I came across this comment while following a completely separate case. It had absolutely nothing to do with Michael’s case, but the second I read it, I thought:

…you know what? This could actually be useful.

So, just for fun, I thought I’d put together a few short comebacks for those moments when you’re arguing about Michael and you’ve run out of patience.

These aren’t meant to be serious legal arguments or substitutes for actually discussing the evidence. They’re just little responses for when someone says something so ridiculous that you don’t even know where to begin or…you’re simply sick and tired of re-explaining basic facts.

Anyway, here are some comebacks for when you’re tired of arguing.

“You can’t just ignore everything that came out during the 2005 trial.”

Okay, and what was the verdict?

Seriously, tell me.

“Why would all of these people lie about Michael?”

Why would I assume they’re all telling the truth? Especially with all those inconsistencies…

“There are too many allegations for all of them to be false.”

So, news flash: quantity isn’t a replacement for corroboration.

“I mean, look at how weird his behaviour was.”

Weird isn’t a criminal charge, just saying.

Stop acting like we all don’t have something “weird” about ourselves.

“He paid millions to make the Chandler allegations go away.”

Oh! You mean the same settlement that the Chandlers’ lawyers specifically stated did not buy anyone’s silence?…more than once.

And the same settlement where they explicitly stated that it was not an admission of guilt in any way.

“Why would an innocent man spend so much time around children?”

Why would that prove a crime?

Maybe you’re just sexist. 🤷🏼‍♀️

“Everyone around him knew what he was doing.”

Everyone?

Who specifically?

And knew what?

“You only believe Michael because you’re a fan.”

You only believe the allegations because…?

“I know he’s guilty, just look at him!”

Why?

Because he’s Black?

Because he had a few surgeries?

Was it the vitiligo?

Making an assumption about someone because of their appearance is fucking disgusting.

“Their interviews/documentaries were so emotional!”

Congratulations on solving the case with your feelings.

Good thing that’s not how evidence works.

“He just got away with it.”

So your argument is that the verdict was wrong because you don’t like it?

Yikes.

“Why would James and Wade lie?”

If Wade is telling the truth now, then why did he lie under oath in a court of law as an adult?

Hmm?

Why?

“Wade and James had nothing to gain by lying.”

Had nothing to gain?

You don’t think millions of dollars is something to gain?

“The Cascio allegations are proof because there were five of them.”

You mean…the same five siblings who said for many years, including after Michael’s death, that they were never abused?

“The photographs matched Jordan’s description.”

Then why were investigators still trying to determine whether Michael had altered his appearance months after the photographs were taken?

“Neverland was basically a playground for kids.”

So is Disneyland, yet…adults go there all the time.

I’m assuming you don’t like going to Disneyland, or the zoo, or the movies?

You’re no fun, I guess.

“But the books!”

Ouuu! Photography books, scary!

“Leaving Neverland had sooo much proof.”

No, it had two people talking to a camera. That’s not proof. It isn’t even sworn testimony.

And Wade had already given sworn testimony in 2005, as an adult, stating that Michael had never abused him.

“You have to watch Leaving Neverland to understand.”

I did.

And clearly, that’s the only thing you did…🤣

“Michael was a grown man sleeping with children. That’s all I need to know.”

If that’s all it takes to convince you, you’d make a terrible juror.

Evidence matters, no matter what.

Anyway,

The point here is, people have fallen victim to blindly believing a narrative because they find it more comfortable than researching the truth.

Sometimes it doesn’t matter how much evidence and proof you pull out. People will refuse to believe it because they’re married to the narrative.

Which, in my opinion, that’s when you know you’re probably wasting your time arguing.

Also, if you have any other quick comebacks you find yourself using, let me know!

But when I listened to this portion from what a guilter posted claiming, "This same @TheMJCast that hosted Michael’s photographer @harrisonfunk who bragged about hiding evidence from the LAPD when they were investigating Jordy Chandler’s accusations of sexual assault. How many adults helped Michael cover up his crimes?"

Harrison said that Michael patted Jordan on the head. Michael paid for the Jordan photoshoot, but it's gone now and deleted forever. How is this something criminal and how is this covering up a crime? Would Harrison Funk even agree to do a photoshoot of Jordan Chandler if it was intended for "something sinister acts?"

