#gavin arvizo

[hello-nichya-here]

My love for MJ aside, speaking purely as someone who is looking into all the accusations against him and trying to be as unbiased as possible, it's CRAZY how the fans are labeled as being "in denial about the truth" when they are clearly correct in saying there's more than enough proof of his innocence.

Literally EVERYTHING is on Michael's side: eye-witnesses, videos, recorded phone calls, documents, and well-over a decade of FBI investigations, all of which contradict every single part of the stories about the supposed child abuse.

The proof of his innocence goes from "The pictures police took of Michael's genitals did not match the description the kid provided" to "This family that claims Michael kidnapped them and forced them to sell all their stuff, including their house, so they'd be dependent on him was confirmed to be lying since they still owned all the things they said they were forced to sell", all the way to "Michael wasn't even in the same country as the supposed victim at the time, and in fact, the very ROOM in which the the abuse allegedly happened did not even exist yet"

Not to mention proof that first "victim" (Jordan Chandler) was coerced by his abusive father into accusing Michael, that the family of the second "victim" (Gavin Arvizo) already having a history of scams that included lying about sexual abuse, and the Leaving Neverland documentary (that talks about the alledged abuse of James Safechuck and Wade Robson) was discovered to be copying an erotic book written by a confessed pedophile that wanted to share his fantasies about Michael abusing children.

Meanwhile all the people who say he was guilty have as proof is "Well, I saw an interview with the pedo that wrote that pornographic book and assumed it was true" or "I heard on a TV show 30 years ago that he was guilty and paid hush money to the victims and never checked that the investigation was still going and that the boy was even allowed to testify in court if he wanted to" or "This maid that was fired for stealing stuff from Michael's home claims she saw him molesting Jordan Chandler in Neverland - even though Jordan says he was abused during the tour, not in Neverland, so even if you were to believe his story you'd still have to assume this woman is lying."

It really is no wonder the 1993 and 2013 allegations did not even managed to get a proper trial with how little there was to work with, and the 2005 one led to Michael being found innocent of all charges in record time - I strongly suspect that if it wasn't for the former case, it wouldn't even have made it to court in the first place either with how nonsensical it was.

[dukeofdelirium]

You ever done a summary of all the allegations, about all the accusers? Like, what they alleged? Did there seem to be any pattern? Were any of them somewhat believable? Did any witness seem credible?

I have made threads for both the Chandler allegations as well as the Arvizo allegations. I was going to make threads on Safechuck and Robson but then I had a death in the family and never got around to it. I could still make them if I have enough interest and engagement. Lemme know if y’all want me to, and I will.

My Chandler thread ☝🏻

My Arvizo thread ☝🏻

Here’s another post I made talking about the “documentary” Leaving Neverland though I didn’t go into extensive details because that would be quite a long read.

I have lots of other posts but nothing compiled as extensively like the above threads.

As for your questions, yes I have extensively researched these allegations and each individual case. The accusers all paint Michael in very different lights with different abuse patterns and grooming habits. They often contradict one another’s allegations.

For example: Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo never claimed they were anally raped by Michael. They just said they were touched by him. The only individual that ever claimed anal rape was Victor Gutierrez, a NAMBLA member and “journalist” that MJ sued for slander and libel and won… fyi NAMBLA stands for “North American Man Boy Love Association”. As in, it’s a pro-pedophilia group… he was a self admitted pedophile and made up lies that MJ anally raped Jordan Chandler, despite Jordan never saying this. Jordan even signed legal declarations saying this was untrue…

So isn’t it strange then, that Wade and James allege that MJ anally raped them? The first two accusers never said that. But suddenly they switch up his alleged abuse habits.

They stole the stories from Gutierrez, who wrote a child porn book full of lies like this. They also stole many other stories from this book.

In order to attack the allegations against MJ, you must aim for the origin. The first allegation. The Chandler allegations. Which I have thoroughly discredited on here in numerous posts. If that allegation is false, and there is every reason to believe it is, then every other one crumbles. They’re all built off of that first allegation.

