u/Emotional_Ball_5181

I saw this video on Instagram and just had to share it.

This is the real Michael Jackson.

Not the sensationalized version you’ll find in headlines, rumors, and accusations.

For decades, he visited sick children in hospitals, supported charities, and used his time and resources to help others.

Don’t forget that.

This video makes me happy but sad at the same time.

How could anyone look at these moments and not see the kindness, compassion, and genuine joy he had when interacting with kids? I don’t get it.

This is a reminder of why it’s so important to spread the truth.

There was far more to Michael than the version people were given in headlines.

He deserved so much better than what he got.

Okay, I have a cold, I feel like shit, and that means I’m in the mood to call some bitches out.

So here we are!

Here’s an incredibly simple question that almost pains me to ask because it’s so simple:

Why does money keep coming up?

If you at the history surrounding these allegations. There are demands, lawsuits, settlements instead of “wanting justice,” and people who are in the need of money.

Yet we are expected to treat the financial component as irrelevant.

No. I’m not doing that.

Then people go:

“Why would someone lie about something like this for money?”

But the real question is…

Why wouldn’t they?

People lie, commit fraud, manipulate situations, exaggerate, and file lawsuits for money every fucking day.

Some people even attempt extortion, or, as I like to call it, the Evan Chandler method:

Make a demand, apply pressure, and see what you can get out of it.

Financial incentive is one of the most obvious motives there is.

And if you can’t see that, then maybe the real discussion about the allegations isn’t for you.

So go ahead. Stay in that little narrative bubble of yours.

If someone makes an allegation against Michael, I want to know what happened, when it happened, what was said, what evidence actually exists, not the crap people claim is evidence, what was corroborated, and what was contradicted.

I also want to know whether money was involved.

Which…well, that’s a very common theme here.

That is not “victim blaming,” and it is not “being insensitive.” It is examining the circumstances surrounding a claim.

The timelines should not be ignore.

The accusers had decades of opportunities to speak publicly about what they now claim happened. Some spoke positively about him, defended him, testified for him, or continued relationships with him.

Then, years later, after Michael was dead and could no longer defend himself, completely different stories began appearing.

That’s really fucking convenient.

Timing matters.

Changes in stories matter.

Financial circumstances also matter.

The Chandlers are their own category because the financial aspect was present immediately. There was a demand, negotiation, more money, a civil lawsuit, and a settlement.

Case File: Chandler — Part 3

Case File: Chandler — Part 10

Years later, there was another attempt to obtain millions.

Case File: Chandler — Part 12

I swear to God, you really can’t make this shit up.

The Arvizos…well, I’ll get into that family soon. 😉

Then there are completely different situations involving people like Wade and James. These are men who publicly defended Michael when they were younger, and even as adults, then later changed their accounts and eventually brought civil claims seeking enormous amounts of money.

And those two have more inconsistencies in that little “documentary” than the water percentage of the world.

The Power Of A Story…And The Danger Of Forgetting The Evidence

The New Trial Timeline Explained

The Cascio situation is another example of why money cannot be removed from the conversation.

There are financial agreements, confidentiality provisions, disputes over those agreements, allegations about what happened, and competing claims about why the agreements were entered into and what they mean.

Now another legal fight is unfolding around all of it.

Explaining Arbitration

Potential Legal Consequences for the Cascios

Why I Think the Estate Made a Smart Decision

So once again, money keeps coming back.

What bothers me the most is that Michael has been dead since 2009. He cannot defend himself.

But there is still an endless stream of people willing to make money from his name.

This is not bias, or me being a bitch.

This is research.

Something guilters clearly can’t do.

I’m truly sick and tired of the bullshit.

If we are going to examine motives, examine all of them.

And if we are going to examine evidence, examine all of it.

I promise you, once you really start looking into things, the pattern is clear.

Money is the root of all evil.

And it starts with extortion.

Anyway,

…yay more links to click!

Case Files:

Sneddon:

Case File: Sneddon

Dimond:

Case File: Dimond

Gutierrez:

Case File: Gutierrez

Francia:

Case File: Francia

Neverland Five:

Case File: Neverland Five

Chandler — Part 1:

Case File: Chandler — Part 1

Chandler — Part 2:

Case File: Chandler — Part 2

Chandler — Part 3:

Case File: Chandler — Part 3

Chandler — Part 4:

Case File: Chandler — Part 4

Chandler — Part 5:

Case File: Chandler — Part 5

Chandler — Part 6:

Case File: Chandler — Part 6

Chandler — Part 7:

Case File: Chandler — Part 7

Chandler — Part 8:

Case File: Chandler — Part 8

Chandler — Part 9:

Case File: Chandler – Part 9

Chandler — Part 10:

Case File: Chandler — Part 10

Chandler — Part 11:

Case File: Chandler — Part 11

Chandler — Part 12:

Case File: Chandler — Part 12

Chandler — Part 13:

Case File: Chandler — Part 13

Chandler — Part 14:

Case File: Chandler — Part 14

Chandler — Part 15:

Case File: Chandler — Part 15

Chandler — Part 16:

Case File: Chandler — Part 16

Important posts:

Some people need Michael Jackson to be guilty 

Comparing Michael Jackson’s Trial to O.J. Simpson’s Is Lazy.

Talking in circles 

What Would You Do for $20 Million?

“There’s no way all 11 people are lying.”

Fact vs Fiction: Common Claims About Michael Jackson

A Media Assassination: The Case of Michael Jackson

Not Everyone Is a Narcissist

The Word “Grooming” Has Lost Its Meaning

Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire…But What If It’s Just Smoke?

The Power Of A Story…And The Danger Of Forgetting The Evidence

Why I Think the Estate Made a Smart Decision

PSA: Think Before You React

Things We Shouldn’t Forget

The Minds of Guilters

…okay, okay.

Time to sleep.

Right.

Because this is exactly what an evil person looks like.

Sitting there quietly watching over a tiny premature baby.

The point here is that Michael spent decades showing an extraordinary amount of care toward sick, vulnerable and disadvantaged children, and somehow that entire side of him gets completely erased whenever people tell the story of who he was, or rather who they want him to be.

But guess what?

You don’t get to erase things that don’t fit your narrative.

You don’t hold that power.

Before I start, I need to mention that this post is not targeted at a specific person or persons. It’s a general statement about something I see happen quite often in online spaces, including within our community.

Now…before anyone gets the wrong idea, I’m not saying you shouldn’t ask questions.

Let’s all remember who you’re talking to…

I get questions all the time. In my comments, in my DMs, everywhere. I actually encourage people to ask questions. You’ve even seen me say it.

Questions are always okay and welcome.

But that is not what I’m talking about.

What I’m talking about is what happens after that.

Sometimes, especially on places like Reddit, Twitter, TikTok, etc., we’ll see a screenshot, a photograph, a clip, or some random claim with absolutely no context attached to it.

Hell, sometimes the person posting it may not even know the context themselves.

They’re just showing people something they found.

However, because we don’t have the extra information, our brains can start filling in the blanks.

You see something.

You think, “Wait…what?”

Then someone else comments:

“That’s fucking weird.”

Someone else says:

“Yeah, that’s really concerning.”

Someone else goes:

“I don’t know how anyone can defend this.”

And suddenly, without actually learning anything else about the situation, you’re uncomfortable. But now that feeling of discomfort starts influencing how you interpret the information.

This is exactly where thinking before you react comes into play.

I know I’ve said this multiple times before, but it will never stop being true:

Uncomfortable ≠ criminal.

Here’s the thing…

Do you actually feel that way because of what you’re looking at?

Or is it because someone has already told you how you’re supposed to look at it?

Now, if you genuinely do feel uncomfortable about something, that’s fine.

You’re allowed to feel uncomfortable.

But that still doesn’t mean a crime actually took place.

Especially if context is missing.

You don’t know whether you’re reacting to the actual situation or to the version of the situation that somebody else presented to you.

This is very important when we’re talking about things that have never been legally established in the first place.

If something has not been established as fact, whether because it has never been tested in court, contains significant contradictions, is based on someone’s interpretation of an event, or for some other reason, we need to be careful about treating it as though it is an established fact.

If you see something that makes Michael look bad, don’t immediately accept it because it makes you uncomfortable, or makes you…”question things.”

Stop.

Look into it.

Find the context.

Ask questions.

Then most importantly, think about why you’re interpreting it the way you are.

Anyway,

I don’t want to take up too much of your brain capacity for today…

this time.

But please, be mindful of this.

…Cool? Cool.

I’ll see you next time! 💋

Apparently, guilters love to say this.

But little do they know…

it’s bullshit. 

If you’re interested in what actually happened with the 1993 strip search and everything surrounding it…well, you’ve come to the right post.

…oh my god, I have the links!

Case File: Chandler — Part 9

Case File: Chandler — Part 10

Case File: Chandler — Part 11

Go forth, my friends. 

Rest in peace to yet another guilter narrative. 

Let’s hold a vote:

Funeral or no funeral?

It seems that we all had fun with this the last time, so…why not do another one?

As I said in Part One, this is just for fun.

For When You’re Tired of Arguing…

These arguments are structured to be short comebacks for those moments when you’re arguing about Michael and you’ve run out of patience.

These aren’t meant to be legal arguments or substitutes for discussing evidence. They’re just responses for when someone says something so ridiculous that you don’t even know where to begin or…you’re over re-explaining basic facts.

Here we go!

“The abused becomes the abuser!”

Oh! So, by your logic, every single person who was ever abused will also abuse someone else?

Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds?

“He was creepy in the photos with the Cascios!”

