Debates with the public

The fact that they have to leave out people getting shredded on cross examination says a lot, why not include it and attempt a refutation instead? I guess that's too hard. I they have to omit things it's probably because they know it's in MJ's favour. They like to act there there isn't a case for his innocence but there certainly is, they just chose to ignore and misrepresent it.
 
I'm being a bit of a smartasre with these ones, sometimes I find it's fun to play with these people.

27874602971_058c10c35b_z.jpg
 
Last edited:
Don't you love it when people get their information horrendously wrong and call their innacuracies "facts?" I'm pretty sure a lot of people have no idea what the word fact actually means.

27874614581_48c12338d3.jpg
 
Last edited:
I guess he means the Chandlers. That's what the media usually portrays so that MJ only did not go to jail because the Chandlers have been "paid off". But then you can lecture him about all the fallacies in that claim.
 
I love it when people say "found, not proven" or "not guilty, not 'innocent'". Such a stupid argument lol. Not proven? people need to do their homework.
 
I went through the usual lecture about the settlement but nothing so far.

27672561630_c9cc0914f4.jpg

27672561710_62d97661fd_z.jpg

27672561710_62d97661fd_z.jpg
 
Last edited:
LOL, this is always how it ends with these big mouth ignorant people. When confronted with facts they say "I don't even care about it". OK, you don't have to but then do not talk stupid BS as if you know it's a fact.
 
That's something that always gives me a good laugh, to me it looked like he thought he'd have me stumped when he asked about sleepovers, alcohol and MJ's money, he sounded like he was giving me tough arguments but then when I replied he ran away with his tail between his legs. This is pretty typical of most people I speak to on the internet about this, they think they have strong factual arguments but all they really have is rumours that have been accepted as fact by a large percentage of people but an opinion being popular doesn't make it right. They act oh so tough until you show them that you know what you're talking about, then they know they've been backed into a corner so they pretend that they don't care, but if they didn't care why would they have been debating it in the first place? People are funny when they get caught out.
 
I don't understand why bother trashing MJ if you're uneducated anyway? What's their problem?
 
It's easy to be tough on the internet, but I think jealousy is part of it too. Michael was able to accomplish more in his life than many other people are capable of. I'm pretty sure jealousy over how much money he had is a big thing too, and of course for those who think he was guilty, they hate seeing him receive a lot of high praise. From what I've seen from a large number of people on various subjects is that not being very knowledgeable on a subject doesn't stop many people from opening their mouths.

Personally, when I don't know much about something I don't like to say much because it would be easy for me to get something wrong. The way I see a lot of people rationalise it is that they're entitled to have an opinion and Michael is dead and it's not likely that his family or friends will read their comments, therefore it doesn't matter. I see things very differently, although everyone can have and express an opinion, it doesn't mean that the opinion has any inherent value or validity just because someone has it. Truth means a lot and I don't think it's ok to act like it isn't important.

Something I've seen before and saw again today is that someone will make a comment like Stuart did, claiming that key accusers withdrew their complaints in 2005 which isn't true, but when I go back and look at that comment, 6 people have liked it because they blindly and naively think it's true. When a random person on the internet can make claims and offer no proof but still have people believe them, there's a real problem!
 
Oh, I missed one. It's pretty telling when this is the best they can come back with.

27338590553_e0a04df8a6.jpg
 
Last edited:
Has anyone else noticed that men are overrepresented in who thinks MJ is guilty? Well, at least they're the ones who seem to be more vocal about it. I wonder why this is?
 
Not exactly the brightest are they?

I find most (not all) people generally like to believe what their told regardless of facts or how ridiculous it may seem. They form their story and will stick to it no matter what. Kinda like, pack mentality, "Well everyone else believes it, so will I."
Aside from the trolls of course who don't really care whether its true or not, they want the attention and get off on baiting people.
 