And lastly, no, there are no credible witnesses. The prosecution of 2005’s trial were so lacking in evidence that they brought in witnesses that even the tabloid media didn’t trust. All of these witnesses (including the Neverland 5 that I have a link to in my Chandler thread) splattered under cross examination. They sold stories to tabloids, and depending on the amount of money being offered, the stories would change or grow in intensity.

The prosecution had witnesses that all claimed they witnessed with their own eyes Michael molesting Macaulay Culkin, Wade Robson and Brett Barnes.

The defense then had their first three witnesses testify: Mac, Wade, and Brett. All three vehemently denied being molested, and Wade Robson himself testified as Michael Jackson’s star witness.

To entertain Michael Jackson’s guilt is insanity. No rational, sane person could believe these allegations when seriously scrutinizing them. They require time travel and teleportation to be truthful. They don’t conform to the facts of these cases, they don’t conform to reality, and they don’t conform to logic.

[sparkles-bomb]

That one kid in my sisters class: Elvis or Micheal jackson?

My sister: Priscilla and Gavin Arvizo

[thekiddisnotmyson]

I really don't understand guilters logic proving Mjs guilt with the bed sharing.

Because Bed ≠ Sex

He didn't invite children in his bed, the kids wanted to and the parents allowed it. So if the parents trust him after spending much time with him. I don't see the issue they have. They could always walk in.

They said they saw Michael as family. So the argument they make that if it was some dirty mechanic you wouldn't overlook it doesn't make much sense either. Because why would kids want to spend time with some mechanic?

Or would you allow a stranger to sleep in a bed with your kid? No! Tf? These are strangers. But Michael wasn't to them.

This whole thing guilters do trying to trap fans into making them into these crazy fans that just overlook him 'sleeping in bed with children' because he is famous.

And if Mj was this Mastermind hiding his abuse why would he admit something that could be viewed so questionable giving the circumstances he was in?

And of course some still use the clip with Gavin Arvizo which was edited!

[mjnotinnocent]

The article “Ron Zonen and Thomas Mesereau Offer Their Opinion on Wade Robson” explores the contrasting perspectives of two key legal figures from Michael Jackson’s 2005 criminal trial—prosecutor Ron Zonen and defence attorney Thomas Mesereau—regarding Wade Robson’s testimony and subsequent allegations of abuse. Drawing from a 2019 Vanity Fair interview, the piece uses their divergent views to highlight the complexities of interpreting courtroom behaviour and the broader implications for public understanding of the case.

Ron Zonen, who prosecuted Jackson on behalf of Gavin Arvizo, is unequivocal in his belief that Robson lied under oath in 2005 when he denied being abused. Zonen recalls that the prosecution team was convinced Robson had been a victim of long-term sexual abuse and that his demeanour on the stand—marked by visible discomfort—reinforced their suspicions. He describes Robson’s testimony as that of someone “answering questions falsely” and asserts that the prosecution had “no doubt” he was lying to protect Jackson.

In stark contrast, Thomas Mesereau, Jackson’s lead defence attorney, offers a glowing assessment of Robson’s performance. He explains that he deliberately chose Robson as his first witness because of his unwavering support for Jackson. Mesereau describes Robson as articulate, intelligent, and sincere, and insists that Robson was adamant in his denial of any inappropriate conduct by Jackson. From Mesereau’s perspective, Robson’s testimony was a cornerstone of the defence’s case and a testament to Jackson’s innocence.

The article cautions readers against taking either lawyer’s opinion at face value. It argues that both men were operating within the constraints of their professional roles—Zonen as a prosecutor seeking conviction, and Mesereau as a defence attorney aiming for acquittal. Their interpretations of Robson’s testimony were inevitably shaped by their strategic objectives. The piece suggests that lawyers, by nature of their profession, often present selective narratives that serve their client’s interests, and that their retrospective commentary should be viewed through this lens.

Furthermore, the article critiques the tendency of pro-Jackson documentaries—such as Square One and the forthcoming Taj Jackson project—to present figures like Mesereau and defence investigator Scott Ross as impartial arbiters of truth. It argues that these productions rarely include voices from law enforcement or independent experts, instead relying on individuals with vested interests in preserving Jackson’s legacy.

