of the company wasn’t deserved in this instance but at least the card was designed to help the employee (as well as the company) manage haters. Also, today company salespersons trying to sell you something are pre-armed with answers for doubting customers.

    This series is doing exactly that for MJ fans. Maybe we could produce our own “MJ army card” or something similar using this series as a launching point? Instead of getting angry or frustrated and giving up on the uneducated, we could refer to our card or handy list of facts to help get us back on track and focus on the need for education before we see red?


  6. lynande51 permalink
    November 21, 2011 12:22 am

    I would also like to add something else about Evan Chandler that is overlooked by everyone.Victor Gutierrez touches on it in his book but of course no one reads that part because the rest of it is just so shocking you tend to readover the parts that aren’t shocking.
    Evan Chandler did not need to be afraid of any repercussions if he had reported Michael to anyone because as a dentist he was a mandatory reporter. Just like Joe Paterno and all the others.That is why they are all in trouble now.As a matter of fact so was Sandusky to tell the truth.Anyone that works with children or in the medical field is considered a mandatory reporter.
    A mandatory reporter cannot be sued or have a criminal charge filed against them for reporting a possible credible case of Child M. They can however be sued and charged criminally if they do not.
    That is why they went to Dr. Mathis Abrams under the pretense that Evan never knew anything about it until Jordan spoke to Dr. Abrams.Their story was that Jordan revealed this to Dr.Abrams and Evan took him there because he had concerns about the way he was behaving, i.e not listening to him being defiant among other things.Also it should be noted that all mandatory reporters have to take classes every year in how to identify the signs and symptoms of abuse so he would have been well versed in what to say and what to tell Dr. Abrams.Chances are very good that he educated Jordan in exactly what to say.From what Frank Cascio says about Jordan he was afraid of his father before he even met Michael so of course he would have done what his father wanted if he was threatened.It would not suprise me that Evan even threatened Jordan with hurting Michael.They even left the abuse at a point where there would be no physical evidence of it on Jordan so it was a well thought out plan.
    That is the biggest difference between what might very well be a huge case for Penn State.One these parents were reporting it.Second and I don’t want to go into the gross details of what Sandusky is accused of but what he is accused of there would be physical evidence according to the reported witnessed acts by the Grad Student.That is how it works.
    The third and most telling difference between what a real case is can be found in the interview with Dr. Richard Gardner and even in Gavins statement and testimony. In the interviews with both of his accusers they both say that Michael touched them in a certain way and they said they didn’t like it so he stopped. A child m*** will not stop when asked they keep on going until they get their gratification.


  7. November 21, 2011 1:30 am

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

    Heh, I actually feel like a lot of people subconsciously react to a lot of the info and facts we put out there about MJ with this fallacy. So much info and so many facts are thrown at them, I feel like some think “these can’t all be true, I would have heard about it” or something along those lines. I feel like a lot of people really do react to our info in that way. That’s why I always try and back up a mountain of info shared anywhere with a lot of relevant links.

    Or also, just posting bitesize chunks that throw people off their thought processes. Did they know MJ’s insurance was involved? Most don’t. Do they know Gavin testified that Mike slept on the floor with Frank in the only night he spent in Mike’s room? Most don’t. Do they know loads of girls also spent time with him? Most don’t. Do they know about the 2 grand juries in 1994, DCFS investigations, FBI investigations? Again, most don’t. And I think being able to get people to realize how little they know and showing them with facts helps breaks people’s subconscious resistance to this info.

    By the way, it’s funny how Orth said that MJ paid $150k dollars to put a curse on Geffen, Spielberg, and others, yet they are all still alive and doing well.

    Also funny that MJ would pay to have an African chief in Switzerland to do this – A Chief called Baba (how ridiculously cliche) in a country with roughly 70,000 Africans out of a population of about 8 million but there’s an African chief who performs voodoo sacrifices for Americans? Why didn’t MJ try and get a hold of any African chiefs in any of the African countries he knew? The Jacksons are good friends with the Bongo’s in Gabon, he could’ve made a phonecall there. Also, Neverland had cows on the property, so why bother with doing it elsewhere to begin with? And which bed did he sleep in sheep’s blood in? A hotel or at Neverland? Maybe that’s where all the bloodstains on his mattress came from! His sheep blood baths. Poor maids, I’m sure they must’ve remembered cleaning that mess up…


  8. November 21, 2011 2:13 am


    Don’t forget the story of Baba took place at the Hotel D’Angleterre in Geneva, one of the most expensive hotel in one most expensive city in the world.


