Harvey Proctor

Earlier this week I was sent to London to report on a mysterious press conference, announced by former MP Harvey Proctor. We knew he intended to comment on Operation Midland, a historic child abuse probe under which his home was searched in March this year, but did not know the substance of what he would say.

People sometimes say that being a journalist gives you a front row seat as history unfolds; in this case, it was true. I bagged a front row seat and what I witnessed could very well go down in history, although in what context remains to be seen.

Mr Proctor delivered a 40-minute speech in which he lambasted 'inept' police officers and described, in graphic detail, what he said were 'ludicrous' allegations against him, made by single, 'uncorroborated', anonymous accuser. He told the packed Marlborough Suite at St Ermine's Hotel, Westminster, that he stood accused of torturing and murdering children as part of a paedophile 'gang' that included former Prime Minister Ted Heath, at sex parties attended by Jimmy Savile. What he revealed would be shocking and disturbing both if it were true and if it were false.

I have published an eight-part special report, exploring different themes which arose during the press conference. Below are some of my exclusive pictures from the event, plus links to each part of the report.

 Part 1: The Press Conference

Part 2: The Alleged 'VIP Paedophile Gang'

Part 3: The Alleged Murders

Part 4: The Alleged Castration Attempt

Part 5: The 'Evidence'

Part 6: Proctor Slams Police 'Press Leaks'

Part 7: Proctor Calls for Top Cop Resignations

Part 8: Cops Dragging Heels Over Fear of 'Cover-Up' Claims, Says Proctor

The Mirror, the People, and the settlement that never was...

It's a funny thing. Ever since the high-profile Michael Jackson death trial started going pear-shaped for promoter AEG Live, a lot of newspapers which carry prominent and lucrative advertising for its events have become more intent on smearing Michael Jackson than ever.

Leading the way has been The Mirror in the UK. A few weeks ago, contemporaneous emails presented at trial showed that AEG boss Randy Phillips had 'slapped' Michael Jackson because he was scared about attending a press conference. Slapped him and screamed at him 'so loud the walls shook'.

The shocking revelation was widely ignored by the press. Several days after the evidence was heard in open court, only one outlet had summoned the courage to publish it. AP did not include the testimony in its daily missive from the courtroom. The wire's reporter claimed on twitter he had been out of the courtroom sending emails when the testimony occurred.

It was only when fans started making noise about the 'cover-up' on sites like Twitter that other media companies grudgingly published the comments. AEG-sponsored newspapers like the Mirror, though, bizarrely tried to paint Michael Jackson as the bad guy. According to the first line of the Mirror's story, Jackson 'needed to be slapped'. Interestingly, the Mirror was a lot faster to publish a story last year accusing Janet Jackson of slapping a minor. A story which turned out to be a lie.

This weekend - days after Jackson's son took the stand and testified that he saw Phillips in his home while his father was not there, behaving 'aggressively' towards Jackson's doctor - the Mirror's Sunday edition, called the People, is at it again. It has published a highly misleading story about some 'FBI files' which allegedly show Michael Jackson was witnessed molesting children by multiple Neverland employees. The 'FBI files' also detail a supposed settlement with a young accuser in 1992 - before the Jordy Chandler case.

In reality, the story is a nonsense; a birds nest of mangled and misstated accusations which are neither 'new' nor 'exclusive', despite the People's repeated claims that they are. In fact, the documents are not 'FBI files' at all. This is a flat-out lie. Moreover, the claims have all been in the public domain for a very long time, some having been discredited two decades ago.

Of course, most readers won't bother to fact-check the story. Why would they? The newspaper is supposed to do that before publishing it. Sadly, it seems other media outlets can't be bothered either. Britain's Mail newspaper has already rehashed the story, evidently making no attempt to investigate its veracity before doing so.

I could go into a whole lot of detail about the claims made by the People - and the various lazy journalists who will copy and paste its story hundreds, or perhaps thousands of times onto their own websites and into their own newspapers in the coming days. But what is the point? The info is already in the public domain.

Those who hate Jackson will adopt the People's story as evidence for their case. Those with an interest in hearing both sides of Jackson's case will already know that these claims were debunked a long time ago. Nobody else will even bother to research the story. The People's readers buy the newspaper because they like and trust it. They, as intended, will believe this story and will not question it.

Briefly, however, for the record:

1) The 'FBI files' are not FBI files. They are transcripts of interviews compiled by a tabloid journalist who paid his sources - including one who, it seems, might not have actually existed.They were acquired by a PI who worked for Jackson's defence team. A decade later, he was prosecuted for tapping phones. The FBI seized all of his files, of which these tabloid interviews formed a miniscule part. The documents are therefore in the possession of the FBI - but they are not FBI files. If I order a Pizza Hut margherita to my home, that doesn't make it a 'Charles Thomson pizza'.

2) The allegations of Jackson being caught by multiple employees do not, as the People infers, come from a host of different documents. They all come from one document - a transcript of an interview with a couple called the LeMarques, who worked at Neverland in the late 80s and early 90s. The People intentionally does not state that all of these uncorroborated accusations come from just one of the documents, instead purposely misleading readers and suggesting that they're taken from a cache of evidence.

The LeMarques never contacted police about the abuse they claimed to have witnessed, instead opting to negotiate deals with tabloid newspapers - including the Mirror. Their claims were investigated by cops probing Jackson, who found the couple had agreed to add increasingly graphic details to their interviews for more and more money. Investigators concluded in the 90s that the pair had no credibility and possessed no evidence of any genuine abuse. They were called on out of desperation to testify in Jackson's 2005 trial after prosecutors watched their case begin to disintegrate, but were destroyed under cross-examination. Jurors rejected their testimony and acquitted Jackson, unanimously.