In conclusion, the article underscores the importance of critical thinking when evaluating legal commentary, especially in high-profile cases involving celebrity figures. It posits that while both Zonen and Mesereau offer valuable insights, their perspectives are ultimately shaped by their roles in the adversarial legal process. The piece encourages readers to seek a more balanced understanding by considering a wider range of sources, including those outside Jackson’s inner circle.

[laverdad-sobre-michaeljackson]

¿Como fue todo el asunto de J.C Penney y Janet Arvizo?

Hola.

Básicamente, en 2001 los Arvizo llevaron a juicio civil a los almacenes JC Penney alegando que habían sido golpeados en el parqueadero por los guardias de seguridad y que habían acosado sexualmente a Janet, todo, al parecer, porque Gavin había salido de la tienda con ropa que no había pagado. La evidencia eran las fotos de los morados en el cuerpo de ella. Gracias a un acuerdo civil, ellos recibieron 152.500 dólares.

Ahora, durante el juicio de Jackson, la defensa alegó que esa historia había sido inventada por Janet para recibir dinero de los almacenes y que los moretones que tenia eran producto del abuso fisico al que era sometida por su esposo de ese entonces, David Arvizo. A grandes rasgos, esto fue lo que paso durante el juicio:

Acerca de las fotos, Mesereau alegó que habían sido tomadas semanas después del incidente y la fiscalia alegó que solo habían sido tomadas unos días después. Ninguna de las dos partes ofreció evidencia clara de cuando exactamente fueron tomadas.

Mary Holzer, quien había sido asistente del abogado de la familia en el caso contra los almacenes dijo que Janet había mentido bajo juramento durante las deposiciones de esa demanda, pues ella negó que estaba siendo victima de abuso físico por su esposo y se refirió en buenos términos de él. Janet admitió esto durante su contra interrogatorio y explicó que en ese entonces lo negó porque le causaba vergüenza y por miedo. Aun así ella no admitió que esos golpes de las fotos hubieran sido infligidos por su esposo.

Ahora sobre los chicos, Gavin y Star, ellos también habían negado haber sido golpeados por su padre, porque tenían miedo a represalias por parte de él. A Star Arvizo se le preguntó en el stand si a él se le había indicado mentir en el pleito de los almacenes pero él dijo que no recordaba, porque había pasado hacia 5 años y él era pequeño.

Puedes leer el testimonio de ese asunto en las siguientes transcripciones:

Marzo 4 2005

Marzo 9 2005

Mayo 24 2005

[dukeofdelirium]

Lowkey, Michael would be an interesting type pedophile if he filmed himself abusing a kid then be like “Oh, shit, I can’t believe I did that,” and record over it (one of the claims Safecuck gave). Like ain’t he supposed to be the most prolific pedo in the world and yet was so scared of getting caught that he doesn’t have film evidence unlike the majority of predators?

It makes no sense lmao like, seriously, Safechuck and Robson’s claims are ridiculous.

They allege that Neverland Ranch was some sophisticated child trafficking ring yet they don’t realize that not only did Michael have TONS of cameras hidden all over the property, but he also had hundreds of employees.

Not only did Jackson have personal employees that worked at this ranch, but he also employed Police officers and the Fire Department who were there 24/7 by legal requirement…. So alleging that Michael abused children at Neverland Ranch is not only claiming that his 100+ personal employees were in on the crime and covering it up, but it’s also implementing that the fucking COPS were in on it. The very SAME COPS that hunted Michael Jackson for over a decade for the allegations that he sexually abused kids!

So how does that make even the tiniest fraction of sense?????

Even if Michael didn’t personally and intimately film these alleged acts, it still would have been caught on film… because there were so many cameras.

70+ sheriffs raided his properties 5 different times over the span of a decade. These were surprise raids. Something would have been found had these allegations been based on truth.

This isn’t even getting into the dozens of holes in their timelines, etc.

James claimed he was raped hundreds of times in a building that didn’t even exist at the time. Wade claims Michael never allowed him near girls even though Michael literally set him and Brandi Jackson up. Brandi dated Wade for TEN YEARS and did so consistently. How could that be possible if Michael kept him from girls and how is it that she wouldn’t have known what was going on??? Makes no sense.