  9. November 21, 2011 2:20 am

    LOL thanks Shelly. So I’m sure he paid those maids a tonne of cash so that none of them ever photographed or showed off all the sheep blood stained sheets/bed/bedroom. I mean, I imagine walking into a bedroom of an entertainer you’ve heard is a bit strange and finding nothing short of a bloodbath must’ve been something that would possibly have you calling the police or at least New of The World, but I’m glad that those maids were just so good at keeping secrets.


  10. lynande51 permalink
    November 21, 2011 2:27 am

    @ Shelly and Rockon I know when we put it in rational terms people just can’t seem to make sense of it and that is when they get mad and move on to the next argument i.e. attack the messenger. Shelly I know you asked a question the other day about Jimmy Safechuck getting married at Neverland.There is one marriage in Calfornia for a James M Safechuck that is availabe to purchase.Also don’t forget that Jimmy’s father’s name was supposedly Wayne Safechuck if you believe the names that VG gives people. One other thing I thought it was cows blood not sheep blood LOL. I suppose that no one remembers that Michael was considered the King of his own small African nation couldn’t he have gone there to have his own country do it for free by order of the King? Here is a link to that article and notice that it was written in May of 1992 in Ebony.The other interesting part is where MJ talks about “conditioning” and it’s meaning to him so Michael’s use of the term, where he got it, and what it meant was out there before the Chandler’s used it in the allegations. I wonder do you think VG gave them the idea or do you think that EC came up with it on his own?


  11. sanemjfan permalink
    November 21, 2011 3:27 am

    guys, Catherine Gross will do an episode of BLog Talk Radio tomorrow at 6:30 PM CST, and I’ll probably call in and discuss this series. The title of the show is “An Exercise in Sleaze: Schism, Ism’s, and Michael Joseph Jackson”.


  12. November 21, 2011 4:57 am

    Excellent and super-thorough post David–I honestly cannot think of anything to add. I hate Bill O. and those like him who are nothing but hypocrites. He claims he does not “spin” yet his entire show is like spinning into the Twilight Zone of Ignorance.

    One thing this article made me think about was Tom Sneddon. We all know he was “after” Michael but what all was behind this? It seems it was more than just racism, or the pursuit of fame, or even the notion of justice. It is deeper than that, much deeper. What is it?


  13. sanemjfan permalink
    November 21, 2011 5:52 am

    @ Gigi
    I hate Bill O. too! He’s a pompous, arrogant, self-righteous, hypocritical jerk! But, guess what? I really respect him! Let me tell you why:

    He’s one of the reasons that I’m such a sound researcher, and why I scrutinize everything that I write, and all of the sources that I reference. I always ask myself “If I was invited to defend MJ on his show, how would I do it?” O’Reilly is excellent when it comes to debate, and he holds his ground (for the most part, until he starts losing, and then he yells or cuts off his guest, but that’s another story). I would have to bring my “A” game, and I would have to be flawless in my defense of MJ. Any talk of how charitable MJ was, or how “nobody saw any wrongdoing”, or attacking the character of the accusers wouldn’t be tolerated, because he would accuse me of “spinning” and dodging the issue.

    That’s why I always tell fans not to say any of that, but instead just stick to the facts, and those questions and 16 talking points will surely help out on that front! In part 5 of this series, I will show a mistake that Mesereau made in his recent interview with O’Reilly, and show why fans shouldn’t make that same mistake.


  14. sanemjfan permalink
    November 21, 2011 5:58 am

    @ Nan
    Yes, that interview with Geraldine Hughes was in January 2004, and he settled his own sexual harassment case in October 2004. I talked about it in detail in this post:’s-hypocrisy-in-reporting-on-michael-jackson’s-settlements-vs-the-settlements-of-other-celebrities-part-2/


  15. Jovana permalink
    November 21, 2011 10:00 am

    Your posts are absolutely amazing, thank you. Your site is the best one ever.


  16. Addie J permalink
    November 21, 2011 10:24 am

    Please, never stop this blog or shut it down. It is THE place to go if your looking to vindicate Michael. I show this blog to everyone. It is brilliant and I love it. Thank you so much.