Okay, let’s continue from what you’re trying to say and remove even more context.

What if it’s just a photo of a guy who is, or rather, is known to be, an uncle/father figure holding a child?

No allegations. No accusations. No context about anything else.

You’d still find that “creepy”?

Or is it because you’ve built your own narrative around the photograph?

“How can Michael have so many accusers?”

Well, how is it that all of the accusers have contradicting stories?

“He called himself Peter Pan because he wanted to be around children.”

Or maybe he liked Peter Pan.

Should we ask Winnie the Pooh to testify?

“You’re defending a pedophile!”

Actually, I’m discussing evidence. You’re declaring someone guilty before doing that.

But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

“Why would an adult even want to be around children?”

I don’t know.

Have you met teachers?

“Everyone was scared of him.”

A man who walks backwards, how terrifying!

“People were afraid to speak out.”

Well, they certainly aren’t so “afraid” to ask his estate for millions of dollars now that he’s conveniently dead.

“Michael admitted he shared his bed with children!”

And?

You’ve established a sleeping arrangement.

That’s it.

“He was emotionally immature.”

So are you, what’s your point?

“He bleached his skin to look white.”

Uh, honey…he had a skin condition called vitiligo. You should probably look that up.

“But, he didn’t have that!”

Do you say that to everyone else with vitiligo or..?

“He had alarm systems!”

Yes, the most famous person in the world had alarm systems for security purposes.

Yet you, an absolute nobody, have security cameras and alarms too.

Funny how that works, huh?

“I think he was a sex trafficker!”

Whoa, slow down.

First of all, sex trafficking is a very serious allegation. One that needs proof.

You cannot call someone a “sex trafficker” just because it happens to fit your narrative.

“Money isn’t motivation!”

Oh, the fuck yes it is.

What planet do you live on?

“He was charming, that’s how he groomed them!”

So, you’re admitting that you find Mike hot?

I mean, you’re obviously obsessed with him, so that makes sense.

“The government/police were protecting him!”

Tell that to the falsified fingerprints.

Thanks, Sneddon!

“He was looking for children to groom!”

Did you tell that to Joy Robson when she was actively pursuing contact with Michael?

No?

Maybe you should. 😬

…And there we have it!

I hope these come in handy the next time someone decides to confidently repeat something they clearly haven’t researched.

If you have any other ridiculous arguments you’ve heard or comebacks you use, drop them below so we can all laugh together.

At this rate, I’m sure Part Three will practically write itself.

Kisses! 💋

Bye for now.

Hi everyone, it’s me-hee.

…I’m so sorry.

I’ve been waiting for an opportunity to use that as the introduction to one of my posts, and apparently today is the day.

Anyway,

Let’s talk about something I think is actually really important.

It is okay to ask questions!

It’s normal to see something, be confused, overthink, question whatever it may be.

It’s happened to all of us at one time or another.

In fact, I think asking questions is a pretty important part of trying to understand something.

But…there is something else we should probably remember too.

Sometimes, people get frustrated when the exact same questions are asked over and over again.

Honestly, I don’t think anyone is wrong for feeling that way.

If you’ve spent years discussing a particular subject, researching the evidence, answering questions, providing sources, and having the same conversations repeatedly, eventually you may get annoyed.

And that’s okay.

It doesn’t mean people aren’t allowed to ask.

It doesn’t mean someone is stupid for not knowing.

And it doesn’t mean we should mock someone for being unfamiliar with something.

There are always going to be new people coming into the conversation.

There are always going to be people who haven’t seen certain evidence before. And sometimes a question that seems obvious to one person isn’t obvious to someone else.

So, ask the question.

Seriously.

Ask it.

But also understand that if someone responds with, “We’ve actually talked about this before,” that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re trying to shut you down.

Sometimes they’re just tired.

We’re all human.

The same thing applies to both sides.

We don’t need to get defensive every time someone asks a question we don’t like.

And we don’t need to get angry when someone says, “I’ve answered this three times already.”

The important thing is that we actually look at the answer.

Because asking a question is one thing.

But asking the same question repeatedly after you’ve already been given an answer, without ever engaging with that answer, is something else on its own.

Now, with that being said…

Here are a few things that we should never forget.

1. An allegation is still an allegation.

I know this sounds incredibly obvious.

And yet…somehow, we keep forgetting it.

Someone making an accusation does not automatically turn that accusation into an established fact.

It doesn’t matter how many times it gets repeated, how many documentaries mention it, or how many articles repeat the same claim.

And it definitely doesn’t matter how confidently someone says it.

An allegation is a claim that needs to be examined, whether it’s by the court system, authorities, or hell…even us. It still needs proper examination.

Actual, substantial evidence is important.

2. Contradictions matter.

This one seems pretty straightforward too.

If someone tells us something happened, and there is evidence that directly contradicts part of their account.

That matters.

…put the pitchforks down.

People can genuinely misremember things. Memory is complicated, and there can be perfectly innocent explanations for certain inconsistencies.

However, that doesn’t mean we should just pretend the contradiction isn’t there.

Take the James Safechuck allegations, for example.

During LN, he claimed that he had been abused in the Neverland train station. However, the timeline of the train station’s construction conflicts with the period in which he said the abuse occurred.

Actually, funny enough, multiple people who have accused Michael have had countless contradictions in their accounts, and that includes people whose credibility has otherwise been treated as reliable.

That’s really what people should be looking into.

3. Timelines matter.

I feel like timelines are one of those things people somehow forget exists.

If we’re trying to determine whether something could have happened, when it supposedly happened is kind of important.

Like…very important.

You can’t just look at an allegation on its own. You have to look at the timeline surrounding it.

What was happening at the time?

Did the people involved actually know each other yet?

Did a particular building, room, event or object exist?

Were there other people around?

Does the chronology line up with what we know from other records?

These aren’t pointless little details.

Sometimes a timeline can completely change how you understand a claim.

And that’s why dates shouldn’t just be treated as annoying technicalities whenever they create a problem for a particular narrative.

If someone says something happened in 1987, but the evidence places a relevant event in 1989…

that’s worth looking into.

If two events supposedly happened in an order that doesn’t make chronological sense…

that’s also worth looking at.

Details matter, my friends.

4. The acquittal matters.

Oh boy.

This one.

I’ve heard the argument a million times:

“An acquittal doesn’t mean he was innocent.”

Technically, sure.

An acquittal is not a magical declaration that a defendant has never done anything wrong in their entire life.

But that’s also not what an acquittal means.

In 2005, Michael was acquitted on every charge brought against him.

Every.

Single.

One.

A jury heard the evidence presented by the prosecution.

They heard the defence.

They heard the witnesses.

They heard the arguments.

And after the trial, they returned not guilty verdicts on all charges.

That is a legal fact.

You don’t get to erase that part of the record because you don’t like the outcome.

I’ve seen people talk about the 2005 trial as though the jury shrugged and said, “Eh, who knows.”

That’s not what happened.

The prosecution had the burden of proving the charged offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury found that burden had not been met.

…In my opinion, the whole trial was laughable.

Michael was acquitted. That was the verdict. 

If you disagree, well…sorry, your opinion is irrelevant to the record.

5. Remember what was actually found at Neverland.

This one gets repeated so much that I think it’s worth stopping for a second and separating what people say was found from what was actually found.

There was never a finding that investigators discovered child pornography at Neverland.

And no, I’m not saying controversial material wasn’t seized during the investigations.

It was.

But those books have been discussed endlessly.

Let me make myself perfectly clear:

Controversial photography books are not the same thing as child pornography.

So, if we’re going to talk about what investigators found, then let’s actually talk about what investigators found.

Not what someone claims, but the actual record itself.

6. A civil settlement is not a criminal conviction.

If I had a dollar for every single time I’ve explained this to people…I truly think I’d be a billionaire.

People have been talking about the settlement for decades, as if it was some sort of criminal conviction.

It wasn’t.

In fact, even months after the settlement happened, investigators were still pursuing a criminal case against Michael.

You can have opinions on the settlement, sure, but the bottom line is a civil settlement is not the same thing as a conviction.

In 1993, the settlement did not establish or prove guilt of any kind.

That was even stated by the Chandlers’ attorney.

Don’t believe me? 

Read here:

Case File: Chandler — Part 10

7. Being uncomfortable does not make something criminal.

This is a big one.

Because I think sometimes we confuse “I don’t like this” with “this proves a crime happened.”

Those are not the same thing.

You don’t get to skip the evidence just because something makes you uncomfortable or you don’t approve of it.

Please don’t forget, in order for a crime to be proven, a crime actually needs to be committed.

8. The media is not automatically telling you the truth.

Just because you heard a claim through the media, a documentary, an interview, or anything of the sort does not make that claim true.

It’s still a claim.

It still needs to be examined.

And please, let’s not forget the way the media treated Michael throughout his entire life.

With or without the allegations, the media was absolutely horrific towards him.

His appearance.

The way he dressed.

His vitiligo.

His face.

His relationships.

Pretty much anything they could turn into a headline, they did.

And a lot of it had absolutely nothing to do with whether he had actually done anything wrong.

People were constantly encouraged to look at Michael through whatever narrative the media was selling at the time.

Which is important because when you have spent decades being told that someone is strange, suspicious, creepy, bizarre, dangerous, or whatever other word happens to sell the most newspapers…eventually, people can start treating those descriptions as facts.

But they aren’t facts.

They’re characterizations.

So, when you hear something in a documentary or read it in an article, don’t just accept it because it came from a media source.

Ask where the information came from.

Look at the original evidence.

Look at the context.

And ask yourself:

“Is this actually what happened, or is this someone’s interpretation of what happened?”

