It’s Not Up To Michael Jackson’s Fans To Prove That He Was Innocent; It’s Up To Michael Jackson’s HATERS To PROVE That He Was Guilty!
As Michael Jackson fans, we have the unfortunate burden of constantly having to defend him from the vicious media attacks that have made a seemingly indelible stain on his musical and humanitarian legacy. We’re in a position of having to roll up our sleeves and scrub away the lies with a boatload of Pine-Sol disinfectant, one by one!
We’ve all been in situations where we’ve encountered people who, at one end of the spectrum, are highly skeptical of Michael’s complete innocence, and people who are on the other end of the spectrum that believe with 100% certainty that Michael was guilty. Through my own experience, the people who seem certain that Michael was guilty almost always share the following traits:
- They haven’t read the testimonies of the accusers from the 2005 trial, or their enablers. (The Arvizo family, the Francia family, the former Neverland employees, etc. I am working on summaries of the Arvizo family right now, but in the meantime you read summaries of Bob Jones & Stacy Brown, Blanca Francia, Jason Francia, and Martin Bashir.)
- They haven’t read any summaries of the trial from FAIR AND OBJECTIVE legal analysts like Jonna Spilbor and journalists like Charles Thomson. (They are included at the end of this post.)
- They haven’t read any books on Michael Jackson’s allegations (such as “Michael Jackson Conspiracy”, “Redemption”, “The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour”, etc.)
- They haven’t watched any documentaries on Michael Jackson’s allegations (such as “The Untold Story of Neverland”, “The Trial and Triumph of the King of Pop”, “True Crime with Aphrodite Jones”, etc.)
- They haven’t read the FBI’s files on Michael, which were released to the public in December 2009 through a Freedom of Information Act request. (The FBI confirmed that in September 2004, Jordan Chandler threatened to take legal action to prevent himself from having to testify in court against Michael, and that he said it was because he had already “done his part”, among many other pieces of exculpatory information.)
- And many, many more acts of due diligence that people who “know” that Michael is guilty totally fail to engage in! As a matter of fact, in a few months I will publish a new series that is tentatively titled “21 Questions for Michael Jackson Haters”, and I will compile a list of basic research exercises that haters (and most skeptics) fail to initiate before jumping to their conclusions. Stay tuned!
I’ve been in many debates about Michael, and I’ve noticed that when you’re dealing with a closed-minded jerk who wants to ridicule you for proclaiming Michael’s innocence, instead of trying to prove to them that Michael was innocent, it’s better (and more entertaining!) to let THEM prove that Michael was guilty!
After thoroughly studying the allegations, I have compiled a list of questions that fans should ask to anyone who claims to “know” with absolute certainty that Michael was guilty. Here they are! Ask them to COGENTLY and DEFINITIVELY answer these questions! (Thank you Susan for your suggestions! I took your questions and rearranged the wording a little bit, and added them to questions 7-14!)
Questions about the 1993 allegations:
1. If Michael Jackson was guilty of child molestation in 1993, why was he not arrested and charged with a crime?
2. If District Attorneys 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? (Los Angeles and Santa Barbara 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…”.)
7. If the Chandlers didn’t pursue criminal charges because they were afraid of the media attention, then why did Evan Chandler begin ghost writing “All That Glitters” in the fall of 1993, with the intention of having his brother Ray circumvent the confidentiality agreement and publishing it under his own name? Wouldn’t publishing a tell-all book about the allegations bring MORE media attention to his family? (In this series of posts, we discuss how Ray Chandler took legal action to quash his subpoena to testify against Jackson in September 2004.)
8. If the Chandlers didn’t pursue criminal charges because they were afraid of the media attention, then why did Evan Chandler sue Sony Music in 1996 for the right to record a “rebuttal album” to Jackson’s “HIStory” called “EVANstory”? Wouldn’t releasing an album bring even MORE media attention to him? (Read the article by journalist DeWayne Wickham, which I linked to near the end of this post.)