  17. sanemjfan permalink
    November 21, 2011 10:43 am

    I’m going to start summarizing all of the testimonies of the following people: The Arvizo family, the Francia family, the Neverland 5, Stacy Brown, Bob Jones, and anyone else lied about MJ during the trial, and I will put their lies in chronological order (e.g. Lie #1, Lie #2, etc.). I will then combine all of their lies into one post, and make bullet points out of all of them. I have thousands of pages to read, so this project will take me well into 2012 to complete, but it’s on my radar screen!

    I’ve already read the testimony of Jason Francia, and in a few days I’ll finish reading his mother Blanca’s testimony as well, and I will summarize their lies in a future post that will be ready in December. Stay tuned!

    In the meantime, you can read a summary of each day of the trial from the MJ Upbeat site that is included on the blogroll, as well as the CBS News site.


  18. anniedomino permalink
    November 21, 2011 11:10 am

    I don’t think Bill O’Reilly is a good debater at all. When people start winning points with him he talks over them and starts getting snide and sarcastic. And he never, ever listens. Listening is just as key to effective communication as talking – and Bill never listens. I watched him quite a bit in the wake of the Casey A trial. There were numerous people on his show telling him the same thing – the prosecution never proved their case. It was as if he simply did not hear a word. Sad thing is – I believe that Casey probably did kill her child. I just don’t know how or if she acted alone, if it was an accident, whatever. What I do know is that the prosecution never explained how this child died or when or where. And people should not take out their anger on Casey for walking. They should be looking at the law enforcement in this case and analysing what they could have done better. Instead, the Bill O’Reilly’s have lots of fun beating up on Casey Anthony. It IS so fun to vilify the slutty bitch who killed her daughter after all. But they spend ZERO time on thinking what they should do next time something terrible like this happens.
    When Bill had T-Mez on he was as mild as milk. Probably because he knows he was talking to the best lawyer in the US and would not get away with his nonsense.
    To me someone like Fareed Zacharia is an amazing debater. I disagree with absolutely everything that man says, but I absolutely LOVE listening to him. He is respectful to his guests, asks tough questions and allows them to answer, and does his homework thoroughly. If all journalists were like that we would have no need to “vindicate mj”.
    What I DO respect about Bill is that he DID give Aphrodite and Geraldine a chance on his show. It is just a shame that our side is usually not great on TV. We should start a bootcamp!!


  19. Suzy permalink
    November 21, 2011 12:32 pm

    @ GiGi

    “It seems it was more than just racism, or the pursuit of fame, or even the notion of justice. It is deeper than that, much deeper. What is it?”

    I keep thinking about it as well. What did Michael do to deserve all this? I think much of it has to do with bigotry and fear of the unknown and different, just like Michael himself addressed these issues in his work several times.

    Like in Ghosts where you can see a lynch mob led by the Mayor (probably inspired by Sneddon’s character) trying to destroy the Maestro just because he is not “normal” according to their own standard of “normal”. Or there is the song “Threatened” in which Rod Serling announces:

    “The major ingredient of any recipe for fear is the unknown”

    And then in the song Michael places himself in the role of the monster who is hated because people feel threatened by him because he is unknown, because he’s superior (may sound arrogant, but it’s just artistic self-consciousness: and he truly is superior to his detractors, morally and in every way and that too is threatening to them) and and also because he holds up a mirror to society:

    “You’re trapped in halls, and my face is the walls
    I’m the floor when you fall, and when you scream it’s ‘cause of me
    I’m the living dead, the dark thoughts in your head
    I heard just what you said
    That’s why you’ve got to be threatened by me

    You should be watching me, you should feel threatened
    While you sleep, while you creep, you should be threatened
    Every time your lady speaks she speaks of me, threatened
    Half of me you’ll never be, so you should feel threatened by me

    You think you’re by yourself, but it’s my touch you felt
    I’m not a ghost from Hell, but I’ve got a spell on you
    Your worst nightmare, it’s me, I’m everywhere”

    Michael was always a very private person, and because he was “unknown” that way, people started to fill in the gaps with their own fantasy and dark thoughts. That’s why he’s a mirror and that’s why he’s the “dark thoughts in your head”. When they hate him they actually hate their OWN thoughts (thus themselves) that they project onto him! That’s why they feel threatened by him.

    He says it in “Is it Scary” too:

    “Masquerade the heart
    Is the height of haunting souls
    Just not what you seek of me
    Can the heart reveal the proof
    Like a mirror reveals the truth
    See the evil one is you

    I really think in these songs Michael was onto something about the root of the irrational hatred and false accusations against him.