3) The supposed 'settlement' in 1992 was detailed to a tabloid reporter, for money, by a serial tipster called Taylea Shea. She never showed the reporter a document - she simply 'read it out' over the phone. A police investigation into the claim found that the boy named in the settlement did not exist, there was no record of any settlement ever being paid, and Taylea Shea disappeared into thin air. It became apparent she had used several aliases and nobody knew who she really was. She was never heard of again.

This leaves one element of the People's story standing; that Jackson 'allegedly' - what a convenient little word that is - paid $35million to two-dozen young accusers. The newspaper presents no evidence to corroborate this claim. Just a note in the tabloid reporter's documents, which the People intentionally misrepresents as an 'FBI file'.

Contrary to the People's claim, investigators knew about and investigated these files as part of their probe into Jackson in 2003/4, in which they were assisted by the FBI. Despite all of their resources, neither the Californian police nor the FBI was ever able to locate any evidence that any child besides Jordan Chandler or Jason Francia ever received a settlement.

The sworn testimony that will come back to haunt Wade Robson

When you've been covering Michael Jackson for any significant period of time, you come to believe that nothing can shock you anymore. Since I began reporting on Michael Jackson for various media organisations, he has announced the biggest concert residency of all time and then died before he could complete it. A doctor has been jailed for his homicide and a posthumous album has caused international scandal by containing tracks allegedly sung by an imposter.

For many years, Michael Jackson's life (and after-life) has been a quagmire of scandal, controversy and legal wrangling. Presently, entertainment company AEG - which promoted Jackson's 'This Is It' concerts - is on trial over what the singer's family feels is a modicum of responsibility for his death. Already, witnesses have testified that Jackson was banned from the stage during some rehearsals for fear he would injure himself. A producer has testified to weeping as she saw Jackson rambling at rehearsals that God was speaking to him. She told jurors she had warned senior production members she believed he was dying and needed to be transported to hospital, only for her pleas to go ignored. Less than a week later, he was dead.

To a seasoned Jackson correspondent, none of this was surprising. It seems that not a week goes by without some drama or another engulfing the deceased music legend or those closely associated with him, from copyright disputes to kidnap allegations. But last week there was a development in the Michael Jackson sphere which truly did surprise me. Wade Robson, who has staunchly defended Michael Jackson for 20 years and even testified for him in his 2005 trial, filed papers against various organisations connected to the pop legend, seeking multiple pay-outs for alleged childhood abuse.

The choreographer claims he was sexually abused for seven years, from age seven to age 14. The news has rocked the Michael Jackson community. Those who loved him have sprung to his defence while those who built careers on attacking him have reacted with undisguised glee. Jackson's ex-wife Debbie Rowe has labeled the financial demands 'opportunistic' and Jermaine Jackson has branded the choreographer 'full of shit'.

Civil rights lawyer Tom Mesereau, who defended Jackson in his 2005 trial, has suggested the claims are 'suspicious' as their public filing coincided so neatly with the AEG trial. Indeed, the allegations broke as make-up artist Karen Faye testified that she and others had raised repeated concerns about Jackson's health but had received callous responses from those in charge. Robson's televised interview days later ensured little media attention was paid to testimony from an AEG employee that financial papers proved Murray was the company's employee, not Michael Jackson's. Wade Robson has repeatedly worked for AEG and apparently already has future work lined up with the corporation, but his lawyer has denied any connection between the court cases.

In light of Robson's sudden change of tune, I have dusted off my complete trial transcripts from the 2005 government prosecution of Michael Jackson. While many news reports have mentioned that Robson testified for Jackson in the case, few have made any particular effort to underscore the gravity of his testimony.

Wade Robson was such a compelling and assured witness that Michael Jackson chose him to open his defence case at trial. Under sustained and sometimes aggressive questioning by government prosecutor Ron Zonen, Robson not only denied any impropriety on Jackson's part, but did so repeatedly, vigorously and convincingly - even mocking prosecutors and describing the mere suggestion of sexual abuse at Jackson's hands as 'ridiculous'.

As a side-note, the idea that in a trial about alleged child sex abuse, a genuine abuser would choose somebody they had molested for seven years as their first witness to undergo unrelenting government cross-examination may seem somewhat far-fetched to the casual onlooker.

When viewed alongside some of the comments he made on the Today Show this week, Robson's testimony is likely to cast more than a reasonable doubt over his new claims. He answered clearly and competently to detailed questions about various examples of alleged misconduct.  The testimony is so immensely damaging to his new legal demands for money that he and his lawyer have already floated two potential, but arguably equally unconvincing, explanations for the bizarre u-turn.

When the story about his demands for money went live last week, Robson's lawyer was quoted as saying the choreographer had recovered 'repressed memories', a story many suggested could have been designed to explain away Robson's strenuous denials in the 2005 trial without admitting to perjury. However, Robson's claim was met with such incredulity - many eminent psychologists do not even believe in repressed memories and even those who do took rather a dim view of Robson's somewhat extreme story - that he has since changed tact.

Robson claimed in his TV interview this week that the real reason he told jurors he was not molested was that he had not realised that what Jackson allegedly did to him was abusive - another claim guaranteed to raise many an eyebrow. He was a successful, professional 22-year-old man at the time of his testimony.

Under oath in 2005, Robson was asked repeatedly about particular acts and whether he knew Michael Jackson to have performed them upon any child. He responded vehemently that not only had he never witnessed any such behaviour, but he was steadfast in his opinion that Michael Jackson would never have engaged in it.

Looking back over the 2005 court documents, the latest explanation for his testimony simply does not stand up to scrutiny. For instance, he was asked specifically whether Jackson had touched his body. Regardless of whether he believed Jackson's conduct to constitute sexual abuse, if Jackson had indeed touched his body, the clear answer would have been 'yes'. But it wasn't 'yes'. It was 'no'. Over, and over, and over again.

