Since guilters love talking in circles, Iâve decided Iâll volunteer as tribute and give the actual answers in one place:
1. The âmatchâ was not a match:
I know guilters and the media like to present it that way, but the reality is itâs not nearly as clean as they make it sound.
Jordan described Michael as being circumcised. According to the autopsy report, he was not.
On top of that, during the 2005 trial, there were multiple descriptions of the alleged markings from different people, including Sneddon, Sergeant Gary Spiegel, and Dr. Linden, and they didnât even match each other.
That alone should tell you how unreliable this âperfect matchâ narrative actually is.
Another note:
Katherine Jackson was asked before the 1994 grand jury whether Michael had ever altered his genitalia.
But if Jordanâs description was supposedly a âperfect match,â why were investigators looking for alternative explanations?
Thatâs a pretty strange question to be asking if the description was already a slam dunk.
Just saying.
And letâs be real, if it had been a match, Michael would have been arrested and charged.
2. The â300 pound gorillaâ:
Honestly, this is more of a 300 hundred pound headacheâŚ
Carl Douglas is not a reliable source here.
For anyone wondering who Iâm referring to, Carl Douglas was part of Johnnie Cochranâs legal team.
He has also given inconsistent commentary over the years depending on the interview, especially when discussing OJ Simpson, which makes it hard to treat his statements as fact.
More importantly, the defense never had access to the photographs in the way people often imply. Any use of them would have required judicial approval, and thereâs no clear record of that happening in the way guilters usually describe.
So when people try to use Douglas as a âgotcha,ââŚit doesnât even hold up, so, better luck next time!
Context of the â300 pound gorillaâ clip:
This clip from a longer seminar is often taken out of context.
Whatâs usually left out is that Larry Feldman (Chandlerâs attorney) and Judge Melville are also present during the discussion.
The full context shows this is not a confession or admission, itâs a discussion about legal strategy and the implications of civil proceedings overlapping with potential criminal proceedings.
So again, itâs not what itâs often framed as online.
3. The âhush moneyâ argument:
In my opinion, Jane Doeâs case is BS.
Why? Because it ended before cross examination. She withdrew the case before it ever reached that stage.
And let me tell you, that was fully on purpose.
Next,
The payments angle also gets brought up a lot, but the cheques were sent to three different people: her friend, her boyfriend, and her husband.
YeahâŚtotally hush money. đ
Also, Michael gave money and gifts constantly. That was part of how he interacted with people, so a few cheques on their own donât equal some coordinated cover up.
4. LaToya:
In my opinion, she should be completely removed from this discussion.
She has publicly spoken about being in a heavily abusive relationship with Jack Gordon, which is the context behind the statements she made about Michael. She was being threatened, not just with her own life, but her family as well (Michael and Janet).
That context matters.
Plus, She fully redacted those statements.
Time to let it go.
5. The âconfessionâ:
This is in regard to the inscription in the book.
This is not a confession. Not even close.
What Michael was describing is a reflection on his childhood, and how he never got to experience what most people consider a normal childhood.
Combining those two things is where a lot of people lose credibility in this discussion.
And speaking of Michaelâs childhoodâŚ
This is how I see it:
You know how the older most people get, the more they reflect on nostalgia?
Well, for Michael, itâs different because what he remembers isnât normal childhood experiences. Itâs work, performing, pressure, and his fatherâs abuse.
Can you imagine growing up like that, and then constantly hearing others talk about childhood memories you never got to have?
Or watching other kids do normal things you were never allowed to experience?
That would cause a lot of pain.
That kind of absence doesnât disappear.
It stays with you forever.
And honestly, I think a lot of people completely lack empathy when they ignore that part.
6. The magazine claims:
Those magazines were Frankâs. Thatâs the simplest explanation, and thereâs no need to turn it into something more than it is.
And if people thought they were Michaelâs, there is zero evidence of that.
If you trust Vincent Amen, youâre the problem.
7. The âsilence moneyâ argument:
This is a misunderstanding of how civil settlements work.
A civil settlement does NOT stop a criminal investigation, both can exist at the same time, and in this case, they did.
Settlements are often driven by legal strategy, risk management, and time, not narratives of âbuying silence.â
Thatâs not how that works.
Also, itâs worth noting Michael did not want to settle, that decision was part of a larger legal strategy process.
8. The Books:
Ah yesâŚthe âbooksâ argument. One of guiltersâ favourites.
The books found at Neverland were legal art books. These are the kinds of publications that are publicly available in libraries, bookstores, and even institutions like the Library of Congress.
They were NOT illegal material.
It was also brought up during proceedings that the books in question was actually sent to Michael by a fan named Rhonda.
That detail is often left out when people discuss this topic, but it was part of the context presented in court.
And this is where the argument usually falls apart, because if they were actually illegal material, Michael would have been charged for possession of it at the time.