  20. November 21, 2011 1:04 pm

    @ sanemjfan A huge job ahead of you because there are so many lies. Will stay tuned.


  21. November 21, 2011 10:09 pm

    David, great job! The questions to be asked of Michael’s detractors are especially good.

    You could add to the 1993 set a question why Ray Chandler refused to prove his “All that Glitters” lies in court when he was subpoenaed by Michael’s defense.

    One would think it was a splendid chance to tell “the whole truth” and seek justice for Jordan Chandler.

    However Ray Chandler fought the subpoena like crazy. And he could not even give the pretext of “sparing the boy’s feelings” – because just prior to that he published his “tell-all book” about this boy.

    And why did Ray Chandler refuse to bring his unique “incriminating documents” (he advertises in the book) to the trial? Because he said they were freely available to everyone or were not relevant. Why so? Because most of them were cuts from newspapers. And those which were “unique” could not, evidently, stand up to a scrutiny in court.

    It would also be nice to ask why Michael’s wasn’t arrested then and there when the photos of his private parts were made if an alleged “match” was found? So if he wasn’t arrested it means there was no match?

    And why did the Chandlers dismiss Gloria Allred who “wanted justice” for the boy and quickly approach Larry Feldman who immediately asked for money (civil courts are for money only, no one goes to prison there).

    The argument that they didn’t want publicity won’t work as the boy was required to testify in a civil trial too.

    And why it was Michael Jackson’s attorneys who were fighting for the criminal proceedings to go first?

    Have haters every heard a suspect to prefer to be tried in court rather than be sued?

    And why did Feldman and Chandlers want to go into all the expense of investigating the civil case if the same investigation work could be done (and was done) by TWO government prosecutors and absolutely free for the family? And the civil suit could have just followed the criminal trial (if any) at a much less expense?

    But then the criminal proceedings would have had to go first and this was exactly which they didn’t want?

    And the criminal case did not have any future anyway because nothing matched and the TWO Grand juries refused to indict?

    And why did Larry Felman want $30mln when he filed the case in September 93 — but as soon as Michael’s private parts were photographed he 1) demanded the photos barred from the civil court and 2) almost immediately agreed to half that sum – $15,3mln?

    It may be a “coincidence” of course, but I nevertheless like it.

    There are a lot more questions about some other “coincidences” and inconsistencies in the 1993 case and personally I think that Michael’s advocates should better ask questions – when talking to detractors – than try to provide facts.

    It is easier and more effective. Let them do all the job.

    You can present them with a hundred arguments but these lazy guys simply won’t listen. But when you ask them a question they more or less feel they have to give a coherent reply and start putting two and two together. This is the beginning of the process of thinking.

    However the knowledge of facts how the truth was stretched both in 1993 and 2005 is a complete must for Michael’s voluntary advocates!

    Because if you don’t know facts you do not know what questions to ask!


  22. Maria permalink
    November 22, 2011 12:39 am

    This is all terrible. Even the discussion about this. It’s such a shame.


  23. Maria permalink
    November 22, 2011 12:54 am


  24. lynande51 permalink
    November 22, 2011 1:26 am

    Helena there are others things too that should be mentioned about the 1993 case versus the 2003 case. The investigation started in 2 counties in August of 1993. Jordan did not notify the prosecutors that he would not be willing to testify until July 6th 1994. So that poses another question.
    In all the 11 months why didn’t they charge Michael and have a preliminary trial to determine if there was enough evidence to go forward with a trial? The prosecution does not need permission from a victim to charge someone with a crime they can do it without their consent if they have the evidence necessary to prove that crime. By everything they say they had ample evidence yet they were waiting for a deposition of Michael that was supposed to take place on January 18th 1994. Michael had it delayed by one week and that is when the settlement occurred so there was no deposition. That should not have stopped any charges, if they had more than Jordan’s word that this even took place. The police still could have charged Michael without that deposition and without the Chandler’s okay if they have this so called evidence that they like people to believe they did. It could have gone to a preliminary hearing instead of the Grand Jury (which actually costs more) it never had to go to a Grand Jury in the first place. If either prosecutor had believed that there was enough evidence Michael could have been charged because the case was turned over to the police and they had been investigating it for 5 months before the settlement. So that makes me think the police did not have the evidence that the media says that they had.
    In 2003 Michael was arrested without formal charges in place. He was charged later in December. His defense team then prepared for a preliminary trial to take place before the court. In a Preliminary Hearing evidence from both sides is considered by a judge to see if the prosecution’s evidence is enough to go to trial. That is the difference. The evidence would have been weighed by the judge according to the law, to determine if there was enough evidence to move forward with a trial. Instead once Sneddon had met with Mark Geragos and the recording of the Arvizo family had been found Sneddon then sent Sheriff’s Detective to re-interview the Arvizo family because of the newly discovered exculpatory evidence. That is when he asked for a delay in the preliminary trial and asked for a Grand Jury and then because of the exculpatory evidence that was presented to him the story and the timeline of the charges changed to include the conspiracy charge. It was a good legal maneuver to ask for a Grand Jury indictment rather than submit charges to the court and go through a preliminary hearing for 2 reasons. One is that the defense is not allowed in a Grand Jury process. The second is that it is much easier to convince a jury that their evidence fits the crime than it is a judge who must follow the rules of evidence in determining if that evidence qualifies the charges.