The fun part about when they bait fans is when they do it to fans who can smack them down. I've seen it happen before and I like to give a good smackdown sometimes too. I don't go looking for debates because it can be tiring and time consuming but a friend of mine tagged me in the post. It's here if anyone would like to see it all or leave a comment of their own.

https://www.facebook.com/WorldsBestPranks/posts/452265714932053
 
LOL @ "insulting people with facts". I guess it means: "leave me alone with facts,do not bother me with facts, I want to hold on to my beliefs no matter what". A lot of people have that mentality. In fact there is another board where a hater, when confronted with facts, court documents, testimonies, once flat-out said "I don't care about all that court room junk". Yet, she keeps coming back bashing MJ quoting tabloids. But factual information is "junk" to her because it does not support her preconcieved opinion.

Not exactly the brightest are they?

I find most (not all) people generally like to believe what their told regardless of facts or how ridiculous it may seem. They form their story and will stick to it no matter what. Kinda like, pack mentality, "Well everyone else believes it, so will I."

Yes, and it's scientifically shown too that people very rarely change their mind after they are first given false information and they build up their beliefs on that. People just do not like to be wrong, so when later confronted with facts that show their beliefs are wrong many of them use all kind of self-deceiving techniques to not to have to accept the facts and change their mind. One is this plugging their ears to new information while signing "la-la-la I can't here you" that we are basically see in the above conversation.

No use to go on with such people IMO, because they obviously do not care about facts and the truth, they only care about being able to hold on to their own preconcieved beliefs, no matter if it's based on factual information or not. Also interesting to see that not having arguments they will restore to ad hominems (mocking Terry's bike that has nothing to do with the topic) - just shows general weakness and ignorance in their argument. It takes an intelligent person to be able to see what is a good argument and what is not and also to be able to change their mind when facts show that their preconcieved beliefs were wrong.
 
Last edited:
Well, I'll give him one thing, I think my bike is ugly too LOL. The cornering ability it has is good for a cruiser style bike, plus it's light and thin which I need since I'm so short. I chose performance over looks but I do miss the other bike sometimes, it was much nicer to look at and had awesome sounding pipes.

Back on topic, I agree, people hate being wrong and giving facts can annoy people because it challenges their perspective. Sometimes when debates are taking place, especially when the conversation is very public, people really hate it when you prove them wrong because of the embarrassment they suffer. I think they feel like people will think they're stupid for getting things wrong which isn't always the case but it's how a lot of people think.

I've also read scientific articles about people's reluctance to change their mind about things they think are true, it's really interesting how people respond like that. Changing views about something can be very difficult so I think it takes strength and humility to admit to being wrong and change a view. That story about the hater not liking court information presented to them is funny, it's very contradictory, they were presenting tabloid articles as truth because they thought it was truth, but then when given evidence from a more reliable source they suddenly decide they're not after facts anymore. Realistically, it seems people like that aren't really after truth, rather, they're after any information which will play into their confirmation bias. Seeking facts is when you look for evidence and accept what it proves based on whether or not it's factual rather than whether or not you like what it tells you.
 
2 questions
Is it possible to know who are the people behind MJFacts?
What's the deal with the fake documents they post and the fake settlement with Safechuck?
 
The person who is behind MJFacts goes lengths to hide his or her identity. There is a good article about it here: http://www.allforloveblog.com/?p=9426

What fake documents and settlement? (I refuse to visit that crap site, so I don't know what are they up to lately.)
 
The person who is behind MJFacts goes lengths to hide his or her identity. There is a good article about it here: http://www.allforloveblog.com/?p=9426

What fake documents and settlement? (I refuse to visit that crap site, so I don't know what are they up to lately.)

Oh, you mean this?

B_SHmtuU8AA61VW.png


I remember this was circulated by MJ haters last year or earlier. It's made up and when fans pointed out the flaws with it they admitted it's fake and one of them created it and they gave some BS explanation about how they only tried to show it how easy it is to fake official looking docs. Whatever. But then when Safechuck's allegations came out they suddenly started to claim again that it was real. Unfortunately for them though, it does not go too well with Safechuck's own claims, since he claims his parents never knew he was molested until he told his mother in 2005.
 
Yes respect this is the one, I read they faked it twice and the first time is the guy who sold stuff to Diane Dimond in the 90's and then MJFacts added things last year...
 
Yes respect this is the one, I read they faked it twice and the first time is the guy who sold stuff to Diane Dimond in the 90's and then MJFacts added things last year...