Gavin Arvizo’s case also made no sense. That’s why the conspiracy charge was added, bc the Santa Barbara police broke a search warrant and went into an office they didn’t have the right to enter and they found an alibi for Michael because the family literally filmed a video DEFENDING MJ. So they were forced to change the timeline of alleged abuse, so what they ended up going to court with was a timeline as such: “Michael Jackson began molesting Gavin Arvizo only AFTER he was being investigated by the FBI, CPS, LAPD and the Santa Barbara police department.”

????? Make it make sense. Ah yes, prolific child molester Michael Jackson decided to molest a child only after the entire world was watching him and he was actively being investigated for such crimes.

Michael Jackson, a man so intelligent and precise that he waited to bust out the moonwalk until the exact moment he knew it would catapult him to global superstardom, a man who was so good at business that he ended up owning 50% of the entire music industry, just so happened to commit a crime that would destroy his career and put him in prison only once the entire world was looking at him to see if he did something. Because that makes a lick of sense.

[phantom-of-the-north]

Me sleeping peacefully at night knowing I blocked a whole crowd of MJ guilters in the notes 🤣

[mnmnblog]

the facts:

- in 1992, michael jackson began a friendship with longtime fan jordan chandler who often slept in the same room as him when in the michael jackson “neverland ranch” estate

- in 1993, evan chandler, jordan’s father who was divorced, “allegedly” became suspicious of something more than a friendship between the two and begins legal action and demanded $30 million

- jordan describes being molested by michael jackson in 1993 during the court case

- LAPD begins an investigation and Brett and Wade Robson says they have slept in the same bed as michael and never were molested; he was a father figure

- michael’s maid’s son, Jason Francia; a frequent visitor of neverland ranch, was interviewed and EVENTUALLY discloses that michael molested him (and repeats this same confession in 2005) and his mother, the maid, admits she had seen michael be inappropriate with several boys but did not come forward until she heard about the chandler family’s allegations

- 1993: michael jackson insists he is innocent in a strip-search by the LAPD police, describes it as the most humiliating thing in his life, yet is declined indictment in 1994

- in 2003 a documentary of “living with michael jackson” airs and shows him tucking in a boy, a cancer patient Gavin Arvizo, who is at neverland ranch during many sleepovers and nothing sexual happens

- in 2003 another investigation is started after the documentary airs and Gavin Arvizo is interviewed and eventually comes forward saying that michael molested him and Gavin’s mother claims that he essentially held the family captive at neverland ranch despite michael denying this

- late 2003 jackson is charged with lewd and lascivious acts with a child under the age of 14, trial begins in 2005

- in the 2005 trial, jay leno, chris tucker, and macauly culkin stand and say these accusations are blasphemous, and even wade robson stands in defense of jackson saying they had slept in the same bed over 20 times and nothing happened

- michael is found not guilty

- in 2013 wade robson sued the estate of michael jackson saying he was molested over a 7 year period and claimed jackson have him oral telling him “this is how we show love” and claims he thought the relationship was consensual until he had his own child and realized that was not normal

- in 2014 james safechuck sues the estate claiming that over a 4 year period michael sexually abused him over 100 times

- in 2017 all charges were dropped as too much time had elapsed for the estate to be found criminally liable

- in the documentary that came out semi-recently, Leaving Neverland, the film mainly focuses on wade robson and james safechuck and follows their childhood in neverland ranch and they claim to have denied these allegations initially due to a “need to compartmentalize the alleged abuse” and swear that it did indeed happen

- jackson paid HUGE sums of money to during each trial to the families (chandlers and francia) to avoid, as he claims, something “long and drawn out”

- the hallway of neverland ranch going to the bedroom had lots of security so one could hear if someone was coming

- jackson had erotic material in a suitcase by his bed and did find fingerprints of the young boys along with jackson’s on the erotic magazines

- the families of these boys were given expensive trips and gifts

- both fathers of the boys chandler and wade committed suicide

source: rolling stone and vanity fair

the speculation:

- wade robson’s father, dennis, was molested himself as a child and did not tell anyone for 30 years

- dennis also praised michael for helping his son and says he has bipolar disorder [dennis committed suicide in 2002]