  25. November 22, 2011 2:27 am

    “In all the 11 months why didn’t they charge Michael and have a preliminary trial to determine if there was enough evidence to go forward with a trial? The prosecution does not need permission from a victim to charge someone with a crime they can do it without their consent if they have the evidence necessary to prove that crime.”

    Lynette, exactly. Since we are talking about questions over which Michael’s supporters should examine Michael’s detractors, the questions may be as follows:

    – Did the police need permission from Jordan Chandler to charge Michael with a crime if they really had any evidence against him?
    – Even if he didn’t want to testify, so what? It was only his word against Michael’s word. The police should have something more substantial than that.
    – If your neighbor tells stories about you is it reason enough to charge you with a crime?

    “they were waiting for a deposition of Michael that was supposed to take place on January 18th 1994. Michael had it delayed by one week and that is when the settlement occurred so there was no deposition. That should not have stopped any charges, if they had more than Jordan’s word that this even took place.”

    That “deposition thing” is always thrust in the face of Michael’s supporters as proof of something terrible. Nothing terrible about it. This deposition was to be made within a civil case and not a criminal one. In a criminal case a person is allowed to keep silent and his silence is his right and no sign of guilt – but in a civil case the person is expected to be “cooperative” and if he isn’t it automatically means that he is guilty.

    So it was a way to twist Michael’s arms – “we won’t go to a criminal court but will force you to make a deposition”. And since Larry Feldman (as far as I know) also demanded all Michael’s financial records prior to that deposition he would have interrogated him about his financial standing and no one could have stopped him from learning all about Michael’s finances.

    One of his lawyers said something like – “Michael will allow you to look at his private parts but if you think that he’ll agree to do the same with his finances you are wrong”.

    If someone does not know it yet Jordan Chandler (and neither of his relatives) did not make a deposition either.

    A person is deposed in the presence of lawyers from both sides and he is cross-examined in the same way as at the trial. A full transcript is made and signed by both lawyers. The Chandlers could not afford the luxury of being cross-examined by Michael’s lawyers, so as a result none of them were deposed.

    Everything Jordan Chandler ever made was a one-sided statement to his lawyer Larry Feldman, which was put down in a shortened descriptive manner (not as a transcript like any deposition should). The paper was not even verified by any attorney. And J.Chandler who supposedly signed that paper, was not even 14 at that moment, so if he lied there was no danger he would not be found guilty of perjury.

    They were in a terrible hurry as Jordan was turning 14 in some 3 weeks or so, and then the responsibility of stating lies would have been totally different.

    More about it here:

    * * *

    As regards the Arvizos I don’t even want to hear of that case. It was such a joke that it is totally indecent to discuss it seriously.


  26. sanemjfan permalink
    November 22, 2011 4:19 am

    As regards the Arvizos I don’t even want to hear of that case. It was such a joke that it is totally indecent to discuss it seriously.

    Unfortunately, too many people have utterly neglected to understand the facts of the case, and I’ve seen too many people who are completely unable of explaining why MJ was innocent (look no further than Steve Manning and Mike Garcia in their debate with Diane Dimond). So that is why throughout 2012, I will summarize in chronological order all of the lies of the major players of the trial, such as the entire Arvizo and Francia families, the Neverland 5, Stacy Brown, Bob Jones, the detectives who interviewed the Arvizos, etc. I will make bullet points out of all of their lies, so that fans can make their own “flash cards” and memorize the lies by heart. Never again should any fan have to struggle to explain MJ’s innocence.