He even testified that after what he now claims were several years of sexual abuse at Jackson's hands, he returned to the scene of the alleged crimes more than 20 times in later life, with friends and relatives in tow, for relaxing getaways. He also testified to remaining in touch with Jackson and still considering him a close friend. Indeed, several years after the trial, Robson continued to socialise with Jackson.

Shortly after Jackson's death was announced in 2009, Robson wrote that Jackson was 'one of the main reasons I believe in the pure goodness of humankind'. According to Jackson's brother Jermaine, Robson and his mother helped him pen portions of his autobiography about the media's unfair portrayal of his brother as a child molester. Indeed, since Jackson's death Robson has paid public tribute to the star repeatedly, as recently as 2012. He even applied last year for a job choreographing a tribute show to his alleged molester, but did not get the gig.

Wade Robson has filed a creditor's claim against Jackson's Estate, seeking a cash pay-out for alleged childhood abuse. He has also filed 50 civil lawsuits against various individuals and companies affiliated with Jackson, seeking further pay-outs for his alleged abuse.

He insisted this week that his new claims were 'not about money'.

The full transcript of Robson's testimony on May 5, 2005, totals almost 14,000 words and runs across 60 pages of A4. It includes lots of repetition and discussion about where he lived, when his parents separated and various other tangential asides. Below, I have extracted what I believe to be the key testimony. It is difficult to see how, given the existence of this sworn testimony, Robson could ever convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Jackson had ever acted inappropriately in his presence.

A cynical person might therefore interpret Robson's high profile TV interview this week as an attempt to avoid ever getting into a courtroom and having a jury test his new claims. How many more high profile public attacks can Jackson's Estate suffer before it is forced to begin considering a settlement? At this stage, the ability to damage the Estate's earning potential is about all Robson has got on his side - because the evidence is firmly on Michael Jackson's.

Here is the testimony nobody else in the media is showing you. See for yourself.


Under direct examination by Michael Jackson's lawyer, Tom Mesereau:

Q. Do you consider Michael Jackson your friend?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you consider him a close friend?

A. Yes.

Q. You’re aware of the allegations in this case, are you not?

A. Yes.

Q. And are you aware, as you sit here today, that there’s been allegations that Mr. Jackson molested you?

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Robson, did Michael Jackson ever molest you at any time?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. Mr. Robson, did Michael Jackson ever touch you in a sexual way?

A. Never, no.

Q. Mr. Robson, has Mr. Jackson ever inappropriately touched any part of your body at any time?

A. No.

*  *  *  *  *

Q. How many times do you think you’ve stayed in Mr. Jackson’s room at Neverland?

A. Same amount of times as I’ve been there. Well, no, that’s not true, I’m sorry. I’ve been there a bunch of times without Michael, just with other friends and family traveling there. But, I don’t know, maybe 15 to 20.

Q. And at no time has any sexual contact ever occurred between you and Mr. Jackson, right?

A. Never.

Q. Have you ever taken a shower with Mr. Jackson?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever gone swimming with Mr. Jackson?

A. Yes.

Q. And please explain what you mean.

A. One time with my sister and I, my sister and I and Michael, we went in the Jacuzzi at Neverland Ranch.

Q. And do you know approximately when that was?

A. I don’t. I can’t say for sure. I have a feeling that it was within that first trip in ‘89 when I went there.

Q. Do you recall what Mr. Jackson was wearing in the Jacuzzi?

A. From my recollection, he was wearing shorts. You know, like swimming shorts. And that was it.

Q. Did anything inappropriate ever happen in that Jacuzzi?

A. No.

Q. Has anything inappropriate ever happened in any shower with you and Mr. Jackson?

A. No. Never been in a shower with him.

*  *  *  *  *

Q. Mr. Robson, has anyone told you what to say in this courtroom today?

A. No.

Q. Is everything you’ve said the complete and honest truth?

A. Yes.

Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever do anything wrong with you?

A. No.


Under cross-examination by government prosecutor Ron Zonen:

Q. All right. Now, the first time that you slept with Mr. Jackson you were seven years old; is that correct?

A. I slept in the same bed with him. But, yes, I was seven.

Q. Did you understand my question to mean something other than that?

A. Sounded like it.

*  *  *  *  *

Q. Were there periods of time when you were at Neverland and working with Mr. Jackson on dance routines?

A. No. I mean, we would mess around and dance a little bit in the studio every now and then, yes.

Q. Was there ever an occasion where you were on the dance floor with Mr. Jackson and he was showing you a routine and he grabbed your crotch in a manner similar to how he would grab his own crotch while doing those performances?

A. No, that’s not true.

Q. You have no recollection of that?

A. No.

Q. That didn’t happen?

A. No.

*  *  *  *  *

Q. Now, at any time did you start to develop conversations with your mother about the propriety of sleeping with this man who’s now well into his 30s?

A. No.

Q. Did you consider it unusual at all?

A. No.

Q. Did your mother consider it unusual?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever talk to your father about it?

A. Yeah.

Q. You talked to your father about your sleeping with Michael Jackson?

A. No, I mean, you know, everybody knew, and nobody ever said that it was -- we never talked about it being unusual or anything like that.

Q. Did your mother ever ask you if anything inappropriate happened in bed with him?

A. No.

Q. Did she simply assume nothing happened?

A. Yes.

Q. You’re telling us nothing happened; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. What you’re really telling us is nothing happened while you were awake; isn’t that true?

A. I’m telling you that nothing ever happened.

Q. Mr. Robson, when you were asleep, you wouldn’t have known what had happened, particularly at age seven, would you have?