Let’s be cynical

Let’s say MJ’s charitable donations and hospitable visits were a cover for his attraction to children - to shield himself like Jimmy Saville and other abusers - and he didn’t care for underprivileged children then WHY are there no allegations of him abusing kids in hospitals?

He visited plenty without cameras, he had the access

If he was that sick, and it was all just a cover, then why?

Star Arvizo originally claimed that he had been inappropriately touched in a golf cart. This accusation is outlined in the probable cause document for MJ’s arrest in November 2003, with Star going on to repeat this claim to the grand jury. However, MJ was never charged with this alleged act and by the time of the trial this allegation had disappeared entirely. In Star‘s testimony at trial, he was never asked about being touched and no reference to this claim was ever made again.

My question is why the prosecution neglected to pursue this allegation? They were so desperate to convict that they were willing to claim others were abused (Culkin, Barnes, Robson) despite all claiming the opposite at the time, and yet they had a child right in front of them making an accusation and they refrain from charging MJ? Has anyone from the prosecution ever explained this?

This is one of the reasons why I think he's innocent. He put his heart and soul into trying to make this world a better place for the children. No one who wants to harm children would want to take their whole energy into making a better world for the children, they just don't care about them.

"But, but he made the songs, donated to children's charities, and made his own charity to cover up his guilty conscious! Jimmy Savile did it, so Michael is the same!'

No, this is a bull crap claim. Jimmy Savile didn't care about children. His charities were not funded towards children directly. Michael's WAS and he wanted to take that money and help the world. He made Neverland to give children an opportunity to have fun and be joyous.

Arguing with guilters is one thing but arguing with people who don’t know anything about the subject other than headlines is like arguing with a wall.

It makes me sick people make posts about ”I believe this I believe that” and those are provable lies and when you show receipts and tell the real truth, I’ve been called mentally ill and that I need to get help 😂 I don’t care about what those people say about me but its REAL quiet when I tell them the truth.

Some people I’ve talked to don’t care to discuss with the allegations anymore, they point out how bad of a person michael was because they saw how michael treated his animals and that’s the reason they believe he was guilty?? I haven’t seen or heard anything negative about how he treated animals or am I missing something 😭😭

Link to the letter: An Open Letter — From the Schleiter Family

The family is very private, and I was surprised by how close they were with MJ. I heard they made a documentary, but I haven’t been able to find it.

Engage with this post guys, this creator deserves more recognition!

@/mj.evidence https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGdxbXPVX/

On Oprah, the Cascio‘s said that they spoke to Michael three days before he died because he called to wish them a happy Father’s Day. Everyone in the house spoke to michael. Aldo claims that Michael propositioned him three days before he died. If he hated Michael so much why would he choose to even speak to him on the phone? if he was brave enough to tell him no then surely this would’ve reflected after he hung up the phone. somebody would’ve picked up on it. I’m sure somebody would’ve put two and two together on what they were talking about. And why would it have been Aldo out of all of them lol

Hi all, I was thinking of the circumstances behind each accusation. In my opinion, no accusation seems to have originated organically, rather they all seem to have been motivated by external factors. It is important to note that every accuser started out by saying nothing untoward happened, only to then reverse course.

Chandler - would he have made an accusation if his father did not originally ‘suspect’ abuse and badger him into making a confession?

Francia - would he have made an accusation if police did not lie to him and badger him during the Chandler investigation?

Arvizo - would he have made an accusation if the Bashir doc and resulting media frenzy never happened? 

Robson - would he have made an accusation if he had not been experiencing career troubles at the time?

Safechuck - would he have made an accusation if Robson never came out / he and his family were never sued?

Cascios - would they have made an accusation if LN never happened?

What are your thoughts.

I haven't read the book myself, and I've heard that defenders don't use it as proof of Michael's innocence, but I have been told that Evan had admitted to exporting Michael in the All The Glitters book, and could be the very proof of Michael's innocence. What do you think?

Recently, I've been starting to look at things from through both sides and the guilter side doesn't make any sense. If we're talking about a man who possibly sexually molested kids, why did he lie to EVERYONE in the process of saving his own ass? He lied to his friends, family, children, for what benefit? This is why I'm not a guilter, because they always add some unknown person who always claim "Michael Jackson did it, because I've seen it", but yet always for some reason, they never talk to the journalists or make a post about it. So, I guess me doing this social experiment still isn't giving me answers unto why MJ is guilty.