- robson and safechuck DID say under oath initially that jackson did not touch them

- jordan chandler did not initially state there was any foul play, but his father did and was the one to start the legal battle and was not always present in their home life until his son befriended michael jackson

- it is claimed that the initial confession of jordan’s abuse happened when his father, who was a dentist, gave him a minor dental procedure that involved sodium amytal (a drug that can induce false memories and suggestions)

- evan chandler often took advantage of michael jackson’s kindness involving money

- when jordan confessed to a psychiatrist the abuse by michael jackson in 1993 (which had to be reported as the psychiatrist was a mandatory reporter) evan was in custody of jordan and did not have to return him to his mother

- jason francia’s confession was eventually put into light after the police told jason during questioning that jackson had abused macaulay culkin and that corey feldman had a drug problem due to michael jackson’s abuse

- during the trial in 2005, the description of michael’s genitalia given by jordan was “relatively similar” to what it actually was

- michael suffered from vitiligo which was a skin color altering disease which jordan could have used since it was seen in other areas of his body, as said by the defense, to assume where it was on his genitalia

- jordan described michael as being circumcised but, as michael’s autopsy showed, he was not

- 5 staff members sued jackson for a large amount of money due to wrongful termination and claimed that michael had abused the children but had not said anything at the time of the alleged abuse and ultimately lost their lawsuit

- michael jackson had to settle with the families due to being denied a civil trial after the criminal trial and was adamant about not wanting to settle due to being innocent

- wade robson described how he was first abused for 5 days while his family was at the grand canyon without him but his mother, a few months earlier, had said that the entire family went to the grand canyon yet then recanted and said they had left wade with michael

- james “suddenly realized” that he was molested all over neverland ranch after his initial statement came out; including places that did not exist within neverland ranch at the time he claims he was abused

- michael jackson has defended himself in several tv interviews and continually disputes them saying that he is innocent

source: mjinnocent.com, and “proof that michael jackson is innocent” 30 min youtube video, and more

[mjnotinnocent]

The article “Jordan Chandler Never Recanted His Allegations” addresses a persistent myth within Michael Jackson’s fan community: that Jordan Chandler, the boy at the centre of the 1993 sexual abuse allegations, later publicly retracted his claims and admitted they were fabricated under pressure from his father, Evan Chandler. The piece methodically dismantles this narrative, arguing that it is entirely unfounded and has been perpetuated through misinformation, misinterpretation, and wishful thinking.

The article begins by acknowledging the widespread belief—particularly among Jackson’s defenders—that Jordan Chandler confessed to lying about the abuse. This rumour often includes the claim that Evan Chandler coerced his son into making false allegations for financial gain. However, the author challenges this premise by pointing out that Evan was a successful Beverly Hills dentist with high-profile clients, making the notion of financial desperation implausible. Furthermore, the Chandlers were represented by prominent legal figures such as Gloria Allred and Larry Feldman, suggesting they had the means and credibility to pursue a serious legal case.

The article then traces the origins of the recantation myth to the period following Jackson’s death in 2009, when efforts to rehabilitate his public image intensified. Despite the rumour’s popularity, the author notes that no reputable news outlet has ever reported a confession or retraction from Jordan Chandler. This absence is particularly telling given the intense media scrutiny surrounding Jackson’s life and legacy. If such a retraction had occurred, it would likely have been widely reported.

To further debunk the myth, the article cites a 2009 interview with Raymond Chandler, Jordan’s uncle, who explicitly denied that either Jordan or Evan had ever retracted their allegations. Raymond stated, “There have been all these reports saying that Evan and Jordy had retracted [the abuse allegations]. Well, I can tell you there has been no retraction. My brother always maintained that his son was molested.” This statement directly contradicts the fan-driven narrative and reinforces the original claims.

The article also references fact-checking site Snopes, which investigated the rumour and concluded it was false. Snopes found that the claim originated from a single, poorly worded blog post that was copied across multiple websites without verification. The lack of any corroborating evidence or media coverage led Snopes to categorise the story as a hoax.