I don't know how many times they faked it, but I do remember reading the tweets in which they admitted to one another that it was fake and they acted like it was just a joke and some sort of experiment to show how easy it was to fake documents. I don't think it was - I think they hoped to fool fans and other people with it but when they could not they started to act like it was just a joke and an experiment. Those people are legit psychos.

I don't know if this Skip Keesal even ever represented MJ, for a start. I looked him up and he is a lawyer in San Fransisco. I never heard his name in connection with MJ. And of course, no professional lawyer would ever write down things like this in a letter (for no reason at all, because such confidential and sensitive matters would better be discussed in person). For example, as a lawyer you would certainly know that you are committing a crime when you offer money to someone to submit to certain "conditions regarding any law enforcement investigations related to Mr. Jackson's friendship with your son Jimmy" while you are implying that the matter you are talking about is something criminal that was happening between MJ and Jimmy. No lawyer would ever write such things down implicating not only his client but also himself. Not to mention the totally unprofessional language of the letter.

Haters posted this before Safechuck's allegations (I think in 2013). Unfortunately for them they cannot really use it in support of Safechuck's allegations because it does not go well with his own claims. Which is that no one ever knew he was molested until he told his mother in 2005. So where are all the documents he was supposed to sign at the age of 18? Where are all the documents his parents supposedly signed in 1990 about not going to law enforcement or starting a civil lawsuit? LOL.

Not to mention if this letter was real, Sneddon would have been the happiest person to use it in court.
 
Last edited:
I don't know how many times they faked it, but I do remember reading the tweets in which they admitted to one another that it was fake and they acted like it was just a joke and some sort of experiment to show how easy it was to fake documents. I don't think it was - I think they hoped to fool fans and other people with it but when they could not they started to act like it was just a joke and an experiment. Those people are legit psychos.

See this is when I stop getting them, I can understand some people are misinformed and hate him for the things they think he did. But some of those haters (including the prosecution) plant evidences, pay witnesses, fake documents... These actions show they got nothing to do with justice. Something else is driving them. This is one of the reasons why I think the person behind MJFacts is not a random hater from the internet.

I don't know if this Skip Keesal even ever represented MJ, for a start. I looked him up and he is a lawyer in San Fransisco. I never heard his name in connection with MJ. And of course, no professional lawyer would ever write down things like this in a letter (for no reason at all, because such confidential and sensitive matters would better be discussed in person). For example, as a lawyer you would certainly know that you are committing a crime when you offer money to someone to submit to certain "conditions regarding any law enforcement investigations related to Mr. Jackson's friendship with your son Jimmy" while you are implying that the matter you are talking about is something criminal that was happening between MJ and Jimmy. No lawyer would ever write such things down implicating not only his client but also himself. Not to mention the totally unprofessional language of the letter.

I wonder why they picked this guy... Seems random - Also, there's the matter of Weitzman, he's mentioned in those fake laters dated 1992 and he was only hired a year later.

Haters posted this before Safechuck's allegations (I think in 2013). Unfortunately for them they cannot really use it in support of Safechuck's allegations because it does not go well with his own claims. Which is that no one ever knew he was molested until he told his mother in 2005. So where are all the documents he was supposed to sign at the age of 18? Where are all the documents his parents supposedly signed in 1990 about not going to law enforcement or starting a civil lawsuit? LOL.

Well even Safechuck's own claims don't go well with his claims :hysterical: And if such documents existed they would have presnted them in court so many times we could know them by heart.

Not to mention if this letter was real, Sneddon would have been the happiest person to use it in court.

Great point.


Another question - Who is Mitteager?
 
InvincibleTal;4079950 said:
Another question - Who is Mitteager?

He was a tabloid journalist. Worked for the National Enquirer and the Globe. He had a habit of taping his conversations and when he died his tapes were inherited by Paul Barresi. There are a couple of convos on them about MJ too, but nothing that implicates him. Actually on the contrary.