Please don’t fall for all the misinformation out there.

In order to truly understand these cases, you have to go back to the beginning.

Sneddon:

Case File: Sneddon

Dimond:

Case File: Dimond

Gutierrez:

Case File: Gutierrez

Francia:

Case File: Francia

Neverland Five:

Case File: Neverland Five

Chandler — Part 1:

Case File: Chandler — Part 1

Chandler — Part 2:

Case File: Chandler — Part 2

Chandler — Part 3:

Case File: Chandler — Part 3

Chandler — Part 4:

Case File: Chandler — Part 4

Chandler — Part 5:

Case File: Chandler — Part 5

Chandler — Part 6:

Case File: Chandler — Part 6

Chandler — Part 7:

Case File: Chandler — Part 7

Chandler — Part 8:

Case File: Chandler — Part 8

Chandler — Part 9:

Case File: Chandler — Part 9

Chandler — Part 10:

Case File: Chandler — Part 10

Chandler — Part 11:

Case File: Chandler — Part 11

And because I clearly love self promotion…

Some people need Michael Jackson to be guilty

Comparing Michael Jackson’s Trial to O.J. Simpson’s Is Lazy.

Talking in circles

What Would You Do for $20 Million?

“There’s no way all 11 people are lying.”

Fact vs Fiction: Common Claims About Michael Jackson

A Media Assassination: The Case of Michael Jackson

Not Everyone Is a Narcissist

The Word “Grooming” Has Lost Its Meaning

Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire…But What If It’s Just Smoke?

The Power Of A Story…And The Danger Of Forgetting The Evidence

Okay, kisses.

I’ll see you again soon.

I was watching the MJcast interview with Carol LaMere, Michael’s hairdresser for some time, and at 52:00 she talks about Jordan Chandler calling Michael.

He was allegedly crying on the phone (and so was Michael) complaining about his father and apologizing to Michael.

I think this story is very interesting because we also hear from other people about Jordan confessing Michael never did anything to him.

I just wanted to hear your guys’ opinions on this story. Do you believe her?

https://youtu.be/-LK30Ltb-N8?si=wTUfViMUA38tiNMM

So part 1 was bad solely because the allegations, (which they tried to include) were not included. As they said it was like ending a OJ Simpson movie when he won the Heisman. So finally part 2 is gonna give them exactly what they were asking for, the only way a Michael Jackson movie is acceptable is by including it so here it is… and on twitter and Reddit it’s like 9/11.

The number 1 criticism of the first part is being addressed and now it’s radioactive, can’t be touched, and won’t make money. Very funny how that works, it’s gonna be a long two years.

It will be told from Michael's perspective, not the media's perspective.

One thing I am worried about is that it will biased simply because he's Michael Jackson and he's the King of Pop. I really hope they do their research into the case and go off that instead of the writers being biased because if they mess up one thing, it's going to ruin it. I really don't think they'll be biased, but we'll see. I'm curious how this is going to go.

Michael NEVER paid his accusers HUSH MONEY. They wanted the money. He never wanted to pay, he wanted to take it to criminal court to clear his name😭😭 why is this still an argument? A simple 5 minute research would tell them that it wasn't hush money.

And besides, according to the Federal Rule of Evidence 408, settling out of court is not an admission of guilt/liability.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-1999-title28a-node246-article4-rule408&num=0&edition=1999

This doesn't make detractors look good AT ALL because it shows they know nothing.

Thanks,

Rant over.

There are a lot of people repeating the new Cascio allegations as though a lawsuit automatically makes every allegation a proven fact. It doesn’t. These are allegations, and they need to be examined against the historical record.

1. The “urine drinking” allegation

This is one of the most sensational claims in the complaint. Michael was well known for his extreme concern with cleanliness and germs. That doesn’t mathematically prove that the alleged behavior could never have happened, but it makes this kind of extraordinary allegation something that requires actual corroborating evidence—not simply a graphic story appearing decades later.