Interestingly, even The Michael Jackson Allegations—a fan-run website dedicated to defending Jackson—acknowledges that the recantation story is untrue. This rare moment of agreement between opposing camps underscores the baselessness of the rumour.

The article concludes by addressing the silence of both Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo (Jackson’s 2005 accuser), noting that neither has made public statements in recent years. However, the author argues that this silence should not be interpreted as a retraction. On the contrary, it is likely a response to the intense harassment and threats both individuals have faced from Jackson’s fanbase. A poignant example is cited: in 2017, Jordan’s sister Lily Chandler requested a judge to prevent Wade Robson’s legal team from seeking a statement from Jordan, citing the emotional toll and desire for privacy.

In summary, the article presents a compelling case that Jordan Chandler has never recanted his allegations against Michael Jackson. It frames the recantation myth as a product of denialism and celebrity worship, urging readers to rely on verifiable facts rather than comforting fictions.

[hello-nichya-here]

Michael Jackson being innocent is one of my autism things as well, but I doubt myself when it comes to explaining things, so I usually just link people to those Razorfist videos I sent you that one time if the topic comes up for me.

Ah yes, said videos are part of my research on literally ALL the information I can find about the cases.

Somehow, no matter how many videos, documentaries, and articles I go through I ALWAYS find yet another thing that shows how ridiculous the accusations against him are.

Forget even keeping a minimally coherent, believable lie - these people left a trail of evidence agaisnt themselves, yet you still have idiots CONVINCED that the evidence is on their side instead of Michael's.

[dukeofdelirium]

I’ve seen a lot of your MJ stuff, and there’s a lot of things I have to say (Don’t worry, I’m not an anti lol)

Looking back on the Leaving Neverland BS, I realized that every time one of these guys open their mouths, it’s like we’re talking about different predators. From what I remember, none of them had a “relationship” sense until Safechuck (He said it if felt like they were dating, and saying they started having sex not soon after they met, if I’m not mistaken). With Wade, it was simple touching, before it escalated to actual penetration one time after a few years (Not completely, btw). Chandler and Arvizo never made claims of anything of that nature, if I’m not mistaken. Other smaller accusations also don’t make sense, like Terry George being the only kid Michael had phone sex with.

Speaking more on this, it should ring some alarm bells on the fact that Michael has no straight M.O or “A.O.A”, which is weird in my opinion. Like I said before, it seems like we’re talking about different predators, and how we have no clear age he would be attracted to if we should believe all the allegations. First, it was 13, then 7-14, then 7-18 (Thanks to Safechuck’s train station story), then for some reason, a girl (even though he’s supposed to be attracted to boys, but okay).

Real quick, what do you think about the rumors that Frank Cascio had sued the estate, and it apparently bringing up his own version of allegations, and apparently selling his own collection of Michael items a while back (just like Wade).

On a lighter note, every now and then, I remember this one post (although I’m not sure if it’s true) that when the authorities were going over Michael’s tapes, there was one named “baby chicks” (which is a name predators apparently like to name CSA content with little girls). When they thought they had something, they played it, and it turned out to be hours of baby chickens and ducks that Michael had recording.

oh thank god lmao I saw this message in my notifs and thought “here we go again” until I opened it 😭

You got a lot of things to say? Speak on it bestie, cuz I ALSO got lots to say so I’d be more than happy to talk

It’s true that each one of Michael Jackson’s accusers try to paint him as a very different type of serial pedophile with very different tactics of abuse and grooming. James Safechuck literally pulled out a ring on camera and said Michael gave it to him to represent their eternal love or some shit 😭😭😭 LMAOO I canttttt with these cunts

BITCH WHAT THE FUCK LMAOOOO he had a little box and everything on standby it fucking SENDSSSSS MEEEEEE

Who the actual fuck would ever keep a PROMISE RING that their rapist gave them 27 years ago ?!!?!!!? 😭😭😭😭😭 HELP

Wade also tries to make comments in Leaving Neverland alluding to this idea that he had some sort of romantic relationship with MJ. Both of them do in their wording. Wade and James are all like “yeah Michael Jackson anally raped us but we liked it. We wanted him to keep doing it. We were jealous of Macaulay and Brett bc he was replacing us with them”

and Michael was friends w Brett and Macaulay first 😂 so how did he manage to “replace” them w Mac and Brett ???