9. If Jackson was truly guilty, and Ray Chandler’s book “All That Glitters” had so much inculpatory evidence against Jackson, then why didn’t Sneddon subpoena him? Why did Mesereau subpoena Ray Chandler? Wouldn’t it have made more sense for the prosecution to subpoena Ray instead of the defense? Wouldn’t Jackson’s defense want to do everything to prevent Ray from testifying?
10. And why didn’t Evan Chandler testify against the man who claimed abused his son? He could have been provided with enough security to rival the Secret Service if he was concerned about his safety!
11. Why did Evan Chandler tell Dave Schwartz “if I go through with this, I win big time. There’s no way that I lose. I’ve checked that out inside out”? If Evan truly believed that his son was abused by Jackson, wouldn’t there be no if’s, and’s, or but’s about whether or not Evan would go straight to the authorities and bring Jackson to justice? Why would he be concerned with “winning or losing”? Why would he have to check his story “inside out”? (MJJ Justice project wrote a two part series that analyzed Evan’s recorded phone conversation with Dave Schwartz. Here is Part 1, and here is Part 2.)
12. Jordan Chandler admitted to Dr. Richard Gardner that his only fear was that he would be cross-examined by Jackson’s attorneys. Why was Jordan Chandler so afraid of being cross-examined? If he had truly been abused by Jackson, and was being honest, why would he be afraid have his story scrutinized? Was he afraid that he would be exposed for “doing his part”? (He told the FBI in September 2004 that he had “done his part” in 1993. Read this post by MJJ Justice Project to get a complete summary and analysis of Jordan’s purported interview with Dr. Gardner on October 6th, 1993.)
13. Why did Jordan Chandler threaten to take legal action against Sneddon if he was subpoenaed to testify against Jackson in September 2004? Why didn’t Jordan perform his obligation to society and testify against Jackson to put him behind bars once and for all, so that Jackson couldn’t harm any other children?
14. If Jackson was a serial child abuser, and abused many other children, then why did the police have to bully Jason Francia into finally claiming to be abused by Jackson? Why did they attempt to abuse Corey Feldman and other children into claiming abuse by Jackson? (For more information, read my review of Jason Francia’s testimony, which I linked to earlier in this post.)
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 allegations against Michael (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 (which Gavin Arvizo originally claimed happened to him BEFORE he and his family were “forced” to shoot the rebuttal video on February 20th, 2003)
- 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 (which Gavin Arvizo now claims happened to him AFTER he and his family were “forced” to shoot the rebuttal video on February 20th, 2003)
- 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. Wouldn’t it had made sense for Sneddon to charge Jackson with conspiracy from the very beginning?
4. During their alleged imprisonment at Neverland, the Arvizo family went on numerous shopping sprees, purchased expensive designer clothes, received massages and leg waxes, ate at fancy restaurants, and ran up a tab of $3,312.05! Why didn’t the Arvizo family notify the police during their shopping sprees?
5. Why weren’t the 5 unindicted co-conspirators (Frank Cascio, Ronald Konitzer, Marc Schaffel, Dieter Wiesner, and Vincent Amen) charged for their roles in keeping the Arvizos trapped at Neverland and planning their banishment to Brazil, even after they refused immunity for their testimony against Michael Jackson?
6. 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?
7. Why did the start date of the alleged crimes suddenly shift by almost 2 weeks, and the end date shift by 2 days?
8. 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?
9. 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?
Those questions will totally and absolutely SILENCE anyone who claims with absolute certainty that Michael was guilty. By asking them these questions, you’re essentially giving them their own rope and watching them hang themselves!
That’s all for now, but by no means is that list complete! I will continuously add questions to the list as I summarize and analyze everyone’s testimony from the trial. If you have any questions that you think should be included, please leave them in the comments section and I’ll add them to the post.