Honestly, after everything we’ve seen over the years, I think Michael deserves at least that much scrutiny of the people who reported on him.

The media was not some neutral observer standing outside of all of this.

They were part of the story too.

And their treatment of Michael was not always fair, accurate, or remotely fucking kind.

Anyway,

of course, there’s more than that, but we would be here for an incredibly long time.

So, with that being said, I wanted to thank everyone for reading my PSA.

Please, stay civil with each other.

…and if you haven’t had enough of me already, please feel free to read these:

Case Files:

Sneddon:

Case File: Sneddon

Dimond:

Case File: Dimond

Gutierrez:

Case File: Gutierrez

Francia:

Case File: Francia

Neverland Five:

Case File: Neverland Five

Chandler — Part 1:

Case File: Chandler — Part 1

Chandler — Part 2:

Case File: Chandler — Part 2

Chandler — Part 3:

Case File: Chandler — Part 3

Chandler — Part 4:

Case File: Chandler — Part 4

Chandler — Part 5:

Case File: Chandler — Part 5

Chandler — Part 6:

Case File: Chandler — Part 6

Chandler — Part 7:

Case File: Chandler — Part 7

Chandler — Part 8:

Case File: Chandler — Part 8

Chandler — Part 9:

Case File: Chandler – Part 9

Chandler — Part 10:

Case File: Chandler — Part 10

Chandler — Part 11:

Case File: Chandler — Part 11

Chandler — Part 12:

Case File: Chandler — Part 12

Chandler — Part 13:

Case File: Chandler — Part 13

Important posts:

Some people need Michael Jackson to be guilty 

Comparing Michael Jackson’s Trial to O.J. Simpson’s Is Lazy.

Talking in circles 

What Would You Do for $20 Million?

“There’s no way all 11 people are lying.”

Fact vs Fiction: Common Claims About Michael Jackson

A Media Assassination: The Case of Michael Jackson

Not Everyone Is a Narcissist

The Word “Grooming” Has Lost Its Meaning

Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire…But What If It’s Just Smoke?

The Power Of A Story…And The Danger Of Forgetting The Evidence

The Minds of Guilters

Explaining Arbitration

Potential Legal Consequences for the Cascios

Why I Think the Estate Made a Smart Decision

The New Trial Timeline Explained

For When You’re Tired of Arguing…

Remember when I said some dots were about to connect?

Yeah.

I wasn’t fucking kidding.

Welcome back to the Case Files.

🚨 If you’re new here, make sure you’re caught up on Parts 1–12:

Part 1:

Case File: Chandler — Part 1

Part 2:

Case File: Chandler — Part 2

Part 3:

Case File: Chandler — Part 3

Part 4:

Case File: Chandler — Part 4

Part 5:

Case File: Chandler — Part 5

Part 6:

Case File: Chandler — Part 6

Part 7:

Case File: Chandler — Part 7

Part 8:

Case File: Chandler — Part 8

Part 9:

Case File: Chandler — Part 9

Part 10:

Case File: Chandler — Part 10

Part 11:

Case File: Chandler — Part 11

Part 12:

Case File: Chandler — Part 12

Also, please read this:

Case File: Gutierrez

Trust me, you’re going to need that context before you continue from here.

With that being said, let’s begin.

In 1996, Victor Gutierrez published “Michael Jackson Was My Lover,” a book centred around Jordan Chandler.

The title alone tells you quite a bit about how Gutierrez framed the story.

As we know, the language used to describe what would have been child abuse is deeply disturbing. Jordan was a child. He was not Michael’s “lover,” yet that is exactly how Gutierrez chose to describe their alleged relationship.

Sounds familiar, right? Just like…Leaving Neverland.

I’m not going to get into every detail of this book because, quite frankly, some of the material is disgusting.

Hence why guilters seem to love it.

But there is one part I do want to address.

Photos of Jordan.

Specifically, photographs of Jordan without a shirt.

Because…

Where the hell did Gutierrez get them?

We don’t have direct proof establishing who provided these photographs to Gutierrez. So I’m not going to pretend we do.

But…we’re not fucking dumb.

There are three obvious people connected to this material who could potentially have had access to them:

1. Evan Chandler.

2. Ray Chandler.

3. ...and, Diane Dimond. 

Yes, you’ve read that correctly.

As I’ve mentioned, Gutierrez was in contact with Diane Dimond.

Read here:

Case File: Gutierrez

But Diane also had contact with Evan Chandler.

Read here:

Case File: Chandler — Part 10

And Ray Chandler was, of course, directly involved in the Chandler family’s efforts surrounding the allegations and the material that followed.

But this is exactly where the dots began to connect. I’ve told you before, everyone is connected. But it’s never in the way people expect. 

Let’s be real here, this shit is weird. Especially when we’re talking about photographs of a minor that ended up published in a book making extremely serious allegations about him.

Then there’s the description attached to one of those photographs:

“For the King of Pop, the boy’s body was ‘very sexy.’ He couldn’t keep his hands away from the boy’s body.”

What the fuck?

Like, ew. 

Speaking of ew…

We have another account involving Evan Chandler that I think deserves some attention on this matter.

As we know, Actress Carrie Fisher was one of Evan’s patients. In her 2011 autobiography, Shockaholic, Fisher described Evan as someone who repeatedly talked to her about his son’s relationship with Michael.

According to Fisher, these conversations took place before the lawsuit was brought, although she specifically added, “though not necessarily before it was contemplated.”

She wrote:

“And so my ‘dentist’ would go on and on about how much his son liked Michael Jackson and, more important, how much Michael Jackson liked his son.”

But then she described something she found particularly disturbing.

Evan allegedly told her:

“You know, my son is very good looking.”

Ah!

There’s the ew part.

Fisher questioned why a father would emphasize his son’s appearance in that way, particularly given the manner in which she says he said it.

She wrote:

“It was grotesque! This man was letting me know that he had this valuable thing that he assumed Michael Jackson ‘wanted,’ and it happened to be his son.”

Remember what we’re talking about here.

This was Evan Chandler talking about Jordan and Michael before the allegations became public.

Fisher also described Evan telling her about Michael buying Jordan computers, taking him places, and sleeping in the same bed with him. When she questioned him about the sleeping arrangements, Evan allegedly explained that June and Jordan’s stepfather were also present.

Then, months later, according to Fisher, Evan came to her house again and told her that he and his wife were going to sue Michael.

When she asked why, he allegedly responded:

“Because Michael is sleeping in the same bed with my boy.”

Fisher found the sudden change in attitude striking. She wrote that Evan had previously seemed comfortable with the arrangement and was now presenting it as something morally shocking.

Fisher also wrote that she never believed Michael’s relationship with children was sexual, even though she considered some of his behaviour inappropriate.

She wrote:

“I never thought that Michael’s whole thing with kids was sexual. Never.”

Back to Victor’s fan fiction— I mean, book! 

Because of course, it gets worse.

Gutierrez wrote:

“That night, Jordie and Jackson walked around the ranch enjoying the stars. They walked to the lake holding hands like sweethearts.”

He also claimed:

“Jackson had told him on repeated occasions that they were destined to be a couple and that their relationship was written in the cosmos.”

And then:

“Kisses and caresses continued to be a part of the couple’s relationship.”

I’m going to stop there.

I think we’ve suffered enough.

How did this even get the approval for print? Can someone, anyone, please explain that? Because I can’t.

Anyway,

Gutierrez claimed that he based the book on Jordan’s diary.

However, there’s a rather serious problem with that.

The Chandlers disputed the existence of such a diary, maintaining that Jordan never kept one.

Now, if Gutierrez’s claim was that he had obtained a diary in which Jordan documented the alleged abuse, then…

Where is it?

A diary containing firsthand accounts of the alleged abuse would have been highly significant evidence. Yet, no such diary was produced during the investigations or later proceedings.

So we’re left with Gutierrez claiming that his book was based on a diary that the Chandlers said did not exist, and no diary being produced to substantiate the claim.

Perfect!

Just in case anyone was wondering, this wasn’t even the first time a random claim has been made with no substantial evidence.

Read here:

Case File: Chandler — Part 11

Two years after Michael prevailed in his legal case against Gutierrez, “Michael Jackson Was My Lover,” was officially removed from shelves.

But his involvement didn’t stop with writing his own book.

Gutierrez also acted as a source for other journalists and was in contact with several people who would later become prosecution witnesses at Michael’s 2005 trial.

Then…journalist Maureen Orth wrote about Gutierrez’s book in a 2003 Vanity Fair article, claiming that sources close to the prosecution were familiar with “Michael Jackson Was My Lover” and considered it essentially accurate.

Orth wrote:

“The sources close to the prosecution I interviewed for this article were all familiar with the book and believed it was an essentially accurate portrayal of Jackson’s relationship with Jordie Chandler.”

Excuse me?

So now we have a book containing sensational allegations about Jordan, written by Gutierrez, that was apparently known to people close to the prosecution and, according to Orth, regarded by those sources as an accurate portrayal of what happened.

That matters.

Why?

Well, because…remember, in 1994, prosecutors were greatly frustrated because they couldn’t get any substantial evidence.

But by 2003, people close to the prosecution were apparently familiar with a book that claimed to be based on a diary containing alleged firsthand evidence?

Bullshit.

Now, as I’ve mentioned before, Diane Dimond claimed there was a tape that Gutierrez had seen but the story was ultimately exposed as completely fabricated.

So I’m not going to drag you through that entire story again.