A. I would think something like that would wake me up.

*  *  *  *  *

Q. Was there, in fact, a shower at Neverland in the suite, the bedroom suite?

A. Yes.

Q. But you didn’t use it?

A. I used it by myself.

Q. Was he in the room while you were using it?

A. In the bedroom, not in the shower room, which had its own door.

*  *  *  *  *

Q. You haven’t gone back to Neverland since you were 13?

A. I have. Not with him.

Q. Have you gone back to Neverland since you were 13 and actually stayed overnight?

A. Yes.

Q. On how many occasions since you were 13?

A. A lot. Same thing. 20, 25. Something like that.

*  *  *  *  *

Q. Mr. Jackson would periodically kiss you, would he not?

A. No.

Q. Periodically hug you?

A. Yes.

Q. Touch you?

A. Hug me. That would be --

Q. Put his hands through your hair?

A. No.

Q. Touch you about the head and the face?

A. Yeah.

Q. Did he ever kiss you on the cheek?

A. Yeah.

Q. Did he ever kiss you on the lips?

A. No.

*  *  *  *  *

Q. Were there occasions that Mr. Jackson would summon you to Neverland Ranch?

A. Summon me?

Q. Yes. Call you up and ask you to come and be there; invite you to Neverland Ranch?

A. Invite us, yeah.

*  *  *  *  *

Q. On the occasions that you stayed in bed with Mr. Jackson, would you ever cuddle in bed?

A. No.

Q. Would you lie next to one another?

A. No.

Q. Would you touch?

A. No.

Q. Would you consider it to have been inappropriate to have cuddled in bed?

A. Sorry?

Q. Would you have considered it to be inappropriate to have cuddled in bed?

A. No.


Under re-direct by Tom Mesereau:

Q. Okay. The prosecutor asked you questions about whether or not you were considered family. Did you consider yourself to be part of Mr. Jackson’s family?

A. Yeah, I mean, in a friendship sort of way. Because we were that close. It was like family.

Q. And did you use the word “family” once in a while --

A. Yes.

Q. -- when you spoke to him?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you hear your mother or sister using the word “family”?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you think anything was strange about that?

A. No.

Q. The prosecutor for the government asked about Mr. Jackson giving you a kiss on the cheek.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And you said that happened sometimes?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you think there was anything inappropriate about that?

A. No.

Q. Did you do it in front of your mom?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you do it in front of your sister?

A. Yes.

Q. Did your mother kiss him on the cheek?

A. Yes.

Q. Did your sister kiss him on the cheek?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you kiss Mr. Jackson on the cheek?

A. Yes.

Q. Did your mother used to hug Mr. Jackson?

A. Yes.

Q. Did Mr. Jackson used to hug your mother?

MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as irrelevant what happened with his mother.

THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did Mr. Jackson used to hug your mother?

A. Yes.

Q. Did your sister used to hug Mr. Jackson?

MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as leading as well.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did your sister used to hug Mr. Jackson?

A. Yes.

Q. And would you see Mr. Jackson hug your sister?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever think there was anything inappropriate about Mr. Jackson hugging any member of your family?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever think it was inappropriate to see any member of your family hug Mr. Jackson?

A. No.

Q. Now, you said your sister would sometimes stay in Mr. Jackson’s room, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And how often do you recall that happening?

A. I remember it just within that first trip we were there. So it was -- it was, you know, three or four nights or something like that.

Q. And you mentioned Brandy. Is that who you mentioned?

A. Yes.

Q. Who was Brandy again?

A. She was Michael Jackson’s niece.

Q. You saw Brandy staying in his room?

A. Yeah.

Q. What’s the largest number of kids you ever saw stay in Mr. Jackson’s room, if you remember?

A. Yeah, probably four to five.

Q. And what do you recall the children doing in his room?

A. Well, before we went to sleep, same sort of things. We’d play video games, watch movies. Have pillow fights. You know, yeah.

Q. Did you ever see anything of a sexual nature between Mr. Jackson and any of those children?

A. Never.

*  *  *  *  *

Q. Have you seen Mr. Jackson hug other children at Neverland?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you seen other children hug Mr. Jackson at Neverland?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you ever thought any of this was inappropriate?

A. No.

Q. Have you seen Mr. Jackson kiss children at Neverland?

A. On the cheek, yes. Or on the head, or on the top of the head, something like that.

Q. Ever seen kids kiss Mr. Jackson?

A. Yes.

Q. Any of that ever look inappropriate to you?

A. No.

Q. Have you seen lots of children visit Neverland on occasion?

A. Yes.

Q. And what do you mean?

A. I think we were there once when he had one of his gatherings, like a Heal the World Foundation thing where he had a bunch of kids come up there and -- you know, and have the day there.

Q. And how many kids are you talking about, do you think?

A. Probably about 100 or 50. 75 to 100, something like that.

Q. Were there adults with those children?

A. Yes.

Q. And you said, “Heal the World.” What did that mean to you?

MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as exceeding the scope of the direct examination, and irrelevant, and beyond the scope of his knowledge.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

THE WITNESS: Could you repeat the question?

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Yeah. What was “Heal the World,” as far as you remember?

A. As far as I knew, it was a foundation or a charity that Michael had created that, you know, raised money for kids with illnesses. I don’t know exactly what kind, but --

Q. Did you interact with any of these kids that visited that day?

A. I may have, yeah, I mean, waved at them or met a couple of them or something like that.

Q. Did you see Mr. Jackson hugging other children?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you see them hugging him?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you see Mr. Jackson kiss children?

A. Yeah.

Q. Have you seen them kiss him?

A. Yes.

Q. Ever seen anything inappropriate?

A. No.

Q. Did you see Mr. Jackson hug adults who were with those children?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you see adults hug Mr. Jackson who were with those children?

A. Yes.

Q. Ever think any of that was inappropriate?

A. No.

Q. Now, the prosecutor for the government asked you questions about whether he touched your hair.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Do you recall Mr. Jackson ever touching your hair?