In the event that the hater or skeptic that you’re talking to suddenly has an epiphany and begins to entertain the possibility that Michael could be innocent, it’s important to use this opportunity to go for the jugular! Have them read these three summaries of the trial:
Charles Thomson – One Of The Most Shameful Episodes In Journalistic History
The story was over. There were no apologies and no retractions. There was no scrutiny – no inquiries or investigations. Nobody was held to account for what was done to Michael Jackson. The media was content to let people go on believing their heavily skewed and borderline fictitious account of the trial. That was that.
There is something that I want to point out from Thomson’s article; it’s the excerpt from Nancy Grace’s post trial comments in 2005:
Within minutes of the announcement, Nancy Grace appeared on Court TV to allege that jurors had been seduced by Jackson’s fame and bizarrely claim that the prosecution’s only weak link had been Janet Arvizo.
“I’m having a crow sandwich right now,” she said. “It doesn’t taste very good. But you know what? I’m also not surprised. I thought that celebrity is such a big factor. When you think you know somebody, when you have watched their concerts, listened to their records, read the lyrics, believed they were coming from somebody’s heart… Jackson is very charismatic, although he never took the stand. That has an effect on this jury.
“I’m not gonna throw a stone at the mom, although I think she was the weak link in the state’s case, but the reality is I’m not surprised. I thought that the jury would vote in favor of the similar transaction witnesses. Apparently the defense overwhelmed them with the cross-examining of the mother. I think it boils down to that, plain and simple.”
After having a nice, healthy dose of crow sandwich shoved down her throat by way of 14 “not guilty” verdicts, Grace and her fellow bottom-feeders in the media immediately made Janet Arvizo the scapegoat for Jackson’s acquittal. With the help of our co-admin Lynette, I will prove that Janet Arvizo’s disastrous testimony was NOT a factor during the jury’s deliberations! (The jury – and everyone else for that matter - totally dismissed her testimony has hogwash as soon as she was finished!)
On June 6th, 10th, and 13th of 2005, the jury made several requests for information from Judge Melville, and they are all included in this Statement From The Jury form. This document truly indicates the level of attention to detail that the jurors took in evaluating all of the evidence that was presented in the case, despite the fact that they all voted to acquit Jackson in their initial vote on the first day of deliberations!
On June 6th, the jury requested that they be given the ENTIRE evidence log so that they could quickly determine where an exhibit is whenever the need to see a piece of evidence came up. (Page 4)
On June 10th, the jury requested a review of the verbiage of Count 4 of the Grand Jury Indictment (Lewd Act Upon A Child), and received a corrected verdict from Judge Melville. They also requested to know which child was referred to in Count 6 of the Grand Jury Indictment (Attempt To Commit A Lewd Act Upon A Child), and Judge Melville confirmed that the only child who is alleged to have been abused by Jackson in Counts 2 through 10 was Gavin Arvizo. (Pages 2 and 3)
On June 10th, the jury also requested that Gavin’s testimony be read back to them, and Judge Melville ordered the court reporter to read it back to them. He also ordered the jurors to not converse with the court reporter about the case. (Page 5)
On June 13th, the day that they reached their verdicts, they initially could not agree on the lesser counts of Seven and Eight (Administering An Intoxicating Agent To Assist In Commission Of A Felony for both counts). They had the option of convicting Jackson on misdemeanor charges if they felt that Jackson indeed plied Gavin with alcohol but did not abuse him. Less than an hour later, they asked Judge Melville to disregard their request for Counts 7 and 8.
Finally, after they reached their verdict, they released the following statement, proclaiming to the world that they meticulously studied all of the evidence and felt confident in their decision, so this should forever end the notion that the jurors didn’t take their duties seriously!
This case never should have been brought in the first place. But it was – and thankfully, this smart, thoughtful jury did the right thing. They didn’t do it lightly, either; those who disagree with their verdict should consider that – as we now know from their own interviews — they kept deliberating even though after their initial vote, in the minutes kicking off their deliberations, was a unanimous “not guilty.”