Because…it’s right here:

Case File: Dimond

But here’s the thing…

The boy Gutierrez claimed appeared on this nonexistent tape was Jeremy Jackson, Jermaine Jackson’s son and Michael’s nephew.

Jeremy’s mother, Margaret Maldonado, later addressed the story in her 1995 book Jackson Family Values, explaining that she had been warned about the allegation and immediately denied it.

She wrote:

“There was no tape. Michael never paid me for my silence. He had never molested Jeremy. Period.”

Clock ‘em, Margaret! 

Here we go again, the ongoing media cycle:

A sensational claim.

A supposedly definitive piece of evidence.

And then…

nothing.

Michael sued both Dimond and Gutierrez over the false allegations.

Dimond ultimately escaped liability, while Gutierrez was ordered to pay Michael $2.7 million in damages.

He never paid.

Instead, he left the country and later filed for bankruptcy.

But the problems with Gutierrez’s story went beyond the nonexistent videotape. For example, Gutierrez claimed that he had met Margaret Maldonado in a hotel room that he had paid for with his credit card.

There was just one problem.

The hotel had no record of him ever staying there.

Then, private investigator Eric Mason later stated in a declaration that journalist Ken Wells told him about an encounter he had with Gutierrez and his attorney, Mr. Goldman, while the case was still ongoing.

According to Wells, on July 2nd, 1997, Gutierrez and Goldman showed up at Wells’s home unannounced to discuss producing the supposed photographs.

During that conversation, Gutierrez allegedly talked about his connections within the tabloid industry and admitted that he had sold stories that were “B.S.” and simply made up.

Wells also asked him about the alleged videotape.

According to Wells, Gutierrez said:

“The judge told me to produce the tape and I couldn’t produce it.”

Wells then asked whether Gutierrez had ever actually had or seen the tape.

According to Wells, Gutierrez smiled and replied:

“Well, you know how that is. You know how these things are.”

Wells said he interpreted Gutierrez’s response as an admission that he had lied about the tape, even though Gutierrez never explicitly said so.

See! They really do tell on themselves.

Speaking of…

Gutierrez didn’t just describe the alleged relationship between Michael and Jordan.

He used it to argue that sexual relationships between adults and children could be loving and harmless.

Citing unnamed “experts,” he wrote:

“These same experts indicate that sexual relations between adults and minors are sometimes loving and do not have a negative effect on the youngster’s life.”

And then he used Jordan as his example:

“What better example than Jordie? He was more harshly affected by the legal procedures associated with his case than by his relationship with Jackson.”

Read that again.

Don’t forget, Victor also has ties to NAMBLA. According to his own account, he attended a NAMBLA conference in 1986.

And not only that, but in the author notes associated with his book, Gutierrez included acknowledgments to…the NAMBLA.

Now, there’s an interesting problem with Gutierrez’s own account of how he became involved in all of this.

Different interviews have given different versions of the story.

In the Tageszeitung interview, Gutierrez was presented as attending the NAMBLA conference as a journalist.

But years later, in the September 2006 issue of British GQ, the story changed.

According to the 2006 GQ article, Gutierrez:

“began his investigation in 1986 when he went undercover with the LAPD.”

The article then described him as attending a secret conference held by a “suspect organization” in Los Angeles, where he supposedly heard numerous references to Michael.

Wait a fucking minute.

A reporter…or an undercover operative working with the LAPD?

Those are two very different stories.

The question is obvious:

What exactly was Gutierrez’s relationship with the LAPD?

The article provides no evidence establishing that Gutierrez was actually working undercover for the department. And considering the conference was supposedly secretive and restricted to people the organization trusted, even getting inside raises another question:

If Gutierrez was an outside journalist, how the fuck did he get there?

And if he was working with the LAPD, where is the evidence of that relationship?

The same 2006 GQ article claims that, “after the first phase of his research,” Gutierrez sent a copy of his book to the LAPD.

According to Gutierrez, however, they took no action because:

“I was a nobody, just a Latino reporter in LA.”

Except…just a couple of paragraphs earlier, the same article claims that Gutierrez had been “undercover with the LAPD” when he allegedly attended the NAMBLA conference in 1986.

That’s a pretty fucking important contradiction.

And, as we’ve already established, the claim that Gutierrez attended a NAMBLA conference in 1986 comes from Gutierrez’s own account. We cannot independently establish from this alone that he was actually there.

It’s very possible that he fabricated that story, particularly given the number of other claims attributed to him that turned out to be false.

Ugh, my red string needs another fucking roll.

Also, before anyone starts questioning me about the NAMBLA reference…

No.

There is no proof whatsoever that Michael had any ties to NAMBLA.

Gutierrez claiming that he attended one of their conferences, and whatever books he later wrote about Michael, does not establish that Michael was connected to the organization.

So, if anyone is going to bring up the damn books while reading this, well…

Read here:

Case File: Chandler — Part 5

And guess what? There Was Going to Be a Movie.

The GQ article wasn’t just about his fan fiction book, but it was also about his plan to turn the book into a film.

Gutierrez was working with Randy Barbato and Fenton Bailey, the founders of the production company World of Wonder, to develop a movie based on “Michael Jackson Was My Lover”.

And based on what the producers themselves said in the article, this wasn’t going to be a dramatic retelling of the allegations. The film was explicitly being framed around the idea that Jordan had willingly participated in the alleged relationship.

Bailey described the script as:

“a model of amorous propriety.”

He explained:

“We wanted to capture the intoxicating feeling of the first love which was what it was for Jordie.”

…normally, I’d give you commentary, make you laugh a little. 

But this? 

Yeah, I’ve got nothing. 

Here comes the part that really tells us what kind of story they were trying to sell:

“The only way the general public can view somebody like Jordie is as a victim,” says Bailey. “The fact that he might have entered into the relationship with Michael Jackson of his own volition is, for many people, tremendously problematic.”

The proposed film wasn’t presenting an allegation of abuse.

Nope.

It was taking the alleged relationship and reframing it as a consensual, romantic “first love” story involving a child.

…again, this sounds a lot like Leaving Neverland. 

Barbato acknowledged the difficulty of presenting this story to an American audience:

“In America we are up against the ‘eek’ factor. The Europeans don’t have that kind of squeamishness. America can deal with the sanitized version of the story, but our story is based on the tabloid version.”

So, according to the producer, the problem wasn’t necessarily the story itself. The problem was that Americans might find the subject matter disturbing.

And Barbato acknowledged that the project went beyond what would normally be considered acceptable:

“It goes outside any of the acceptable norms.”

Which is, admittedly, one hell of a way to describe a proposed movie about an alleged adult-child sexual relationship.

But alright, Barbato.

According to the 2006 GQ article, after his alleged 1986 visit to the “suspect organization,” Gutierrez spent the next five years tracking down Michael’s current and former associates.

The article states:

“For the next five years Gutierrez tracked down as many of Jackson’s current and former associates as he could.”

It’s giving…stalker.

It specifically mentions Blanca Francia, Michael’s former maid, and Orietta Murdock, a former personal assistant.

The timing matters here.

These were people who would later make allegations against Michael.

So, according to Gutierrez’s own account as presented by GQ, he had already been actively seeking out people connected to Michael for years before the 1993 allegations became public.

Which is…interesting.

Especially because the article places this activity immediately after his alleged encounter with the NAMBLA organization. Again, we cannot independently establish everything Gutierrez claimed about that 1986 conference. But the chronology presented in GQ is still worth looking at:

1986: Gutierrez allegedly attends the conference.

Afterward: He begins tracking down Michael’s associates.

1990–1992: Francia leaves Michael’s employment and Murdock sues him for unfair dismissal.

1993: Gutierrez’s interest in Michael is supposedly “reawakened” when he sees the Chandlers around Michael at major public events.

And then the allegations happen.

Enter the Chandlers.

According to the GQ article, Gutierrez became particularly interested in the Chandler family after seeing Jordan, his mother and his sister accompanying Michael at several high profile events.

The article specifically mentions the 1993 World Music Awards in Monaco:

“Then, in 1993, his interest was reawakened when he heard about a boy called Jordie Chandler with whom Jackson was appearing at huge media events, such as the World Music Awards in Monaco.”

The article makes it sound as though Gutierrez’s interest in Jordan began after he noticed him publicly with Michael.

Now, obviously, we’ve discussed throughout the Chandler files that the accusation did not emerge from Jordan spontaneously approaching authorities and reporting abuse.

Evan Chandler had already developed the belief that Michael and Jordan’s friendship was sexual, and the circumstances surrounding how Jordan was subsequently brought into that narrative are a major part of the Chandler story.

…Honestly, it’s actually incredibly ridiculous.

Read here:

Case File: Chandler — Part 2

Case File: Chandler — Part 3

Moving on,

Here’s a rather…strange detail in Ray Chandler’s book, All That Glitters.

A footnote explains why the family described the alleged relationship between Jordan and Michael as a “love story”:

“Evan and Monique’s belief at the time, that Jordie and Michael were ‘in love,’ is significant to the problem of understanding sexual molestation in older children. It did not occur to them that the thirteen-year-old was not a willing participant.”

Read that again.

That language is strikingly similar to the way Gutierrez later described the alleged relationship.

Gutierrez wasn’t saying that an allegation existed. His book and later interviews repeatedly portrayed the alleged relationship as romantic, mutual and something Jordan supposedly wanted.

Now we have the Chandler family’s own account describing Evan and Monique’s belief that Jordan and Michael were “in love.”

…odd, isn’t it?

Although, I obviously can’t say that Victor Gutierrez was one of the people who influenced Evan Chandler’s suspicions.

We don’t have evidence establishing that.