There is this:

During Jackson’s 2005 trial, Fox News’ Roger Friedman met with a family, the Newts, who told him that when Jackson’s first scandal went public in 1993, the National Enquirer offered them $200,000 to say that in the 1980s the then 11-year-old twin boys of the family had been molested or improperly touched by Jackson. In the mid-80s the twin boys, Robert and Ronald Newt Jr. were aspiring child performers, managed by Michael Jackson’s father, Joseph Jackson. The Newts explained that the National Enquirer had learned that in 1985 they spent two weeks in the Jackson’s Encino family home as guests. They approached the family and offered the boys’ father, Ronald Newt Sr. $200,000 to say Michael Jackson was sexually inappropriate with his sons. Robert Newt was 18 years old in 1993 when he and his father were contacted by a National Enquirer reporter, Jim Mitteager, whom they agreed to meet with at the Marriot Hotel in San Francisco. Mitteager wanted to pay them to lie.
“He said, ‘Say he grabbed you on the butt. Say he grabbed you and touched you in any kind of way,'” Newt said. “He told us he took all these people down. Now he was going to take Michael down. That he would really destroy him. He told us he took all these other famous people down. All the major people that had scandals against them. He said, ‘We take these people down. That’s what we do.'” […] “My dad said these dudes are offering this money to take Michael Jackson down. And the guy [Mitteager] said, ‘Say he touched you. All you have to do is say it. But you might have to take the stand. You might have to go on ‘Oprah’ in front of all these people. You have to be prepared for this thing. Just say it. And we’ll give you money,'” Newt said.” [1]
According to Friedman, the Newts had evidence of their story, the contract that was given to them by Mitteager and signed by David Perel, who was the editor of the tabloid at the time. The Newts refused to sign the contract and told the tabloid that they were not willing to accuse Jackson of anything.
“The contract, written as a letter, says it’s an agreement between the tabloid and the Newts for their exclusive story regarding “your relationship with and knowledge of Michael Jackson, and his sexuality, your knowledge of Michael Jackson’s sexual contact and attempts at sexual contact with Robert Newt and others.” [1]
According to Robert Newt, Mitteager knew nothing had happened but wanted them to lie nevertheless:
“He didn’t care! He was like, ‘Just say it and we’ll give you the money.’ And I was like, ‘He [Jackson] never touched me!” Newt said. “He [Mitteager] was really fishing and really digging. Think about it — most people you say it to, ‘We’ll give you this money,’ even [if it’s not true]. And they’d take it.”
[…] “He was trying to coach me — if I decided to take the money, what would happen. He said ‘You know, it’s going to be a huge scandal. You’ll probably have a lot of people not liking you. You’re going to be famous!’ But to me, you’d be ruined. And the truth is Michael didn’t do anything even close to trying to molest us.” [1]
Friedman had another piece of evidence, independent from the Newts, to back up their story: Mitteager had a habit of taping his conversations. After he died, his tapes were handed over to private investigator, Paul Barresi. Those tapes, according to Friedman, included Mitteager’s negotiations with the Newts.
The Newts’ story is not unique and could be considered the norm in the media’s handling of the allegations against Michael Jackson. In 1993, Jackson’s cousin, Tim Whitehead disclosed to Geraldo Riveira’s television show that he was offered $100,000 by a tabloid to say Jackson was gay. In the same episode, television show actor Alfonso Ribeiro, who as a child in 1984 appeared in a Pepsi commercial with Jackson (and who is best known for his role as Carlton in the Will Smith sitcom, The Fresh Prince of Bel Air) told that his father “was offered $100,000 by a tabloid to say anything negative about Michael Jackson”. Whitehead and Ribeiro firmly stated that they never saw Jackson act sexually inappropriate with any child and they never felt uncomfortable around him. [2]
Not everyone resisted the temptation of the money being offered by the tabloids. Many of these people, however, were quickly ruled out as credible witnesses even by this prosecution’s low standard for credibility.

http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/the-medias-role-in-the-allegations-against-michael-jackson/

And he also had a couple of conversations with Pellicano on those tapes. Again, nothing bad - on the contrary: Pellicano is heard defending MJ on those tapes. For example this was a convo taped in September 1994 (long after Pellicano left MJ's team):