A. I can’t recall an exact thing, but it seems like something he might have done at some point.

Q. Do you ever recall Mr. Jackson doing anything inappropriate with your hair?

A. No.

Q. Ever seen Mr. Jackson touch another child on the head?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you seen that many times?

A. Many times.

Q. Did it ever seem like anything inappropriate was going on when you saw that?

A. No.

*  *  *  *  *

Q. Ever see Michael throw water balloons at kids?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever see Michael in golf carts with kids?

A. Yes.

Q. When you used to play at Neverland during the day, would Michael often be with you?

A. Yes.

Q. And what would Michael do with you?

A. We’d go on rides together, you know, where we’d drive around in the golf cart together, look at animals together, watch movies together.

Q. Did you see Mr. Jackson act in a similar way with other children?

A. Yes.

Q. Ever see anything inappropriate go on when he was doing any of these things?

A. No.

Q. Now, how often do you recall your mother going to Neverland with you?

A. It’s been every time except for that one time that I spoke of when I was there with Jordie Chandler and Macaulay and I.

Q. What do you recall seeing your mother do at Neverland?

A. A lot of the same things with us.

Q. Would she sometimes be with Mr. Jackson when all the kids were playing?

A. Oh, yes. She was playing along with us.

Q. Now, you mentioned visiting an apartment in Century City with Mr. Jackson, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And what do you recall doing in the apartment with Mr. Jackson?

A. Same sort of things. He had arcade games there. You know, candy. We’d eat, we’d watch, you know, T.V. shows, Stooges. Hang around, play games, you know.

Q. Did you ever see Mr. Jackson do anything inappropriate with any child at that apartment?

A. No.

Q. Where else have you been with Mr. Jackson?

A. Like I said, we covered Las Vegas. Westwood apartment, Century City apartment. Sheraton Hotel. He came and stayed at my place once.

Q. Where was that?

A. That was in Hollywood. It was -- my mother and I had a condo, and my sister.

Q. Did you see Mr. Jackson do anything inappropriate at any of these locations?

A. No.

Q. Ever seen Mr. Jackson touch any child in a sexual way at any of these locations?

A. Never.

Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever touch you inappropriately in any of these locations?

A. No.

Q. Now, have you been following media reporting in this case?

A. Yeah. On and off.

Q. You’re aware of allegations that were made that Mr. Jackson --

MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as leading and exceeding the scope of the direct -- cross.

THE COURT: I don’t know what the question is yet.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. You’ve been following these reports that somehow Mr. Jackson was seen inappropriately touching you?

A. Yes.

Q. What do you think of them?

A. I think it’s --

MR. ZONEN: I’ll object. I’ll withdraw the objection.

THE WITNESS: I think it’s ridiculous.

MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.



Under re-cross by Ron Zonen:

[NB: Prosecutors showed Wade Robson a handful of legal art books found among tens of thousands of books at Jackson's home, which included a large library. Some of the art books, featuring work by respected photographers, depicted children, occasionally nude. Others featured adult men in 'homo-erotic' poses. Some were found bubble-wrapped and unread. Others featured inscriptions, showing they had been mailed to him by fans. All of the books remain legally available to purchase. Also found at Jackson's home were thousands of adult, heterosexual pornographic magazines, some of which were also shown to Robson.]

Q. Okay. You can go ahead and close that one right now. Mr. Robson, are you concerned about a man possessing these seven books being in bed with a 12-year-old boy?

A. If it was a man I didn’t know, maybe. But not Michael.

Q. Is that because you view Mr. Jackson as being, for the most part, asexual?

A. No.

Q. Because you believe that he doesn’t really have a sexual interest?

A. I believe that he has a sexual interest in women.

Q. Did you know that he possessed these magazines?

MR. MESEREAU: Objection, Your Honor, he didn’t let the witness complete his answer.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. MESEREAU: Could the witness complete his answer, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

THE WITNESS: I believe that he has a sexual interest in women.

Q. BY MR. ZONEN: In women?

A. Yes.

Q. These books don’t suggest otherwise?

A. Not necessarily.

*  *  *  *  *

Q. The collective material that you have just been shown does not cause you a moment of pause when you think about the prospect of this person who possesses all of this crawling into bed with a ten-year-old boy?

A. No.

Q. And you would allow a child to crawl into bed with such a person?

A. If I knew the person, yes.

Q. If you knew them?

A. Yes.

Q. Your own child, you’d have no problem sleeping with a 35-, 40-year-old man?

A. If I knew the person well, no.

MR. ZONEN: No further questions.


Under re-direct by Tom Mesereau:

Q. Mr. Robson?

A. Yes.

Q. That’s your fiancee right there, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You are heterosexual, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You are a close friend of Michael, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. By the way, did Michael Jackson ever -- oh, I’ll ask from there. When you were a young child, did Michael Jackson ever show you any sexually explicit material?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever see Michael Jackson show sexually explicit material to any child?

A. No.

*  *  *  *  *

Q. Okay. And let me show you again Exhibit No. 842, “A boy; A Photographic Essay,” okay? And that’s the one with the inscription, “To Michael, from your loving fan, Rhonda,” okay?

A. Yes.

Q. And have you had a chance to flip through that book?

A. Yes.

Q. In fact, you see young children with rather innocent photographs of young boys, correct?

MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as leading, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Innocent photographs of young boys in various situations, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. You see a young boy hanging from a tree, right?

A. Yes.

Q. You see a young boy sitting outside a door, right?

A. Yes.

Q. See young boys on a beach, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, let’s go to -- quickly, to the material the prosecutor for the government showed you, okay? He showed you some magazines with heterosexual activity, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Have you seen one book that depicts child pornography in that group?