In the secretly recorded July 8th, 1993 conversation between Evan and David Schwartz, Evan said that other people had convinced him there was something harmful about Michael’s friendship with Jordan.

Whether Gutierrez was one of those people?

We don’t know.

But, Gutierrez’s book contains material that appears to have come from people with access to the Chandler household, including legal correspondence, letters belonging to the family, and private photographs of Jordan, his bedroom and the Chandler home.

So how did he get that material?

One possible explanation is Norma Salinas, the Chandlers’ maid, whom Gutierrez reportedly befriended.

That would provide one potential route through which documents and photographs could have reached him.

However, some stories in Gutierrez’s book contain details that are identical or substantially similar to accounts later published in Ray Chandler’s All That Glitters.

Which again, is all very interesting, because All That Glitters wasn’t published until almost a decade after Gutierrez’s book.

So, let me ask again…who was it?

1. Evan Chandler.

2. Ray Chandler.

3. Diane Dimond. 

And with that, we’ve come to the end of part 13.

…I think I’m going to need a bigger cork board.

I’ll see you in Part 14! 👋🏼

My previous case files:

Sneddon:

Case File: Sneddon

Dimond:

Case File: Dimond

Gutierrez:

Case File: Gutierrez

Francia:

Case File: Francia

Neverland Five:

Case File: Neverland Five

Chandler — Part 1:

Case File: Chandler — Part 1

Chandler — Part 2:

Case File: Chandler — Part 2

Chandler — Part 3:

Case File: Chandler — Part 3

Chandler — Part 4:

Case File: Chandler — Part 4

Chandler — Part 5:

Case File: Chandler — Part 5

Chandler — Part 6:

Case File: Chandler — Part 6

Chandler — Part 7:

Case File: Chandler — Part 7

Chandler — Part 8:

Case File: Chandler — Part 8

Chandler — Part 9:

Case File: Chandler – Part 9

Chandler — Part 10:

Case File: Chandler — Part 10

Chandler — Part 11:

Case File: Chandler — Part 11

Chandler — Part 12:

Case File: Chandler — Part 12

Sources and additional information:

https://turningthetableonthechandlerallegations.wordpress.com

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/evan-chandlers-1996-lawsuit-against-michael-jackson/

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/the-1993-allegations/

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/taped-phone-conversations-between-evan-chandler-and-david-schwartz-on-july-8-1993/

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/victor-gutierrez-and-his-role-in-the-allegations-against-michael-jackson/

https://turningthetableonthechandlerallegations.wordpress.com

http://www.vanityfair.com/fame/features/2003/04/orth200304

https://www.amazon.ca/Jackson-Family-Values-Memories-Madness/dp/0787105228

https://www.amazon.ca/Shockaholic-Carrie-Fisher/dp/0743264835

https://medium.com/@ruckerjael/how-come-nobody-ever-apologizes-to-michael-jackson-victor-guiterrez-2b4e278d6b6d

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/the-chandlers-monetary-demands/

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxNDb2PVcoM&ra=m

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6-52dk3jGyE&ra=m

https://mjjtruthnow.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/was-michael-jackson-framed-the-defining-1994-gq-article-by-mary-a-fischer-that-set-the-record-straight-on-the-1993-allegations/

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/reference-materials/history-vs-evanstory-the-1993-allegations-parts-1-3

Important posts:

Some people need Michael Jackson to be guilty 

Comparing Michael Jackson’s Trial to O.J. Simpson’s Is Lazy.

Talking in circles 

What Would You Do for $20 Million?

“There’s no way all 11 people are lying.”

Fact vs Fiction: Common Claims About Michael Jackson

A Media Assassination: The Case of Michael Jackson

Not Everyone Is a Narcissist

The Word “Grooming” Has Lost Its Meaning

Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire…But What If It’s Just Smoke?

The Power Of A Story…And The Danger Of Forgetting The Evidence

You should have known this post was coming…

I’ve talked about this before, you’ve talked about this before…honestly, us as a society have talked about this before.

So, of course, I’m back at it.

I have a question for guilters. 

Why are you so fucking obsessed with someone you claim to hate?

I mean this sincerely. I really do.

You claim Michael was a monster. You claim he was a predator. You claim he was one of the worst people to ever live.

Yet, he’s all you talk about.

Don’t you find that…oh, I don’t know…a little interesting?

Now, before someone tells me, “I’m interested in the psychology of Michael Jackson!”

Nope.

I’m not buying that.

If you were genuinely interested in understanding the psychology of the situation then you’d actually have to be willing to examine the real evidence and consider different explanations.

But that’s not what I see happening.

The conclusion is already there. To you, Michael was guilty. And everything else gets built around that conclusion.

Something is uncomfortable?

It becomes evidence.

Something sounds strange?

Evidence.

Someone makes an accusation?

Evidence, apparently.

Someone doesn’t make an accusation?

“That’s because they were traumatized!”

Oh, okay.

And look, psychology matters.

Trauma can affect people. Memory can be complicated. Human behaviour is complicated.

We get it.

But psychology isn’t a fun little magical card you get to pull out whenever a factual problem appears in your argument.

You can’t say, “Trauma explains why this person remembers it this way” while simultaneously treating every detail of their story as completely accurate whenever it supports your narrative.

You can’t claim to be interested in psychology while refusing to acknowledge things like confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, suggestibility, memory reconstruction, or the possibility that…people can lie.

And most importantly, you can’t claim to be following the evidence when you’ve already decided what the evidence has to mean.

Or…

just making shit up.

If you genuinely believe Michael was guilty, fine. That’s your position.

But at least be honest about it.

Don’t pretend you’re approaching the case with an open mind when you’ve already labelled every piece of information before you’ve even examined it.

Here’s something bizarre for you…

The same people who accuse fans of being “obsessed” will spend hours digging through Michael’s life looking for something, anything, that can be interpreted negatively.

Don’t you find that funny?

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with discussing Michael.

Obviously, I do it too.

The difference is…

I’m not pretending I hate the subject while dedicating a large amount of my free time to researching it.

Fucking moving on, 

Advocacy.

Ah, yes.

The big A.

Other than Tom Sneddon is indeed an Asshole. 🙂

I keep seeing the same excuse:

“I’m doing this for the ‘victims.’”

Uhhh…

what are you actually doing then?

In case anyone didn’t know, meaningful advocacy involves actually advocating.

Raising awareness, educating people, pushing for change…you know, actually doing something productive.

But no, you’re spending years obsessing over one celebrity, consuming every allegation you can find, speculating about his supposed sexual interests, fantasizing about what may have happened, and then getting angry when someone questions your conclusion.

Let me say this as gently as I can…

That’s not advocacy.

That’s obsession.

You think you’re being informative but really, you’re just yapping your ass off about a narrative.

Hell, sometimes, it’s even worse than that.

Some of the conversations I see don’t even sound like people who are horrified by the alleged abuse.

They sound fascinated by it.

Before the biopic even came out, I saw someone say:

“I’m not watching unless there’s abuse.”

…Yeah, I had no words either.

You’re supposedly interested in justice for “victims,” but you’re disappointed at the possibility that a movie might not depict alleged abuse?

Why?

Why is that the part you’re specifically looking forward to seeing?

What exactly are you getting out of watching it?

That’s not how someone talks when they’re trying to raise awareness.

Then there are the questions that get asked with this weird level of fascination:

“Did he want to date young people who looked like him?”

…I’m tired, guys.

What kind of question even is that?

What happened to talking about actual evidence, holy fuck.

This is literally trying to construct a sexual or romantic fantasy around someone’s alleged preferences.

I genuinely don’t understand how people can look at that and think:

“Yes. This is advocacy.”

No.

You’re actually sexualizing things and creating scenarios in your head.

And even stranger, you’re presenting those fantasies as if they’re some kind of psychological analysis.

If you’re going to talk about “weird behaviour,” then seriously…

look in the mirror.

Maybe see a therapist.

I really don’t know, dude.

There’s a difference between wanting justice and wanting a story to be true.

If your interest disappears the second the evidence becomes inconvenient, then maybe you weren’t looking for the truth in the first place.

Maybe you were looking for validation.

Okay.

Rant over.

Our regularly scheduled programming will be back soon! 

Here’s a few related topics:

Some people need Michael Jackson to be guilty 

Comparing Michael Jackson’s Trial to O.J. Simpson’s Is Lazy.

Talking in circles 

What Would You Do for $20 Million?

“There’s no way all 11 people are lying.”

Fact vs Fiction: Common Claims About Michael Jackson

A Media Assassination: The Case of Michael Jackson

Not Everyone Is a Narcissist

The Word “Grooming” Has Lost Its Meaning

Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire…But What If It’s Just Smoke?

The Power Of A Story…And The Danger Of Forgetting The Evidence

Did you hear that, everyone? Apparently this is what a predator looks like. Helping save a child’s life and finding him a liver.

Isn’t that crazy? 🤦🏼‍♀️

I know a few people have been wanting to hear my thoughts on the estate’s agreement with the Cascios, so here it is!

And before anyone asks…no, I am not a spokesperson for the estate. I don’t know what their exact legal strategy was, and I obviously wasn’t sitting in the room when this agreement was negotiated. I’m not their lawyer…although, after writing this, they might as well just hire me. 

That being said, from a purely business and legal perspective, I actually think the agreement was a very smart decision.

Here’s why…

First, the timing.

I think this is probably the most important piece of context when looking at the agreement.

The agreement came in the aftermath of Leaving Neverland. That “documentary” brought Michael’s name back into an enormous controversy and put the estate under a lot of scrutiny.