“PELLICANO: You have to understand something. I have nine kids. Michael [Jackson] plays with my baby. They crawl all over him. They pull his hair. They pull his nose. Sometimes he wears a bandage across his face. If I let my own kids (unintelligible) do you think there’s a chance? MITTEAGER: Well, all things being equal, I would say, no. PELLICANO: Not only that. If you sat this kid [Jordie Chandler] down like I did, as a matter of fact, he couldn’t wait to get up and go play video games. I said, “you don’t understand how serious this is. Your dad [Evan Chandler] is going to accuse Michael of sexual molestation. He going to say all kinds of stuff.” He [Jordie] says, “Yeah, my dad’s trying to get money.” As a matter of fact, I (unintelligible) for 45 minutes. Then I tried tricking him. I mean, I want you to know, I’m a vegetarian. I picked this kid with a fine tooth comb. So we’re there (unintelligible) with this kid… and If you sat down and talked to this kid, there wouldn’t be any doubt in your mind either. And I said Michael is all upset. We went over and over. I tried to get him to sit down and he wants to play video games while I’m sitting there. I’m sitting there with the kid’s mother [June Chandler] and David Schwartz walks in and (unintelligible) what’s this all about? And [Barry] Rothman (unintelligible) asking questions. There is no question that Rothman (unintelligible) what this is all about.”


And there are a number of other conversations on those tapes which shed light on where certain rumours came from - for example those 2013 so called "FBI files". Details here: http://michaeljacksonallegations.co...o-silence-them-after-he-sexually-abused-them/


See this is when I stop getting them, I can understand some people are misinformed and hate him for the things they think he did. But some of those haters (including the prosecution) plant evidences, pay witnesses, fake documents... These actions show they got nothing to do with justice. Something else is driving them. This is one of the reasons why I think the person behind MJFacts is not a random hater from the internet.

Yes, it's not about the truth to these people. It's about wanting to destroy the reputation of MJ for some odd, personal issue they have against him.

I also remember when one of them set up a fake Twitter account pretending to be Ray Chandler.
 
Last edited:
That letter looks like they used a random legal letter as a template re: payment and re-worded it. As respect mentioned, aside from it being highly unlikely that anything of that nature would be in a letter like that, it reads as far too casual to be taken seriously. Love the "kind regards" bit on the end. :hysterical:
 
He was a tabloid journalist. Worked for the National Enquirer and the Globe. He had a habit of taping his conversations and when he died his tapes were inherited by Paul Barresi. There are a couple of convos on them about MJ too, but nothing that implicates him. Actually on the contrary.

There is this:



http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/the-medias-role-in-the-allegations-against-michael-jackson/

And he also had a couple of conversations with Pellicano on those tapes. Again, nothing bad - on the contrary: Pellicano is heard defending MJ on those tapes. For example this was a convo taped in September 1994 (long after Pellicano left MJ's team):




And there are a number of other conversations on those tapes which shed light on where certain rumours came from - for example those 2013 so called "FBI files". Details here: http://michaeljacksonallegations.co...o-silence-them-after-he-sexually-abused-them/


Thank you for that. These 2 stories are very good (in a way... lol)

Sounds like Mitteager was very involved for a reporter. The NE is a very disturbing tabloid... Their attacks are personal.

When did he die? The tapes are in the media hands now?

Did they call Pellicano to take the stand in the 2005 case?

I'm going to check the blog post later... Who's behind michaeljacksonallegations?



Yes, it's not about the truth to these people. It's about wanting to destroy the reputation of MJ for some odd, personal issue they have against him.

I also remember when one of them set up a fake Twitter account pretending to be Ray Chandler.

LOL! How lame one must be to pretend to be someone like Ray Chandler.
 
When did he die? The tapes are in the media hands now?

I'm not sure when exactly he died, but I think towards the end of the 90s.


Did they call Pellicano to take the stand in the 2005 case?

No. He was in jail for illegal wire-taping and illegal possession of weapons. (He still is in jail.) Also, he was not needed in 2005.


I'm going to check the blog post later... Who's behind michaeljacksonallegations?

Me and two others (don't want to post who they without their permission).
 
No. He was in jail for illegal wire-taping and illegal possession of weapons. (He still is in jail.) Also, he was not needed in 2005.

Oh... :( That's too bad. 10 years jail time for it?

Me and two others (will only post who they are if they agree).

Let them know your work is not taken for granted. Thank you!
 
Back
Top