A. No.

MR. ZONEN: I believe there was a Court restriction on the use of that word, Your Honor, one initiated by the defense. Unless that reservation is finished.

MR. MESEREAU: He’s correct. And I made a mistake using the word. I’ll withdraw it, and I apologize.

THE COURT: All right. The problem is that sometimes it’s an appropriate word to use and sometimes it’s not. But the jury’s been instructed on it. And so if you want to rephrase it, that’s fine.

MR. MESEREAU: Okay.

Q. In those books that the prosecutor for the government showed you, you see books about men, right?

15 A. Yes.

Q. You see one book that says, “A Study of Male Sexuality” and shows some sexual acts between men, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And he showed you a number of magazines involving sexual activity between men and women, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Has he shown you one book involving children having sex?

A. No.

Q. Has he shown you one book where a man is having sex with a child?

A. No.

Q. The prosecutor tried to suggest that Mr. Jackson is asexual. Do you remember that question?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you believe he’s asexual?

A. No.

Q. Have you seen Mr. Jackson with women in your lifetime?

A. With what kind of woman? A woman that he’s in a relationship with?

Q. That he’s been married to.

A. Yeah, with Lisa Marie.

Q. When you were at Neverland, did you ever see anything that suggested pedophilia?

A. No.

Q. Ever see any magazine or poster that suggested pedophilia?

A. Never.

*  *  *  *  *

Q. Has anything this prosecutor for the government has said to you changed your opinion of Michael Jackson?

A. Not at all.

Q. Does it change your opinion as to whether or not he ever did anything inappropriate with a child?

A. Not at all.

MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.

MR. ZONEN: I have no questions.

THE COURT: Thank you. You may step down

ENDS

Jackson Music Video Extra: 'Tabloid lies disturbed me'

In November 2003, Ken Yesh was one of a few fortunate auditionees selected to appear in what would become Michael Jackson's last ever music video, 'One More Chance'. The video, designed to launch Jackson's colossal, multi-platform comeback, shot for one day in Las Vegas before Jackson's Neverland Ranch was raided, the video was abandoned and the comeback fell at the first hurdle.

In October 2010, while researching for an in-depth article about the making of Jackson's little-known final music video, I managed to track down and interview Ken Yesh as well as several other extras who took part in the production. During my interview with Ken we discussed the aftermath of the Neverland Raid, which ultimately didn't fit into my final article. However, Ken told me one piece of information which I thought was so important that I needed to put it into the public domain somehow.

Ken told me that in the weeks after the videoshoot he picked up a newspaper and was 'disturbed' to find a completely inaccurate report about the video shoot, quoting 'sources' claiming that Jackson had been swarmed by young boys on the set when in fact Yesh had been present all day and had not seen anybody under the age of 18.

In this exclusive excerpt from my interview with Ken Yesh, he talks about his shock at reading the false report.



Readers can subscribe to my YouTube channel in order to receive updates when I upload new clips.

AUDIO: Live in conversation with Deborah Ffrench

Back in December I appeared on Blog Talk Radio to take part in a three hour broadcast, during which I was interviewed by the host, Rev Catherine Gross, then took calls from members of the public.

Earlier this week I began uploading edited highlights of my appearance on the show to my YouTube channel. Today I have added four clips from the segment during which listeners were invited to call in and ask me questions.

One of those listeners was Deborah Ffrench, a writer well known in the Michael Jackson community for her magnificant article 'Michael Jackson: The Making of a Myth', which explored the 1993 allegations against Jackson in great detail and highlighted the bias and sensationalism which dominated the media's coverage of the scandal.

Deborah is also well known in the fan community because for some time, Jackson's detractors have insisted that she and I are in fact the same person - even conducting syntax comparisons on our writing styles in order to 'prove' that we are one and the same.

So it is with great pleasure that I present the following four clips of Deborah and I in conversation, on live radio, on Friday 3rd December 2010. I keenly await the conspiracy theorists' explanations, which I'm sure will be every inch as humorous and imaginative as their previous efforts.

Click here to listen to Part One.

Click here to listen to Part Two.

Click here to listen to Part Three.

Click here to listen to Part Four.

Preview: True Crime with Aphrodite Jones - The Michael Jackson Trial

Aphrodite Jones's Michael Jackson documentary hasn't even aired yet and already the media is gunning for it. The documentary, which aims to highlight slanted media reporting about the allegations against Jackson, has already been dismissed by New York Daily News as a 'love letter' to the star. Meanwhile, South Coast Daily News says it is unobjective because the interviewees are 'a parade of former Jackson managers and retainers'.

The latter comment in particular is both untrue and unfair. Firstly, the show's interviewees include two of the jurors from Jackson's trial, a criminal defense expert and Jones herself. None of these people knew Jackson and they certainly weren't on his payroll.

Secondly, the idea that a documentary about Michael Jackson should be dismissed as unreliable because the talking heads actually knew him is beyond ludicrous. The clear inference is that the documentary would somehow be more reliable if half of the screen time was dedicated to people who never met Jackson speculating wildly about his private life. This is patently absurd.

Having arrived home today and found an advance screening DVD of the show on my doormat, I thought I would post a preview/review ahead of tonight's airing.

Preview

The show begins with Jackson's death on June 25th last year, with Jones positing that while the star was technically killed by acute propofol intoxication, his death had been a sad inevitability. His spirit was crushed, she argues, by bogus allegations about his relationships with children and the way in which the media had misrepresented them. "Jackson never came back from his trial," Jones says in publicity materials. "He died trying."

The audience is transported back to 1993 and taken through the first set of allegations levelled against Jackson. Much time is dedicated to the controversial settlement of the civil suit brought by Jordan Chandler's parents. That settlement, Jones suggests, is the primary cause of many people's reservations about Jackson.