Shortly afterward, the Cascio family entered into an agreement with the estate that included, among other things, an arbitration provision. The estate has maintained that the agreement was voluntarily entered into, while the Cascios have since challenged its validity and argued that they were pressured into signing it.

Now, let’s put ourselves in the position of a business managing one of the most valuable entertainment estates in the world.

Michael’s name was, essentially, being dragged through the mud. The estate was already dealing with the fallout from Leaving Neverland and existing litigation. 

The last thing they needed was another potentially lengthy, expensive and highly public legal battle.

So, when did the allegations emerge?

The Cascios have said that watching Leaving Neverland caused them to revisit their own experiences with Michael and eventually recognize what they describe as “abuse”.

According to Grace Rwaramba, Connie Cascio contacted her after Leaving Neverland aired and specifically told her that Aldo was claiming that Michael had “abused” him.

But then…the allegations eventually expanded to all five siblings.

…yeah, I’ll talk about that one later. 

Alright, back to the perspective of analyzing the estate’s decision…the timing and development of the allegations are very relevant here.

Just imagine being the estate’s lawyers at the time.

LN has just aired. Michael’s reputation is under a microscope. A family that had been extremely close to him for years is now raising allegations, and according to Grace’s account, the initial conversation she received from Connie concerned Aldo specifically.

Then the allegations ultimately involved all five siblings.

At that point, I can understand why the estate would want to resolve the situation through a comprehensive agreement rather than allow another public legal battle to develop.

In court filings, the estate said it “reluctantly” entered into the agreement to prevent Michael’s family, mainly his children, from being subjected to false allegations, while also protecting Michael’s legacy.

They weren’t just looking at a lawsuit.

They were looking at the potential fallout of another public controversy involving Michael, another round of allegations, another legal battle, and the effect all of that could have on his family, his estate and his legacy.

So again, settling the matter and putting legal protections in place was a way of containing that risk.

Let’s fast forward a few years…

After the agreed upon payments had been made, the estate says Frank Cascio, through his attorneys, demanded an additional $213 million and threatened to make allegations public if the demand wasn’t met.

The estate characterized this as a civil extortion scheme and took legal action to enforce the arbitration agreement.

…well, if someone doesn’t say it, I will.

If you demand $213 million and threaten to make allegations public if you don’t get it… yeah, that looks an awful lot like blackmail to me. 

This is why the original agreement was so important.

The estate had already put legal protections in place requiring disputes to be handled through arbitration.

Plus, as I’ve mentioned in a different post…

The court noted that the agreement contains a broad release covering Michael, the estate, and a list of related people and companies.

Under the agreement, the Cascio parties agreed to “fully and forever release and discharge” them from the claims covered by the agreement.

…yes, you heard it here, folks.

Do you see the strategy now?

Let’s continue,

I already know this is going to be one of the biggest questions:

“If the estate believed these allegations were false, why would they pay them?”

Well, as we know, settling a case does not mean you believe or are admitting that the allegations are true.

Businesses settle disputes all the time, including disputes where they strongly deny liability. Sometimes the question isn’t “Can we win?” It’s “How much is it going to cost us to fight this, how long is it going to take, and what are we risking by doing so?”

Case File: Chandler — Part 10

Let’s be realistic.

Look at the Robson and Safechuck litigation. Those cases have been dragging on for over a decade. We’re talking about years of attorneys, motions, discovery, hearings, appeals, and a huge amount of time and resources.

Now imagine the estate looking at another potential legal battle in 2019, right after Leaving Neverland, and deciding whether it wanted to go through that entire process again.

Maybe they could have fought it.

Maybe they believed they would win.

But from a business perspective, “we can probably win” and “this is worth spending years and millions of dollars fighting” are two very different positions.

A settlement can buy something that litigation can’t: certainty.

You know what you’re paying. You know what you’re getting in return. You can negotiate the terms. You can establish releases and other protections. And you can determine how future disputes will be handled.

That’s not an admission of guilt.

That’s risk management.

Now, before anyone says, “Okay, but they still ended up in court years later, so how was this a smart decision?”

That’s a fair question.

The agreement obviously wasn’t some magical force field or something that guaranteed the estate would never have to deal with the Cascios again.

Clearly, it didn’t.

That’s where it’s important to look at what the agreement actually accomplished.

The parties negotiated terms. Payments were made. Releases and other protections were put in place. And, importantly, the agreement established arbitration for disputes covered by it.

Then, years later, when another dispute arose, the estate was able to rely on that agreement.

And look where we are now.

The Cascios attempted to pursue their claims in federal court.

The estate said:

“You agreed to arbitration.”

And the court agreed.

So the arbitration provision negotiated years ago wasn’t just some meaningless paragraph buried in a contract.

It fucking mattered.

Could the estate have handled things differently in 2019? Absolutely.

Could they have refused to settle and fought the allegations publicly? Sure.

Could the agreement ultimately have been challenged anyway? Clearly.

But whether you agree with that decision or not, I don’t think it was stupid.

In fact, considering where we are today…

I think it was pretty damn smart.

And with that, I will now be accepting applications to become the estate’s newest lawyer.

I’m available Monday.

…okay, okay.

I’ll be our counsel instead.

Questions? Feel free to ask!

Also…

Explaining Arbitration

Potential Legal Consequences for the Cascios

And of course, please stay up to date on the Case Files…my jokes would really appreciate it. 

Sneddon:

Case File: Sneddon

Dimond:

Case File: Dimond

Gutierrez:

Case File: Gutierrez

Francia:

Case File: Francia

Neverland Five:

Case File: Neverland Five

Chandler — Part 1:

Case File: Chandler — Part 1

Chandler — Part 2:

Case File: Chandler — Part 2

Chandler — Part 3:

Case File: Chandler — Part 3

Chandler — Part 4:

Case File: Chandler — Part 4

Chandler — Part 5:

Case File: Chandler — Part 5

Chandler — Part 6:

Case File: Chandler — Part 6

Chandler — Part 7:

Case File: Chandler — Part 7

Chandler — Part 8:

Case File: Chandler — Part 8

Chandler — Part 9:

Case File: Chandler – Part 9

Chandler — Part 10:

Case File: Chandler — Part 10

Chandler — Part 11:

Case File: Chandler — Part 11

Chandler — Part 12:

Case File: Chandler — Part 12

Today is Michael’s birthday.

It is a day where we honour and celebrate him. Not the accusations, not the headlines, and not the narratives that have tried to define him, but Michael the person, a once in a lifetime talent, the man who brought us all together.

His music, his artistry, his kindness, his generosity, and the joy he brought to millions of people around the world should always be remembered.

Please keep spreading the truth. Keep speaking up, keep educating yourselves, and keep reminding people that there is always more to a story than what we are told. I promise you, the truth will prevail.

Happy birthday, Michael. We miss you, we love you, and we will never stop remembering you.❤️

I seriously think Shaista’s comment was completely taken out of context.

Because if she genuinely believed Michael was some sort of evil predator, why would she have had his symbol tattooed on her wrist since at least 2011?

Now…a tattoo obviously doesn’t tell us everything someone thinks or believes, but I think it’s worth pointing out before people jump to conclusions based on one comment.

Okay, you’ve probably heard enough from me tonight.

See you later,

Kisses! 😙

I’ve had a rough week, which means I’m ready to diss whoever crosses my path. 

Evan, you’re up buddy.

Again.

I mean…c’mon, what is this…the twelfth time??

Oh, haha. That’s right.

Welcome back to the Case Files! 

🚨 If you’re new here, make sure you’re caught up on Parts 1–11.

Part 1:

Case File: Chandler — Part 1

Part 2:

Case File: Chandler — Part 2

Part 3:

Case File: Chandler — Part 3

Part 4:

Case File: Chandler — Part 4

Part 5:

Case File: Chandler — Part 5

Part 6:

Case File: Chandler — Part 6

Part 7:

Case File: Chandler — Part 7

Part 8:

Case File: Chandler — Part 8

Part 9:

Case File: Chandler — Part 9

Part 10:

Case File: Chandler — Part 10

Part 11:

Case File: Chandler — Part 11

…okay, onto the fun.

The lawsuit over Jordan’s allegations wasn’t the only time the Chandlers took Michael to court. 

On May 7th, 1996, Evan Chandler filed another lawsuit, this time claiming that Michael had violated the Confidentiality Agreement contained within their 1994 settlement.

For some reason, one lawsuit wasn’t enough for our dear Evan.

The dispute stemmed from a June 14th, 1995 episode of Prime Time Live, hosted by Diane Sawyer. During the interview, Michael was asked about the allegations and continued to maintain his innocence.

According to Evan’s lawsuit, Michael’s statements violated the confidentiality provisions of the settlement.

But, in regular Chandler fashion, Evan didn’t stop with Michael.

He also sued Michael’s then wife, Lisa Marie Presley, who participated in the interview, ABC, which broadcast the program, Diane Sawyer, the Walt Disney Company, which owned ABC, Michael’s record label, Sony Music Corporation, Warner-Tamerlane Publishing, and several companies associated with Michael.

…I’m surprised I didn’t make the list, that’s really disappointing. 

Anyway,

Ray Chandler’s All That Glitters later described Evan’s approach to the lawsuit:

“Evan poured himself into the battle, working night and day to help his lawyers build their case. He became obsessed and put his entire life on hold, neglecting his health and his family in his quest to clear his name.”

Ray continued:

“Evan rationalized his actions by believing that the lawsuits were a temporary detour, and that once they were over, life would be better than it had ever been — that he would have all the time in the world to spend with his children.”

But according to Ray, that’s not how things turned out.