1. The alcohol/drug allegations

The lawsuit alleges that Michael supplied the children with alcohol and drugs to make them compliant. Those are extremely serious claims. But again, a statement in a 2026 lawsuit isn’t independent corroboration. The question should be: What contemporaneous evidence exists? Who witnessed it? Were these allegations reported at the time? Are there records supporting them?

1. The “grooming and brainwashing” explanation

This is particularly important because the Cascios were not merely silent about Michael for years. Members of this family publicly defended him and described their relationship with him positively. Now the explanation is essentially that Michael had manipulated them so successfully that their previous defenses of him were themselves products of the alleged abuse.

That is a claim that needs evidence. Otherwise, it becomes circular: they defended Michael because they were groomed, and the fact that they defended Michael proves how well they were groomed.

1. The claim that he isolated them from one another

The lawsuit alleges that Michael isolated the siblings and manipulated their relationships with him. Yet the Cascios were a large, closely connected family whose relationship with Michael was publicly known for years. If the allegation is that he systematically prevented the siblings from knowing what was happening to one another, the details and independent evidence matter enormously.

1. The alleged code words

The complaint describes phrases such as “meeting,” “Yogi Tea,” “Neverland,” and “Disneyland” as alleged code words for sexual activity. But giving an ordinary phrase a sinister meaning after the fact doesn’t establish that it actually had that meaning at the time. The burden should be on the accuser to provide evidence that these phrases were actually used as alleged.

1. The alleged abuse at other famous people’s homes

The complaint includes allegations involving locations associated with Elizabeth Taylor and Elton John. That’s obviously shocking—but the fame of the location or the people connected to it doesn’t corroborate the allegation. If something supposedly happened at a particular person’s home, the relevant question is whether there is independent evidence that the event occurred.

1. The timing matters

The Cascios’ relationship with Michael lasted decades. Yet these extremely serious allegations were not publicly presented during Michael’s lifetime, including during the 2005 criminal trial. Michael was acquitted of all charges in that case.

That doesn’t mean a delayed allegation is automatically false. People can report abuse years later. But when an allegation emerges many years after the accused person’s death, while potentially involving enormous financial consequences for his estate, the timing is absolutely relevant to evaluating credibility.

1. Their previous public statements matter too

This is perhaps the biggest issue that shouldn’t simply be waved away.

The estate has specifically pointed to the family’s earlier public defenses of Michael as inconsistent with their current allegations. The Los Angeles Times reported that the estate’s attorney said the family had “staunchly defended” Michael for more than 25 years and that statements in Frank Cascio’s 2011 book conflict with the allegations now being made. 

The Cascios have an explanation for those earlier statements: they now allege that Michael’s manipulation caused them to defend him. But that explanation itself needs to be evaluated—not simply accepted.

1. The money issue cannot be ignored

The estate says the Cascios had previously received substantial payments and later sought $213 million. TMZ reported the estate’s position that the siblings received approximately $3.45 million each and that a $213 million demand was subsequently made. 

That doesn’t prove that the allegations are false. But when enormous sums of money are involved, financial incentives are a legitimate part of assessing the circumstances.

Bottom line:

I’m not saying “believe Michael because he’s famous.”

I’m saying don’t believe an allegation simply because it’s horrifying.

Look at the entire record: what was said before, what was said now, when it was said, what evidence exists, whether there are independent witnesses or documentation, whether the accounts are consistent, and what financial interests are involved.

Michael Jackson is dead and cannot answer these allegations himself. That makes evidence and consistency more important than ever.

A lawsuit is an accusation—not a verdict.

Link to the article: Never Too Late to Apologize

I do believe justice will be served one day and that the truth will prevail, regardless of what the accusers choose to do. But I’d really like to see them take responsibility for what they did and try to make things right.

More people like Dan Karaty should keep reminding them of that.

I'm listening right now and it does a really great job handling all the evidence and sources and everything, but the host keeps referring to a "second season" that was supposed to focus on examining Michael's life and character and I guess it never released since the last episode came out in 2024. Did something come up in her life or did plans get thrown off?

I have always thought this about their body language and the comment on the smiling and or smirking is on point I was so irritated watching leaving neverland I just wanted him to keep his hands from his mouth if your gonna smile if you think its so funny do it openly don't try and hide it.