Former Jackson manager Frank Dileo says that Jackson was tricked into the settlement by business advisors more interested in the star's earning power than his public image. Thomas Mesereau, who represented Jackson in his 2005 trial, adds that the settlement also set a precedent for anybody wishing to extort money from Michael Jackson, sending the message that he was an easy target. It created an attitude, he says: 'Why work when you can just sue Michael
Jackson?'

It was Jackson's concern over the impact of the settlement on his public image, Jones claims, that inspired him to let Martin Bashir into his inner sanctum. Seduced by Bashir's promise that his documentary would centre on Jackson's quest to achieve an International Children's Holiday, the star gave Bashir unprecedented access to his life in the hope that it would vindicate him of the 1993 child abuse allegations. But Bashir manipulated the footage in order to advance his own career, Jones says. Bashir ended up crossing the pond to work as a news anchor for ABC, while the documentary Jackson hoped would vindicate him actually wound up serving as the catalyst to a second set of allegations.

Thomas Mesereau describes former DA Tom Sneddon - who tried to prosecute Jackson in 1993 and brought charges against him in 2003 - as being "obsessed to the point of absurdity". Paul Rodriguez, jury foreman in Jackson's trial, agrees. "He came across like he was just doing anything he could to pursuade us to look at things his way, regardless of the evidence," he says. "It was almost like he had a vendetta against him."

Criminal defence lawyer and celebrity trial expert Mickey Sherman adds:

"I think [the prosecution] got too emotionally invested in the case. I think Tom Sneddon seemed gleeful. Gleeful. He took a little too much pleasure in dishing out misery to Michael Jackson... There was such an eagerness to dish out some bad stuff to Michael Jackson that the credibility was, if not lost, certainly diminished."

Jones asserts that the media ignored the not guilty verdicts in Jackson's trial and continued to portray him as a predator because it made 'great headlines on the covers of rag papers'. Mesereau adds that the media was 'humiliated' by the verdicts because reporters had been predicting a conviction and 'almost salivating about him being hauled off to jail'. Jones concludes that the trial traumatised Jackson to such an extent that he was unable to sleep, and this is why he died of a propofol overdose last summer.

Review

While early reviews have been unfair and inaccurate, this documentary is not without fault. For the uninitiated, it offers a tantalising glimpse of what was wrong with the prosecution's case against Jackson and the extent to which the media skewed its reporting on the trial. However, this documentary is not a definitive guide to the allegations against Jackson. The 2005 trial alone lasted four months and could warrant a six part TV series of its own. By condensing both rounds of allegations against Jackson - plus his death - into an hour-long show, programme makers have omitted a wealth of key information.

The 1993 case is all but skipped over. Claims made by Evan Chandler are stated as fact rather than conjecture and the ample evidence undermining the Chandler family's case is not mentioned at all.

The show also fails to mention the enormous legal reason behind the settlement of the civil suit in 1994. Tom Sneddon had so little evidence to support his case in 1993 that two separate grand juries refused to allow him to bring charges against Jackson. The upshot of this was that the civil trial wound up scheduled ahead of any potential criminal trial. This was a violation of Jackson's fifth amendment as it would severely undermine his right to a fair trial.

Holding the civil trial in advance of a criminal trial would give the prosecution unqualified access to Jackson's defense strategy. If Jackson cited an alibi in his civil trial, Sneddon could go back to the office and change the dates on the criminal charges. If Jackson called witnesses to corroborate his version of events, Sneddon could go back to his office and mould his case around their testimony. He could tailor his case exactly to the defense strategy, making it impossible for Jackson to win a criminal trial. The only way Jackson could guarantee himself a fair criminal trial was to make the civil trial go away.

The settlement agreement did not prevent the Chandler family from testifying in a criminal case. Jackson was prepared to fight the allegations in court but he was not prepared to forfeit his right to a fair criminal trial by wasting his defense on a civil suit. The Chandlers' decision not to testify in the criminal case was entirely their own and is perhaps the best indication of what they were really about.

None of this was mentioned in the show's discussion of the 1993 case.

When the second set of allegations rolled around in 2003, Sneddon repeatedly broke the law in his pursuit of Jackson. He breached the conditions of his own search warrant, illegally raided the office of a PI hired by Jackson's lawyer, breached a court-imposed gag order and stole defense documents from the home of a Jackson employee.

When Jackson's lawyer appeared on NBC and stated that the star had a 'concrete, iron-clad alibi' for the dates on the charge sheet, Sneddon shifted them by almost two weeks in time for the arraignment.

None of this is mentioned in tonight's show. Nor is there much discussion at all about the testimony presented in Jackson's trial. Each of the Arvizo family was caught in countless lies. They contradicted their own and each other's versions of events. They claimed to have been held captive at Neverland when records clearly showed that they'd entered and exited the ranch at will and had ample access to telephones while they were there. It was also revealed that the family had lied about sexual abuse in the past for monetary gain.

Elsewhere, former employees took the stand and claimed to have witnessed Jackson molesting Brett Barnes, Wade Robson and Macauley Culkin - only for all three of them to take the stand and tell the prosecution, in no uncertain terms, that they'd never been touched and they resented the implication. The prosecution was also unable to produce a single piece of evidence linking Jackson to their ill-conceived conspiracy charge. All of this - and much more - is omitted from tonight's documentary.

In brief, tonight's show suffers due to time constraints. Whilst it does include interesting commentary from experts like Thomas Mesereau and jurors Paul Rodriguez and Paulina Coccoz, and it will give non-fans an insight into Sneddon's questionable motives and tactics, it is simply impossible to condense the story behind the allegations against Jackson into a one-hour TV show. Aphrodite Jones herself wrote a 296 page book about the 2005 trial alone.

Although this documentary does not include all of the exculpatory evidence relating to the allegations against the King of Pop, it may inspire Jackson skeptics to re-evaluate their stance and perhaps intrigue them enough to seek out Jones's book, Michael Jackson Conspiracy, which contains far more information.