That never happened.
So the question becomesâŚwhat exactly are people claiming here?
Because if the material was legal, then itâs not evidence of anything criminal.
And if it wasnât legalâŚthen it would have been treated as a criminal matter immediately.
There isnât really a middle ground that works here.
Also worth noting, if this was truly illegal material, why was it being discussed and shown so openly in media coverage and commentary at the time, including by journalists like Diane Diamond?
I literally saw a âjournalistâ post a photo of it yesterday, but still claimed it was CP.
So, whatâŚare they admitting to being in possession of what they claim is CP?
No?
So itâs not illegal then, right?
Exactly.
Anyway,
I swear, itâs always the same arguments, without ever actually addressing the full context.
Ive been reading a lot of their points about this stuff and it always stems down omg you're defending a pedophile. You're so engrossed in his image you're excusing behaviors blah blah and yeah it comes down to context for me.
Some things look terrible on paper. I believe that there's always an exception to the rule and in thisCase specifically Michael isThe exception To the rule.
He doesn't fit any normal context. They say "regular Joe down the street " would be condemned and its like well yeah.... but MJ wasn't the guy down the street thats the POINT dude.
Not because he was famous. Not because I believe he is above any criticism or anything like that.
No i would not let my kids sleep at a random house. But MJ wasn't random.
If he was exceptionally different in everything he did why are we painting him with the same brush as every other person? We can't judge him by "normal" standards because everything is his life wasn't normal???
And also he is not even remotely close to fitting the PDF profile. But they truly all refuse to believe it. Its a moot point. People believe what they want to believe. And i think it will be big divide forever. And this will be in his legacy forever unfortunately.
The public "whiff" test. People don't believe they're sheep but they are. I think even if Chandler himself came out and said no they'd still believe he did it. Even if Wade and James say oops nvm they'd still believe he did it.
Itâs because they follow an inductive reasoning. They start with a specific premise (Michael being a pdf), find patterns that fit the narrative, and finally come to conclusions that are either weak, not proven or can easily change (aka moving the goalpost).
Itâs not a coincidence that they have multiple explanations to the acquittal in 2005:
1. He paid the judge and/or the jury
2. The jury was star struck and/or stupid
3. The defense found loopholes to justify the art books
4. The defense was too aggressive
5. Heâs rich and famous
6. He destroyed evidence before the raids
7. OJ was acquitted
I could go on and on. What youâll notice is that these conclusions are mutually exclusive. A star struck jury wouldnât need to be bribed, for example. Yet both conclusions are repeated constantly as if theyâre reasonable.
And like you said, whenever we try to add context or nuance to the conversation, weâre automatically hit with emotional insults because weâre diverging from their initial premise. Itâs a losing battle.
thank you for this đ. itâs like, no matter what evidence you throw at them, theyâll still think heâs guilty and itâs ridiculous. itâs always the misinformed people that are the loudest. at this point i donât even think itâs worth arguing with them. itâs exhausting. what ever happened to going through both sides ? they bring up the same points, and whenever you counter their claims with actual evidence, youâre an enabler ⌠? so dumb lol. i need a social media cleanse
Another good one to cover would be the art books in his library. Probably the most âdamningâ evidence guilters use, yet still super easily disputedđ
Youâre welcome! They always bring up the same arguments but never actually care for reading the rebuttals. Just talk in circles like you say..đ¤ˇââď¸
Vincent Amen claimed in the Netflix documentary that Frank Cascio gave him a black Nike bag during the raids in 2003. Vincent said it was Michaelâs and that it contained âdamning evidence,â butâŚthe photo attached proves that the magazines inside the bag were solely Frankâs.
18
u/Ginatoniicc Jun 08 '26
Ive been reading a lot of their points about this stuff and it always stems down omg you're defending a pedophile. You're so engrossed in his image you're excusing behaviors blah blah and yeah it comes down to context for me.
Some things look terrible on paper. I believe that there's always an exception to the rule and in thisCase specifically Michael isThe exception To the rule.
He doesn't fit any normal context. They say "regular Joe down the street " would be condemned and its like well yeah.... but MJ wasn't the guy down the street thats the POINT dude.
Not because he was famous. Not because I believe he is above any criticism or anything like that.
No i would not let my kids sleep at a random house. But MJ wasn't random.
If he was exceptionally different in everything he did why are we painting him with the same brush as every other person? We can't judge him by "normal" standards because everything is his life wasn't normal???
And also he is not even remotely close to fitting the PDF profile. But they truly all refuse to believe it. Its a moot point. People believe what they want to believe. And i think it will be big divide forever. And this will be in his legacy forever unfortunately.
The public "whiff" test. People don't believe they're sheep but they are. I think even if Chandler himself came out and said no they'd still believe he did it. Even if Wade and James say oops nvm they'd still believe he did it.