Anyway, the whole reason Wade and James sound like they’re alleging they had intimate romantic relationships w MJ is because they both steal their stories from that book “Michael Jackson was my lover” written by Victor Gutierrez who was literally a pedophile and NAMBLA member. MJ sued him over this disgusting kiddie porn book he published in 1997 and he WON and was awarded 2.7 million in damages. Gutierrez fucked off back to Chile and filed bankruptcy and then got caught coaching little boys to lie and say politicians had sexually abused them.

Literally, Wade and Jame’s claims come directly from this sickening book. Idk if you know about this book, but Gutierrez alleged it was Jordan Chandler’s secret diary he wrote about his relationship w MJ. In the book it talks about their relationship as being intimate and romantic, the wording says shit like how MJ being a pedo will hopefully make pedophilia acceptable in society, and Gutierrez also directly thanks NAMBLA in said book in the acknowledgements.

The claims that MJ gifted boys jewelry after sex, the claim of wedding vows/marriage, the claim of jealousy over Mac and Brett, and the claim of anal rape are all in this book. This is the only place these claims were ever made until Wade and James came out after MJ died. Jordan Chandler himself signed legal declarations in the mid 90’s stating this “diary” and these claims were untrue. So did the other members of the Chandler family.

Anyway…. If I continue I will literally not shut up so let’s move forward w another section of your ask lololol.

“Then for some reason a girl” LMAOOOO YES I KNOW 😭😭😭😭 I remember when that random person came forward trying to say MJ abused her but she wouldn’t reveal her face/name and then after a little while the claims just disappeared entirely lol. You know what I think it is? I think Wade or James filed that themselves pretending to be a woman in the suit and they did it to try and make their shit more believable somehow cuz idiots think “more accusers = more truthful claims” but it actually did the opposite lol bc for 30 years, Michael Jackson has been lynch mobbed as a pedophile attracted and preying on YOUNG BOYS and Only young boys. Never EVER girls. Ever! The media has run with this lie that MJ is obsessed with little boys for so long that Wade and co trying to disrupt that narrative w their bullshit made even some guilters pause and be like “hm that was a little sus”

Like which is it? Is MJ obsessed with little boys or did he rape little girls too? Lmao make up yalls minds !!!

“What do you think about the rumors of Frank Cascio”

I think they’re just that: rumors. I’ve never seen any proof to substantiate that claim. The only thing I know for sure about the Cascio’ is that they sold fake music recordings w an imposter after MJ died to his Estate for a quick buck. Bc like pretty much everybody else who was surrounding Michael save for a very small few, they too didn’t even wait till the man’s body was cold before they began sniffing around for ways to make money off him.

And lastly, as for that last story, I’ve never heard of that. I don’t think that’s true, bc I’ve never seen any evidence for it, but on the off chance that it is: that’s really funny and it is something I could picture 😂 sometimes I just imagine the sheriffs raiding Neverland Ranch and they’re ripping up the mattresses and tearing up the floor and going through everything comically pulling out dozens of heterosexual hustler and playboy mags 😭😭😭 like that episode of SpongeBob where he starts ripping off wallpaper and shit and it’s full of diapers lmao but instead of it being that it’s just tons of porn mags and they’re all like “why are there so many”

[jhl1031973]

What’s On My Mind Michael Jackson Edition #1

This will perhaps be my most controversial post so far. It may divide those people who follow my work. However, I feel I should express my views even if they differ from others. You may agree or disagree with me. That's your choice.

Michael Jackson passed away on June 25, 2009, eleven years-ago as of this writing. While he was an accomplished entertainer throughout his life. Fans like myself and casual observers have praised him for this. Yet, some of those people have also asked one question since 1993. Is Michael Jackson guilty of child abuse?

Now, Jackson was only human in spite of his enormous talent, but I personally believe Jackson is innocent due to inconsistencies in the accusers' stories. I've debated many of these with others over the years, Some of them are discussed much more eloquently in the videos linked below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnP7sx4smoc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXOfz1YkWeA&t=498s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5Wxz7nbaN4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxNDb2PVcoM

Now, I said that the video put my thoughts more eloquently. That does not mean I won't express my thoughts on Michael Jackson's innocence. First, before I continue, go ahead and watch the videos. I'll wait.

