Arguementation Speech (MJ Related)


New member
Hey Everyone,
I know it has been awhile since I've been here, the truth is I need your help. I have a Arguementation I need to write in a few weeks (well it's more like an outline) and I'm going to do my speech on the 1993/2004 allegations against Michael. So I was just wondering if my fellow MJ fans will help me gather information/news articles/excerpts from Redemption and finally Jordan Chandler's confession. If you guys would help me I would be so grateful!!! I'm just so overwhelmed I don't even know where to begin. Thanks so much in advance!!!


New member
Im sure you know about the GQ article by now, it's the most well-known one about the allegations in 93....It's VERY extensive and covers everything and leaves no doubt whatsoever that Michael was innocent. It's called "Was Michael Jackson Framed?" by Mary Fischer, and it's absolutely required reading IMO.
^Here's a link, but if you don't want to read it in forum-format, there are tons of other results if you Google it.

Hope that helps? Lol.


New member
I highly recommend showing the comparison between Jordan's description of Michael and the autopsy results, as it CLEARLY proves that Jordan was wrong about circumcision, as he specifically stated in his description that Michael was circumcised, and his autopsy clearly states he wasn't. FAIL
I'd also recommend pointing out the demeanor of Sneddon, especially when Michael first got arrested. He was making jokes about Michael, calling him wacko J****, acting like Michael was already guilty ('we got him!'). That man was putting it into peoples heads from the start that Michael was guilty, so we'd all think he was, and Michael would have more chance of being destroyed. How he was allowed to get away with that is beyond me.
Also there is Aphrodite Jones' book, which was written from court transcripts and documents. Other people tried to write books about the trial but the judge wouldn't allow it because they were trying to make Michael look guilty. Aphrodite WAS allowed to write her book because she was telling the truth. The problem was that because she was writing in favour of Michael, no book company would sign her, whereas jurors who wanted to write books with the opposite theme had book deals before the trial was even over.

Then there is the money. Everyone's argument seems to be 'well if Michael is so innocent why did he give them money?'. Well if Michael is so guilty, why did they take it? They allowed this man to get away with what Michael apparently did, in turn allowing more people to be molested, and even then they refused to testify against him.
And for the record, it was not actually MICHAEL who paid them off, he wanted to fight the charges. It was his solicitors (?). They could have had their cake and eaten it too. They had years to reopen the case, even AFTER they'd been paid. They could have had him locked up and then sued him $20 million on psychological damages, or earned it through interviews and book deals, while at the same time making sure a paedophile is locked away for good. But no.
Evan Chandler tried suing Michael $60 million, 3 times the original payment settlement, because he 'breached the gag order'. That was in court for years. The allegations never even WENT to court. Why? Because they got money. They were happy to take the money, and then sue for more money, but not get this man locked away for a horrific crime. One of the Chandlers even wrote the book All That Glitters, about the apparent relationship Michael and Jordan had. Why write a book about it? If you have THAT MUCH evidence, if you are THAT determined to show his guilt, newsflash- take him to court and have him locked up where he belongs.

The FBI files released showed that nothing was ever found against Michael. There were 2 PDs and the FBI after Michael for years, and they found nothing. No DNA evidence, no video evidence, no confessions, no child porn, nothing. The only hard 'evidence' they found was Gavin's fingerprints on a pornography magazine. That was proven to be falsified evidence, due to the fact that the date on the magazine (August 2003) completely contradicted the story of what apparently happened as according to what they testified, they were long gone from Michael's home before August that year. Then during cross examination it was found that the magazine had been tested AFTER Gavin had to opportunity to handle it during the initial investigation.
There is also of course the matter of prosecution witnesses being paid to testify, and a lot of witnesses- including Martin Bashir and ex-employees- who went to the MEDIA before they ever went to the police about what they apparently knew. Some of those employees testified they had SEEN Michael molest children. And they did NOTHING? Give me a break. Even Bashit only testified because he was forced to do so. And didn't he make an apology to the Jackson's after Michael died? Why would he do that if he REALLY thought Michael was guilty?

Anyway, I could go on and on and on, and I am only repeating myself. But I hope there is some info you can get from that.


New member
When you say “Jordan Chandler’s confession” are you referring to his original claims of molestation, or the recanting of the molestation which was posted on blogs? If you are talking about the recant that information is false, JC has never publicly said Michael Jackson did not molest him.