Andrew Cohen – Bad Evidence
You had to see how defense attorneys ran rings around prosecutors inside and out of court. You had to count how many times prosecution witnesses testified to facts that helped Jackson. You had to note how often both prosecution and defense witnesses told jurors that they had not been interviewed by law enforcement officials prior to the start of the case. You had to notice how many times Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon slumped down into his chair and pouted when a court ruling would go against him. And you had to notice how intently jurors were watching and listening to lead defense attorney Thomas Mesereau when he delivered his closing argument last week.
And here are some summaries from the 1993 case:
Charles Thomson – Chandler Suicide Highlights Media Bias Against Jackson
As for the media, this latest incident cements once more the industry’s almost total unwillingness to report fairly or accurately on Michael Jackson, particularly on the bogus allegations of sexual abuse that were leveled against him. None of the aforementioned information and evidence was included in any article about Chandler’s suicide that I have read so far, despite the fact that I personally delivered it to at least one newspaper which has repeatedly paid me as a Jackson expert on other stories.
Exculpatory facts are overlooked in favor of salacious myths. A black humanitarian is tarred as a pedophile and his white extortionist is painted as a martyr.
DeWayne Wickham – Settlement Was Not Enough For Evan Chandler
How much? Chandler, who between root canals co-wrote the screenplay for the movie Robin Hood: Men in Tights, wants at least $60 million to settle his latest complaint against the pop music king. He also wants an album. Not a copy of HIStory, the Jackson album he cites in his suit. Chandler wants a court order “to allow him to publish and cause to be distributed to the public for sale” his own musical composition – something he calls “EVANstory.” And, yes, he wants to be taken seriously. Hmmmm.
But, of course, he blew his chance for that when he chose to press his child-abuse charge in a civil, rather than criminal, court. How many parents who really believe some guy was molesting their child would pass up the chance to put him in jail? Who would seek a financial payoff in lieu of a criminal prosecution?
Here’s an interview from November 2003 between Mary Fischer (author of the 1994 GQ article “Was Michael Jackson Framed?”) and Fox News host Greta Van Susteren:
For additional resources that can be used to prove Michael’s innocence to haters and skeptics, please read through this post titled “You Don’t Have To Be A Crazy, Rabid Fan To Know That Michael Jackson Was Innocent!”
I’ll end this post by posting photos of the 2 comments that I recently left on a blog post from 2010 titled “Michael Jackson is Dead and Children Around The World Are All A Little Safer” where the author claims that Jackson’s fans are “in denial” about his guilt. So I gave her a piece of my mind! Everyone should bookmark this post for future reference, and whenever you come across a negative article about Michael, just copy and paste those questions into the comments section!
Notice how I didn’t scream, yell, curse, type in ALL CAPS, or call her any mean names! I merely presented her with the same questions that I included in this post, and only time will tell if my comments are approved! If she does, I’ll also leave comments on this post of hers titled “Michael Jackson Declared Not Guilty by a Spineless Jury”.
I will close out with this post with a message that somebody said to me on Facebook, and when you look at what she says, and then contrast it with the vast amount of knowledge that is contained on this blog for the benefit of people who are willing to do the research, this person’s comment is utterly and absolutely PREPOSTEROUS!
This post proves just how relevant this blog really is!
Here’s an update on our dear old friend Althea: after she replied to my first 2 comments, she not only didn’t approve my third comment, but she disabled comments altogether on both of her aforementioned blog posts on Jackson! Fortunately I was wise enough to take screenshots of my third comment to her, and here it is:
Fortunately, not all surivors of child abuse grow up to believe each and every single allegtion that is hurled at someone! Raven Woods is the author of the MJ blog “All For Love Blog”, and in October 2010, she wrote a very powerful piece called “Why I Support Michael Jackson: From A Sexual Child Abuse Survivor“, and she bravely describes the abuse that she suffered as a child, and why she still loves and supports MJ, despite the false allegations. Check it out!