    It’s very easy for people like us to just totally dismiss the trial because we’re so knowledgeable about the facts, but you’d be surprised how CLUELESS some of these fans are! I once met someone who was a diehard MJ fan, had every album, memorized every song, yet didn’t know who Victor Gutierrez is! She couldn’t even give me an educated guess! She had NEVER heard of him at all! So, for the benefit of the fan community, I will summarize all of their lies, starting with Jason Francia, whose rebuttal will be finished in December.


  27. November 22, 2011 8:37 am

    “for the benefit of the fan community, I will summarize all of their lies, starting with Jason Francia, whose rebuttal will be finished in December.”

    David, I think that the summaries you are planning are absolutely indispensable! The 2005 trial is extremely important not because of the Arvizos whose case was laughable, but because of the numerous people who came back from the period prior to that and whose past allegations were also refuted by Thomas Mesereau.

    If the 2005 trial had stuck only to the Arvizos there wouldn’t be much to talk about it now – it would be just enough to mention that “molestation” started after the whole world was warned about it and began watching Neverland, and that would be it.

    But the past allegations make up the second layer of the trial and the fact that the prosecution scraped all arguments and “witnesses” from every corner of the world – and it still brought them nothing – is a factor which makes the 2005 trial so all-inclusive in its results. We can safely say that this second layer was a replacement for the 1993 trial which never took place but was won in 2005 too.


  28. nan permalink
    November 22, 2011 9:33 am

    I cant wait for the Jason Francia one..LOL
    Just the fact that even Maureen Orth talks about how the jurors were laughing and talking while there was a side bar going on during his testimony and she thought there was something wrong with the jurors , not his testimony tells you that some people can never be
    but it is really nice to have the facts laid out in a clear and concise manner as opposed to rechecking the transcripts..
    I am really looking forward to reading all the power points..thanks


  29. November 22, 2011 10:42 pm

    I was debating with a MJ hater today, how should I respond to an idiotic comment like this: “Dude anytime an adult is hanging out with young children who are not their own children there is a problem.
    He was always around young boys. What adult would be doing that?”


  30. shelly permalink
    November 22, 2011 10:56 pm

    You can’t answer that, it’s paranoia.


  31. Teva permalink
    November 22, 2011 11:24 pm

    I say shut down all the scouts, big brothers programs, Disney world, and after school programs. That would fix the problem


  32. November 22, 2011 11:27 pm

    “Dude anytime an adult is hanging out with young children who are not their own children there is a problem.”

    Then ALL pre-school and school teachers as well as children doctors are also people with a problem?

    I have a friend who is a teacher at elementary school – she isn’t married and doesn’t have children of her own. She hangs out with small children all the time. When they grow up they bring their own children to her and she is now teaching the second generation of them. She is never at home because she is always attending some child’s birthday or helps with the homework. She regularly calls me from different homes with questions how to do this or that English exercise. She spends most of her summer holiday with a family of her former pupil where a girl was prematurely born and has some health problems. Now she spends there more time than the girl’s own mother, I think.

    Is she normal? Yes, she is – and much more normal than me, who spends most of my time at a computer. She doesn’t sing and dance but if she were she would probably be someone like Michael Jackson.

    “He was always around young boys.”

    He was always around children and liked girls no less than boys. Only I am not sure that the media would have like it better if he had been seen hanging around with small girls.


  33. Maria permalink
    November 22, 2011 11:43 pm

    Michael’s defense should not rely on burying in the garbage. The dirt belong to those people. It is their property. The defense is to show Michael. Show what he did, he said, what he meant, why he loved children. By burial in the garbage lost the truth. Well it is written in this article.


  34. November 24, 2011 3:54 am

    @ BJ You could say, “Look in the mirror. It is YOUR mind that is going there, imagining the worst. What YOU are thinking was never in Michael Jackson’s mind.”


  35. Clare permalink
    March 4, 2015 6:29 pm

    MJ haters will never ever learn!



  1. How to Recognize and Refute the Fallacies Used By Michael Jackson Haters, Part 5 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. How to Recognize and Refute the Fallacies Used by Michael Jackson Haters, Part 5 of 5 « Fan Blog for MJ

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: