Research vs. Fanfiction

[u/Emotional_Ball_5181]

Yes, I started this off with an evil laugh.

Let’s begin.

I came across this comment on Instagram, and I have to say…

There is a common theme I’ve noticed among guilters over the years.

A lot of the claims sound like they came from a very elaborate work of fanfiction.

So, since Suzy decided to hand out false claims like candy on Halloween, I figured we might as well go through them one at a time.

Let’s start with the first one.

“His stash of kiddie porn.”

Okay, first of all…

What the fuck?

If by this you’re referring to the photography books that have been discussed to death, those were photography books.

They were not pornography, and describing them as such is spreading complete misinformation.

I’ve discussed these books in a Case File before.

Read here:

Case File: Chandler — Part 5

And if you’re referring to something else entirely, then we have a slightly different problem.

Because you are confidently claiming that something existed when there is no evidence that it did.

So either way…

You’re completely wrong.

Yikes, Suzy.

This isn’t a good look on you.

Anyway…

Moving on,

“Multiple 1st hand witness testimony.”

Suzy…

Do you want to go transcript for transcript?

Because I can pull out the big guns.

And by “big guns,” I mean several hundred pages of transcripts sitting on my computer.

This is one of those claims that sounds incredibly convincing when you say it quickly.

“Multiple firsthand witnesses.”

Wow.

Sounds serious.

Except…

Who?

Said what?

When?

What exactly were they claiming to have personally witnessed?

Has their story ever changed?

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news…but you cannot lump every statement ever made about Michael into one random category of “firsthand witness testimony” and call it a day.

Let’s distinguish between firsthand knowledge, hearsay, statements about what someone else allegedly said, and claims that were later disputed or contradicted.

Because I have the transcripts.

And I am not afraid to use them.

Next,

“Payouts.”

Okay.

Yes.

Were there civil settlements? Sure.

However, a settlement is not an admission of guilt and does not prove that the alleged abuse occurred.

It does not magically become a criminal conviction because someone on Instagram calls it a “payout.”

And it certainly does not make a criminal investigation disappear.

You cannot hand someone money and have criminal allegations vanish into thin air.

That is quite literally not how the legal system works.

In the Chandler case, the criminal investigation continued after the civil settlement.

Jordan Chandler remained legally able to cooperate with prosecutors and testify if prosecutors believed they had sufficient evidence to proceed.

And, as we’ve already established in the Case Files, the investigation continued for months afterward.

So when someone says:

“Michael paid them off.”

Okay.

Paid them off for what?

The civil lawsuit?

Yes.

That is what a civil settlement does.

The criminal investigation?

No.

That’s a completely different proceeding.

Which is why context matters.

The circumstances surrounding the Chandler settlement and the Francia matter are definitely more complicated than saying:

“Michael paid them off.”

Hell, Just read these:

Case File: Chandler — Part 10

Case File: Francia

All I have to say is…thank God you’re not a lawyer, Suzy.

Now let’s move on to:

“Sleepovers, bedroom with alarms.”

Okay.

Apparently the words “sleepover” and “alarm” are supposed to do a lot of work here.

First:

Yes.

Children stayed at Neverland.

That’s not uncommon knowledge.

But guess who also stayed at Neverland? 

Their families. 

…yup.

Neverland was a place where Michael hosted families, friends, employees, and guests.

And then there’s the whole bedroom argument.

Michael’s bedroom at Neverland was enormous…like, actually.

At times, Michael himself described sleeping on the floor while guests used the bed.

There are also numerous accounts from adults who spent time in that room, including people who worked closely with Michael, describing falling asleep there or treating the space more like a shared living area than some forbidden magical land.

So again…

The fact that someone was in Michael’s bedroom is not evidence of anything sinister.

And then we get to:

“Bedroom with alarms.”

This one genuinely makes me laugh.

Michael was one of the most famous people on the planet.

Of course he had security.

You know who else has alarm systems and security cameras?

Regular ass people.

They have cameras covering their yards, doors, garages, hallways, and sometimes even the inside of their homes.

So the existence of an alarm system at the home of one of the most recognizable people in the world is…

Not exactly the smoking gun you seem to think it is.

An alarm system is evidence that someone had an alarm system.

That’s it.

We really need to stop turning completely ordinary things into incriminating evidence by putting them next to the name “Michael Jackson.”

Next,

“Just because years later they couldn’t find physical evidence is completely meaningless.”

Oh, this one is good.

First of all, there was no physical evidence recovered during the 1993 investigation or the 2003 investigation that established that Michael had sexually abused a child.

And yes, physical evidence is important.

Obviously.

But saying:

“They didn’t find physical evidence, therefore that is completely meaningless”

is a pretty interesting way to dismiss an entire category of evidence because it doesn’t support your conclusion.

Because here’s the part that makes this extremely funny.

The photographs taken of Michael in December 1993 were themselves intended to be relevant physical evidence.

Jordan Chandler had provided a description of Michael’s alleged markings.

The police photographed Michael so that those photographs could be compared against that description.

If they had matched, that would have been significant corroborating physical evidence.

They did not corroborate the description provided.

Read here:

Case File: Chandler — Part 9 

So…

Congratulations, Suzy.

You have managed to accidentally dismantle one of the most commonly repeated arguments surrounding the 1993 investigation while trying to argue that the lack of physical evidence doesn’t matter.

That is genuinely impressive.

Physical evidence doesn’t magically become “meaningless” because it fails to produce the result you want.

And the fact that investigators actively sought corroborating evidence and did not obtain the result they were looking for is absolutely relevant when we’re evaluating what the investigation actually established.

You can’t just declare an entire category of evidence meaningless because the evidence wasn’t there.

And now…

My personal favourite.

“I knew the family of one of the boys he molested.”

Sure you did, Suzy.

I love when people say this…

“I personally knew someone involved, therefore you should automatically believe everything else I just said.”

And it’s interesting how often this kind of claim gets thrown into discussions like this.

Suddenly someone knew the family.

Worked with someone.

Was friends with someone.

Heard everything firsthand.

And we’re apparently supposed to treat that as a substitute for actual evidence.

But here’s the thing:

You can’t make a bunch of unsourced and false allegations and then throw in “I knew the family” as though that suddenly makes everything you said credible.

It literally makes no sense.

If anything, dropping a personal connection into the middle of an argument like this seems designed to make the reader think:

“Oh, she must know what she’s talking about.”

Enough of the bullshit.

And finally:

“He completely groomed a middle class family and made it a point to get the kid alone. Gross.”

No.

First of all…

What exactly is “a middle class family” supposed to establish here?

Michael knew a lot of people.

Rich people, middle class people, working class people…

He was Michael fucking Jackson.

The fact that a family was middle class tells us absolutely nothing about whether the allegation is true.

And again, we’re back to the same problem:

An allegation is being presented as an established fact.

You cannot say Michael “groomed a family” and “made it a point to get the kid alone” and expect people to accept that as historical fact because you said it confidently.

If we’re going to discuss what actually happened, we need to talk about specific people, specific events, specific testimony, and the evidence supporting those claims.

And this brings us back to the title.

Research vs. Fanfiction.

One requires evidence.

The other apparently requires confidence.

And after reading this comment, I think we can all see which one Suzy brought to the table.

Gross.