“But life did not become better than it had ever been. It became much worse. Evan lost the lawsuits, his health and his family. The last two through no one’s fault but his own.”

And then Ray concluded:

“But whatever faults Evan may have, whatever demons possess him, one thing he has never been and will never be, is an extortionist.”

…then why ask for $20 million, Ray?

Hmm?

Explain to me why the fuck money was so important while you two boneheads were alleging that Jordan was abused.

Why are screenplays, millions of dollars, and fucking book deals the first things on your minds?

Anyway, 

Michael did not explicitly call Evan Chandler an extortionist during the interview. In fact, Michael did not name Evan, Jordan, or any member of the Chandler family at all.

However, given that Michael maintained his innocence, Evan apparently interpreted the statement as being about him anyway.

If the shoe fits, Evan.

But…there’s more, of course. 

Michael’s album HIStory also became part of Evan’s lawsuit. He alleged that the album contained “derogatory, harmful, malicious” statements directed at him and his son.

The interesting…well, best part?

Michael never named either of them.

Instead, HIStory contained several songs dealing with themes that were clearly influenced by what Michael had experienced during the allegations.

In songs like…

“This Time Around”, Michael addressed being falsely accused.

In “D.S.,” he took aim at Sneddon.

In “Money,” he criticized greed.

…sorry, I misspelt Evan’s name there.

And in “Tabloid Junkie,” he went after the media.

So, yes, the allegations clearly influenced some of the material on the album. Michael was an artist processing what had happened to him, and there is nothing surprising about him expressing those experiences through his music.

But Evan had yet another issue.

He claimed that the lyric “jew me, sue me” from “They Don’t Care About Us” was directed at him because he was Jewish.

…Evan, literally fuck off.

Like, you’re actually fucking exhausting to write about.

The song itself provides no indication that the line was specifically about Evan, and the lawsuit quoted portions of Michael’s lyrics both out of context and, in some cases, inaccurately.

Which makes this funnier. 

Like I said, it is undeniable that HIStory was influenced by Michael’s experiences during this period. However, Evan’s argument that the album violated the settlement’s Confidentiality Agreement did not find support in the courts.”

Now, there is something very important to discuss here, and that’s Evan’s relationship with his other children.

In her divorce filings, Evan’s second wife, Nathalie Chandler, accused him of abandoning their two younger children. She alleged that Evan refused to work, did not provide for his minor children, was not available to them, and had become content with living off the money associated with his son Jordan.

Her filing stated:

“[Evan Chandler’s two younger children] kept asking petitioner why respondent [Evan Chandler] and their brother Jordan do not love them anymore and refuse to see them or talk to them when the children call. They haven’t seen their father or their brother for an extremely long time for such young children.”

She continued:

“As a result of respondent’s deliberate and cruel abandonment of his two minor children, both children have been in therapy on a regular basis since September, 1997…”

And she requested that Evan at least contribute to the cost of that therapy if he was unwilling to see or speak with his children.

Well, there goes the ‘Father of the Year’ narrative guilters carefully constructed.

Nathalie also wrote:

“Evan is not a person who has a lot of friends. Since he decided to live with and off of his son Jordan, he has become either a nomad or a recluse.”

She alleged that he did nothing to provide for himself or his minor children and had “purposefully cut himself off from any other family members who disagree with his behavior.”

Again, these were allegations contained in Nathalie’s divorce filings, not findings that Evan was legally adjudicated to have done every single thing she alleged. But they provide some pretty important context.

Because, as we know, the popular portrayal of Evan has often been that of the fiercely protective father who devoted himself entirely to Jordan’s well being.

Yet according to his own divorce proceedings, his relationship with his other children was…complicated, to say the least.

The filing alleged that after the settlement, Evan closed his dental practice, stopped working, did not provide for his younger children, and was living off money associated with Jordan.

How convenient.

Then in 2005, Evan filed a lawsuit against Jordan himself, seeking access to his son’s trust fund.

Mhm. 

The 1994 settlement money was placed into a trust for Jordan, with approximately $1.5 million reportedly going directly to the parents. So, when you look at Evan’s financial circumstances after the settlement, and then his later attempt to gain access to Jordan’s trust, it raises some very uncomfortable questions about the financial dynamics surrounding this family...

But we’ll save Jordan vs. Evan for later.

That deserves its own fucking file.

Alright, back to Evan’s lawsuit against Michael.

He claimed that Michael, Lisa Marie Presley, ABC, Sony, and the other defendants had earned more than $60 million from album sales and the Prime Time Live interview, and argued that because their actions allegedly violated the Confidentiality Agreement, those economic benefits were owed to him.

His lawsuit stated:

“As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Jackson’s, and others’ material breach of the Agreement as herein alleged for commercial exploitation and financial enrichment, Plaintiff [Evan Chandler] demands all economic benefits gained by Defendant Jackson and other Defendants from the commercial exploitation of the facts of the ‘Underlying Action’ in an amount in excess of $60,000,000.00.”

So, according to Evan’s lawsuit, Michael had supposedly “commercially exploited” the allegations through his music, and Evan wanted the money.

Sixty. Million. Dollars.

…but oh, certainly not an extortionist, right? 

He also claimed that Michael and the other defendants had caused him “severe and extreme emotional distress,” alleging that their conduct had caused him panic, trauma, humiliation, disgrace, worry, anxiety, mental anguish, and physical and emotional distress.

For this additional suffering, Evan demanded another $750,000.

…I’m not even going to make a joke this time, nothing can fix how stupid he sounds right now. 

He also sought reimbursement for his legal expenses.

But perhaps the most bizarre part of the lawsuit was what Evan wanted the court to allow him to do as an additional remedy.

He wanted permission to release an album about the alleged molestation of his son.

The album was to be called…EVANstory.

The lawsuit requested:

“an order to allow him to publish and cause to be distributed to the public for sale a certain musical composition entitled ‘EVANstory.’”

And then came the track list…

Among the proposed songs were:

“D.A. Reprised”

“You Have No Defense (For My Love)”

“Duck Butter Blues”

“Truth”

…honestly, I think I like duck butter blues the most, very…dumbass sounding.

The irony here is difficult to miss, Evan was arguing that Michael had violated the confidentiality agreement by discussing or commercially exploiting the allegations, while simultaneously asking the court for permission to commercially release an album about those same allegations.

And remember, this wasn’t a request to express himself privately. Evan specifically wanted the court to allow him to publish and sell the album publicly.

So the lawsuit was seeking:

$60+ million in alleged economic benefits,

$750,000+ for alleged emotional distress,

legal costs, and permission to release EVANstory.

Let’s not forget the explanation the Chandlers gave for refusing to testify against Michael in 1994.

They said they wanted privacy.

They wanted to move on with their lives.

They wanted to protect Jordan from the media spotlight and scrutiny that would have inevitably accompanied a high profile criminal trial.

They also claimed the family had received death threats from Michael’s fans and that Gil Garcetti had refused to place them in the Witness Protection Program, leaving them afraid for their safety.

Bullshit.

Because two years later, Evan was asking a court for permission to publicly release an album about the allegations against his son.

…I need a drink. 

Vodka or something because what the fuck.

Luckily, the 1996 lawsuit gives us even more to work with.

One of the motions filed by Lisa Marie Presley’s attorneys directly accused Evan and his lawyers of using the lawsuit for publicity.

Presley’s lawyers argued:

“Chandler’s recent actions prove that his reason for improperly suing Presley is, pure and simple, publicity, for himself and his counsel.”

They then described what happened when Lisa Marie was deposed.

According to the motion, Evan’s lawyers had secretly contacted the media and told them when and where Lisa Marie’s deposition would take place. When Lisa Marie and her attorneys arrived, they were allegedly met by reporters and television cameras.

The motion also stated that Chandler’s counsel had appeared on a nationwide tabloid program to discuss the deposition.

So, I guess the media attention wasn’t so bad the first time around, isn’t that right?

The deposition itself included questions about private matters, including Lisa Marie’s marriage to Michael. When her attorneys requested that the transcript be kept confidential, Chandler’s counsel reportedly refused.

I don’t know about you, but I find this deeply disturbing, but okay.

Presley’s lawyers asked the court to prevent the deposition transcript and videotape from being distributed to the media.

Here’s how they characterized what they believed was happening:

“Chandler’s counsel obviously carefully orchestrated this media blitz to exploit Ms. Presley’s fame for the private benefit of himself and his client.”

And, according to the motion, a major network then broadcast that interview alongside footage of Lisa Marie and her attorneys arriving at the deposition.

For people on Chandler’s side who claimed to want privacy, they sure knew where the cameras were.

And again, the allegations contained in Presley’s lawyers’ motion are allegations made in litigation. But they are significant because they were being presented directly to the court at the time, not invented decades later by someone on the internet…🙂

In 1998, Evan’s brother, Ray Chandler made media appearances concerning the allegations and the civil lawsuit.

Which brings us back to something I already covered…

Read here:

Case File: Chandler — Part 10

Ray was shopping a book about the allegations almost immediately after the 1994 settlement was signed.

…but hey! It’s to protect Jordan’s privacy right?

No.

Evan’s lawsuit against Michael was ultimately thrown out of court in 2000.

Now, we may have covered Evan’s lawsuit but…there’s someone else we must talk about.

And that’s…

Jordan Chandler. 

Jordan was reportedly legally emancipated from both June and Evan in 1995. 

However, Evan’s second wife’s divorce filing appears to indicate that Jordan and Evan continued living together after the 1994 settlement.

Then, in 1998, another Chandler lawsuit appeared.