Much of the debunking Leaving Neverland videos and articles published state the glaring error of timing of the train station incident as perhaps the one of biggest lies told in that documentary. James Safechuck stated under oath in 2014 and later in LN that he was abused in 1988-1989 in a room in the Neverland train station inspired by the one at Disneyland before said station was even built. Construction on that ended sometime in 1994, with permits approved about one year beforehand. What's worse is Oprah Winfrey, who hosted the LN aftershow, even toured Neverland in 1993. She could have said something to Safechuck and the audience, but for reasons unknown, she did not. Director Dan Reed even admits that Safechuck lied by throwing him under the bus.

Safechuck's false claims are just the tip of the iceberg. Wade Robson, in addition to his accusations, stated under oath during Jackson's 2005 trial that nothing happened. Robson also dated Michael Jackson's niece and audition for various tributes to Jackson. Now I'm going to ask some questions because some things do not make sense to me. If Jackson abused Robson, why didn't he say so at the trial? He had the perfect opportunity. Also, why on earth would Robson date Jackson's niece if Jackson did the things he claimed?

I could go on and on. However, I want to be able to check sources more thoroughly before writing about them. This is something Dan Reed failed to do. In all fairness to Reed, he is probably a good film maker. I've never seen his work aside from LN clips in the videos linked above. Yet, from what I've seen of the debunking of Leaving Neverland, he seems to be a poor researcher and fact checker. If I wrote something in BACK ISSUE without proper research and fact checks, editor Michael Eury would not permit me to write for his magazine anymore.

I believe Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo also lied about Michael Jackson abusing them. If Jackson is guilty of anything, it's being too trusting of people and not learning from his mistakes. Had he at least done the latter of those two things, perhaps he wouldn't have been on trial in 2005, and perhaps he might still be alive to entertain the world.

[mjnotinnocent]

The article “Jenny Winings: The Storyteller” offers a critical examination of Jenny Winings, a devoted Michael Jackson fan who features briefly in the pro-Jackson documentary Square One. The piece scrutinises both her personal anecdote about visiting Neverland Ranch and the broader implications of her inclusion in Jackson’s 2005 defence witness list.

The narrative begins in March 2003, when Winings and a group of friends travelled to Neverland Ranch following the fallout from the Living with Michael Jackson documentary. According to her account, their car broke down near the gates of the estate, where they coincidentally encountered Jackson himself, accompanied by Gavin Arvizo—the boy at the centre of the 2005 criminal trial. Jackson allegedly invited them to join him on a trip to Toys “R” Us and later welcomed them back to Neverland, where they spent the night in the estate’s theatre. Winings’ stay lasted less than 24 hours, yet this brief encounter led to her being listed as a potential defence witness in the 2005 trial.

The article challenges the credibility and significance of Winings’ inclusion on the witness list. It reveals that the list contained a staggering 459 names, many of whom were never called to testify or even interviewed in depth. The prosecution criticised the list as bloated and lacking in substance, noting that over 300 individuals had not provided any formal statements or reports. Although Winings and fellow Square One contributor Josephine Zohny were among the few who did submit statements, the article argues that this does not equate to credibility or relevance—especially since neither was ultimately called to testify.

The piece also critiques Winings’ appearance in Square One, describing her video-call interview as unprofessional and her testimony as anecdotal rather than evidentiary. She claims that her presence at Neverland on 9–10 March 2003 disproves the timeline of Arvizo’s abuse, which allegedly continued until 12 March. However, the article points out that her brief stay and limited access to Jackson’s private quarters make it implausible for her to offer definitive insight into what did or did not occur during that period.

Ultimately, the article frames Winings’ story as emblematic of a broader pattern in Jackson’s defence strategy: the elevation of peripheral figures with tenuous connections to the case in order to create the illusion of overwhelming support. It suggests that her inclusion in Square One serves more as a symbolic gesture than a substantive contribution to the discourse, reinforcing the documentary’s bias rather than offering meaningful evidence.