I have a recommendation for your argumentation, talk about the 1993 case limitedly. This case does not have the burden of a trial to fully extract fact from fiction, and people know just enough to be dangerous. If you or anyone tries to argue for or against Michael Jackson almost everything will be speculation, and not proven fact because of the lack of a trial. Also like Mary K Fischer said, it is hard to prove a negative, and you will be at a disadvantage since Michael exculpatory evidence was never revealed. If you are going to talk about the 1993 case focus it only on the evidence allowed to be included in the 2005. Stick to the facts.

Just a recommendation focus your argument on the 2005 trial, you can’t lose because Michael didn’t. You could start your argument not at the beginning of the allegations, but in the middle working your way to the past, then back to the present, then the conclusion. Start with the Bashir Documentary because that set the stage for the trial, then mention the prior allegation of molestation which compounded the situation, and then conclude with why Michael Jackson won and the prosecution lost.

Incidentally what are you arguing specifically about in the 1993/2005 cases? Are you out to prove that MJ did not molest any boys? The role of the media? What is your angle? If you tell us that we could throw the appropriate information at you. Will you be taking on a hater, or will it just you giving a speech?


New member
[quote name="Teva"]
Incidentally what are you arguing specifically about in the 1993/2005 cases? Are you out to prove that MJ did not molest any boys? The role of the media? What is your angle? If you tell us that we could throw the appropriate information at you. Will you be taking on a hater, or will it just you giving a speech?[/quote]

I hope I will not be taking on any haters, but there are no guarantee's. My angle is this I'm not trying to get anyone to change their minds, if they have their minds set on the negitive. I just want to be able to prove that Michael didn't molest any chid/children. I just want people to look at the information I want to present and keep an open mind.

I can also remember that news articles were written that proved that Michael was out of the country when some of these alleged incidents happened in 2004.


New member
[quote name="DirtyDiana87"]I just want to be able to prove that Michael didn't molest any chid/children.[/quote]
If I am understanding you correctly you are out to prove that Michael Jackson 1. was not a pedophile and 2. didn't molest Jordan Chandler, or Gavin Arvizo? The first is easier to prove, but the latter you can't, you just have to create reasonable doubt. You need to read Aprodite Jone's book, it is essential. It is the best book out there about the 2005 case hands down. Unfortunately it is also out of print, but maybe you can source it in a library, also watch Larry Nimmer Neverland the Untold Story, it is really difficult to find all six parts on youtube right now.

[quote name="DirtyDiana87"]I can also remember that news articles were written that proved that Michael was out of the country when some of these alleged incidents happened in 2004.[/quote]
The prosecution shifted the timeline when Michael Jackson provided an alibi. The Arvizos oringinally claimed that the molestation first occurred at a given date, but after Michael Jackson's lawyer Mark Geragos announce that his client had an iron clad alibi, that being out of the country, Tom Sneddon and the Arivzo shifted the date by 2 weeks.


New member
Hey Guys,
My arguementation powerpoint prensentation is really coming together!! I can't thank you all enough for your help! I wish you all could see it! I do have a question about the Arvizo family, I know that Michael was not the only one who tried to help Gavin, I remember George Lopez tried to help him too. Are there any other celebrities that tried to help Gavin/family? I think there were I just can't remember.


New member
I would encourage you to instead speak on the 2005 trial, but it's entirely your choice. Compared to the 2005 trial, there is very little to report on the 1993 accusations. The 2005 trial has a treasure trove of evidence and documents. All of this is publicly available. Also, Michael's side couldn't present evidence against the 1993 accusation because of the settlement.

If you insist on the '93 accusation, I would say the most important thing to mention is that Michael had no authority to offer or decline the settlement. The settlement was entirely up to his insurance company. In an ABC interview with Diane Sawyer, Michael suggests he made the decision to settle after consulting with legal advisers, but this makes no sense because the decision wasn't for him to make. There are things Michael sometimes said that made no sense at all, but whatever. Tom M. explains, in a document during the 2005 trial, how the settlement came about and why Michael had no say in it.

I have yet to read it, but the GQ article is really your starting point.

You may also want to look at this Hard Copy (a tabloid) report:

Please watch this video. It is very useful.


New member
Thank you everyone for all of your help!! I just put the finishing touches on my powerpoint this evening. I titled it Michael Jackson: Trials & Triumph. I wish you all could see it!! I'll def tell you guys what I made on it.


New member
Hey MJEOLer's,
Just wanted to let you all know I gave my presentation on Wednesday, and I think I got an A on it!! Everything was cool until a girl I'm aquainted with started talking about his children and also said that Michael bleached his skin, I stopped her dead in her tracks and say "Hold it right there his children look exactly like him and secondly the autopsy proved that Michael did have the medical condition known as vitiligo."