Jordan, who was 18 at the time, filed a lawsuit against Michael that was remarkably similar to the one his father had filed two years earlier.

And he used the same legal team.

The similarities were apparently significant enough that the court described Jordan’s lawsuit as:

“virtually identical to this action”

The difference was that Jordan’s lawsuit omitted certain causes of action, apparently in an attempt to avoid private arbitration under the 1994 settlement agreement.

Hmm, apparently changing the plaintiff was easier than changing the argument, I guess.

Michael challenged the second lawsuit, and on September 10th, 1998, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ordered Jordan’s case into arbitration as well.

If you’re wondering what the fuck arbitration is…

Read here:

Explaining Arbitration

…yes, I know that’s about the Cascios, but don’t you worry, they’ll have their turn.

Meanwhile, Michael had also filed a cross claim against both Evan and Jordan, alleging that they had breached the settlement agreement.

The court then addressed whether the two arbitrations should be consolidated.

Both Evan and Jordan claimed that Michael had breached the same 1994 Confidential Settlement Agreement.

Both alleged essentially the same conduct.

Both sought the same damages.

And Michael’s cross claim alleged that both Chandlers had breached the agreement through the same course of conduct.

As the court explained:

“The two arbitrations will therefore involve the same discovery and the same evidence.”

It also noted that the arbitrators would be dealing with:

“identical questions of law and fact in both arbitrations.”

Essentially…the same family, the same settlement, the same alleged breach, the same damages, the same evidence, and the same legal team.

So, what exactly was Michael referring to?

Well, it could have had something to do with the Chandlers being in contact with Victor Gutierrez for his book.

Oh, Victor. We meet again.

Read here:

Case File: Gutierrez

Some dots are about to connect.

Someone get the red string, my cards are on the table.

I’ll see you in Part 13! 👋🏼

My previous case files:

Sneddon:

Case File: Sneddon

Dimond:

Case File: Dimond

Gutierrez:

Case File: Gutierrez

Francia:

Case File: Francia

Neverland Five:

Case File: Neverland Five

Chandler — Part 1:

Case File: Chandler — Part 1

Chandler — Part 2:

Case File: Chandler — Part 2

Chandler — Part 3:

Case File: Chandler — Part 3

Chandler — Part 4:

Case File: Chandler — Part 4

Chandler — Part 5:

Case File: Chandler — Part 5

Chandler — Part 6:

Case File: Chandler — Part 6

Chandler — Part 7:

Case File: Chandler — Part 7

Chandler — Part 8:

Case File: Chandler — Part 8

Chandler — Part 9:

Case File: Chandler – Part 9

Chandler — Part 10:

Case File: Chandler — Part 10

Chandler — Part 11:

Case File: Chandler — Part 11

Sources and additional information:

https://turningthetableonthechandlerallegations.wordpress.com

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/evan-chandlers-1996-lawsuit-against-michael-jackson/

https://web.archive.org/web/20070916092707/http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/newsmakers/jackson.html

https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=1073234&doc_no=B134553&request_token=NiIwLSEmTkw8W1BdSSFdXENIUEA6USxfICNeUz9TQCAgCg%3D%3D

https://medium.com/@ruckerjael/how-come-nobody-ever-apologizes-to-michael-jackson-evans-story-another-chandler-lawsuit-eed24556cb1a

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/the-1993-allegations/

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/taped-phone-conversations-between-evan-chandler-and-david-schwartz-on-july-8-1993/

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/the-chandlers-monetary-demands/

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxNDb2PVcoM&ra=m

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6-52dk3jGyE&ra=m

https://mjjtruthnow.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/was-michael-jackson-framed-the-defining-1994-gq-article-by-mary-a-fischer-that-set-the-record-straight-on-the-1993-allegations/

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/reference-materials/history-vs-evanstory-the-1993-allegations-parts-1-3

Important posts:

Some people need Michael Jackson to be guilty 

Comparing Michael Jackson’s Trial to O.J. Simpson’s Is Lazy.

Talking in circles 

What Would You Do for $20 Million?

“There’s no way all 11 people are lying.”

Fact vs Fiction: Common Claims About Michael Jackson

A Media Assassination: The Case of Michael Jackson

Not Everyone Is a Narcissist

The Word “Grooming” Has Lost Its Meaning

Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire…But What If It’s Just Smoke?

The Power Of A Story…And The Danger Of Forgetting The Evidence

I came across this comment while following a completely separate case. It had absolutely nothing to do with Michael’s case, but the second I read it, I thought:

…you know what? This could actually be useful.

So, just for fun, I thought I’d put together a few short comebacks for those moments when you’re arguing about Michael and you’ve run out of patience.

These aren’t meant to be serious legal arguments or substitutes for actually discussing the evidence. They’re just little responses for when someone says something so ridiculous that you don’t even know where to begin or…you’re simply sick and tired of re-explaining basic facts.

Anyway, here are some comebacks for when you’re tired of arguing.

“You can’t just ignore everything that came out during the 2005 trial.”

Okay, and what was the verdict?

Seriously, tell me.

“Why would all of these people lie about Michael?”

Why would I assume they’re all telling the truth? Especially with all those inconsistencies…

“There are too many allegations for all of them to be false.”

So, news flash: quantity isn’t a replacement for corroboration.

“I mean, look at how weird his behaviour was.”

Weird isn’t a criminal charge, just saying.

Stop acting like we all don’t have something “weird” about ourselves.

“He paid millions to make the Chandler allegations go away.”

Oh! You mean the same settlement that the Chandlers’ lawyers specifically stated did not buy anyone’s silence?…more than once.

And the same settlement where they explicitly stated that it was not an admission of guilt in any way.

“Why would an innocent man spend so much time around children?”

Why would that prove a crime?

Maybe you’re just sexist. 🤷🏼‍♀️

“Everyone around him knew what he was doing.”

Everyone?

Who specifically?

And knew what?

“You only believe Michael because you’re a fan.”

You only believe the allegations because…?

“I know he’s guilty, just look at him!”

Why?

Because he’s Black?

Because he had a few surgeries?

Was it the vitiligo?

Making an assumption about someone because of their appearance is fucking disgusting.

“Their interviews/documentaries were so emotional!”

Congratulations on solving the case with your feelings.

Good thing that’s not how evidence works.

“He just got away with it.”

So your argument is that the verdict was wrong because you don’t like it?

Yikes.

“Why would James and Wade lie?”

If Wade is telling the truth now, then why did he lie under oath in a court of law as an adult?

Hmm?

Why?

“Wade and James had nothing to gain by lying.”

Had nothing to gain?

You don’t think millions of dollars is something to gain?

“The Cascio allegations are proof because there were five of them.”

You mean…the same five siblings who said for many years, including after Michael’s death, that they were never abused?

“The photographs matched Jordan’s description.”

Then why were investigators still trying to determine whether Michael had altered his appearance months after the photographs were taken?

“Neverland was basically a playground for kids.”

So is Disneyland, yet…adults go there all the time.

I’m assuming you don’t like going to Disneyland, or the zoo, or the movies?

You’re no fun, I guess.

“But the books!”

Ouuu! Photography books, scary!

“Leaving Neverland had sooo much proof.”

No, it had two people talking to a camera. That’s not proof. It isn’t even sworn testimony.

And Wade had already given sworn testimony in 2005, as an adult, stating that Michael had never abused him.

“You have to watch Leaving Neverland to understand.”

I did.

And clearly, that’s the only thing you did…🤣

“Michael was a grown man sleeping with children. That’s all I need to know.”

If that’s all it takes to convince you, you’d make a terrible juror.

Evidence matters, no matter what.

Anyway,

The point here is, people have fallen victim to blindly believing a narrative because they find it more comfortable than researching the truth.

Sometimes it doesn’t matter how much evidence and proof you pull out. People will refuse to believe it because they’re married to the narrative.

Which, in my opinion, that’s when you know you’re probably wasting your time arguing.

Also, if you have any other quick comebacks you find yourself using, let me know!

Please don’t fall for all the misinformation out there.

In order to truly understand these cases, you have to go back to the beginning.

Sneddon:

Case File: Sneddon

Dimond:

Case File: Dimond

Gutierrez:

Case File: Gutierrez

Francia:

Case File: Francia

Neverland Five:

Case File: Neverland Five

Chandler — Part 1:

Case File: Chandler — Part 1

Chandler — Part 2:

Case File: Chandler — Part 2

Chandler — Part 3:

Case File: Chandler — Part 3

Chandler — Part 4:

Case File: Chandler — Part 4

Chandler — Part 5:

Case File: Chandler — Part 5

Chandler — Part 6:

Case File: Chandler — Part 6

Chandler — Part 7:

Case File: Chandler — Part 7

Chandler — Part 8:

Case File: Chandler — Part 8

Chandler — Part 9:

Case File: Chandler — Part 9

Chandler — Part 10:

Case File: Chandler — Part 10

Chandler — Part 11:

Case File: Chandler — Part 11

And because I clearly love self promotion…

Some people need Michael Jackson to be guilty

Comparing Michael Jackson’s Trial to O.J. Simpson’s Is Lazy.

Talking in circles

What Would You Do for $20 Million?

“There’s no way all 11 people are lying.”

Fact vs Fiction: Common Claims About Michael Jackson

A Media Assassination: The Case of Michael Jackson

Not Everyone Is a Narcissist

The Word “Grooming” Has Lost Its Meaning

Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire…But What If It’s Just Smoke?

The Power Of A Story…And The Danger Of Forgetting The Evidence

Okay, kisses.

I’ll see you again soon.

This has been bothering me for years, please tell me you see it too. 😂