True Crime with Aphrodite Jones airs tonight at 10pm (ET) on Investigation Discovery.

Gene Simmons In Bonkers Jackson Rant

It seems that the lead in Gene Simmons' make-up has gone to his brain.

In a bizarre rant during a Classic Rock interview, Simmons accused Michael Jackson of child molestation, citing several completely fictitious pieces of evidence.

The aging glam-rock star claimed that he knew a musician who quit a Michael Jackson tour because of 'what he saw' on the road. I am frequently paid as a Jackson expert and I can state with certainty that I am unaware of any musician ever quitting a Michael Jackson tour mid-way through. In fact, Jackson used the same musicians every time he toured, with minor alterations on a tour by tour basis, but never mid-way through.

Elsewhere, Simmons claimed that Michael Jackson was on tape ordering 'Jesus Juice' for children. This is a fiction.

It was alleged during Jackson's trial that he served alcohol to the Gavin Arvizo and his siblings, but they each gave contradictory accounts of the incident. Staff accused by the children of serving them booze all denied having ever done so, but did reveal that the children had been caught stealing alcohol behind Jackson's back.

No audio tape of Jackson ordering alcohol for children was ever brought forward and the star was acquitted on multiple counts of serving alcohol to a minor. Simmons' claim that Jackson was on tape ordering alcohol for children is pure fantasy.

By far, Simmons' most outrageous claim was that during Jackson's trial a travel agent testified that the star had hired them to fly to Brazil and fetch young boys for him. This allegation is a total figment of Gene Simmons' imagination. No such testimony ever occurred during Jackson's trial.

Growing up, I was always taught that if you don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't say anything. Evidently Gene's parents didn't instill in him the same belief. That, or he's just going senile.

It is completely irresponsible to pass comment on a criminal investigation that you know nothing about and even more irresponsible to make a criminal accusation and then support it with non-existent evidence. Simmons has heard fragments of reported speech from Jackson's trial and then assigned them entirely new meaning as the years have passed, building up an arsenal of evidence against Jackson which never actually existed.

However, the blame doesn't lie solely at Simmons' door. Classic Rock should do their research before regurgitating such drivel. Yes, it is reported speech, but it is still irresponsible for any publication to perpetuate baseless myths which indicate that an innocent man is a paedophile.

Thanks to Google News, this story has now gone global. All over the world people are reading it and many will believe Simmons' comments, partially because he's in the music business and there is an element of presumed insider knowledge, but mostly because the initial reporting on Jackson's trial was so inept.

Simmons' comments have no basis in reality. Jackson is categorically not on tape ordering children alcohol. There was categorically not any testimony at his trial about flying boys in from Brazil. These two allegations are without any evidencial basis whatsoever, and for Simmons to state them as fact is despicable.

In future, Simmons should either do his research or shut his trap. His irresponsible and unfounded allegations have now entered the homes of millions around the globe and you can bet your bottom dollar that nobody is going to print a rebuttal or a retraction.

Controversial newspaper labels Jackson a 'common paedophile'

The Daily Mail today ran an article about Evan Chandler's suicide even more ludicrous than The Mirror's offering on Thursday.

The newspaper, which famously supported the nazi party and recently came under fire for publishing a homophobic article about the death of Stephen Gately, labelled Jackson a 'common paedophile' and explicitly stated that he routinely molested young boys.

The article is factually inaccurate on every level. It claims that Jackson was found in possession of child porn - he was not. Had he been, he would have been charged with possession of child porn. Bit of a no-brainer.

It also claims that Gavin Arvizzo accused Jackson of having sex with him. A blatant fabrication.

Author of the piece David Jones pours scorn on what he portrays as conspiracy theories that the 1993 allegations were concocted by Evan Chandler for financial gain. He conveniently neglects to mention numerous pieces of factual information which prove this to be the case. He neglects to mention, for instance, that it was Evan who accused Jackson of molestation while his son maintained that he'd never been touched. He neglects to mention also that journalist Mary Fischer proved in a 1994 article how Jordan had only corroborated the story after Evan plied him with a mind-altering drug, sodium amytal, which is known to induce false memory syndrome.

But Mary Fischer is a real journalist, while David Jones simply writes obscene and factually inaccurate hit-pieces for Britain's most racist newspaper.

Like so many others, Jones points to the 1994 settlement as proof of Jackson's guilt, neglecting to mention that Jackson didn't pay the settlement - his insurance carrier did - and court documents show that Jackson didn't even agree to the settlement, which was "negotiated and paid... over the protests of Mr Jackson and his personal legal counsel."

To point out each individual inaccuracy contained within the article would probably take the best part of 5000 words. Composed largely of pure fantasy and hinging much of its information on the word of Evan Chandler's brother, the clearly biased Ray Chandler (who himself profited hugely from the fabricated claims of abuse by publishing an inadvertantly hilarious book about the 1993 scandal), the article trumps even Tanya Gold's recent Guardian editorial on the nonsense scale.

A blatant hit-piece, the article is almost certainly racially motivated and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the newspaper finds itself on the receiving end of a major lawsuit within a week. David Jones is relentlessly bilious throughout the article, which contains no hint of objectivity or journalistic integrity.

Jones repeatedly quotes US reporter Diane Dimond as some manner of expert on the case, despite the fact that she is clearly unhinged. Having repeatedly stated throughout the ninties and the early noughties that her sole ambition in life was to destroy the career of Michael Jackson, she has been described by writer Ishmael Reed as a 'Jackson stalker'. Her reporting on Jackson's trial was so biased that she was fired from CourtTV almost immediately after the verdict was announced. She has made her living slandering Jackson ever since.

Dimond subsequently penned a book about Jackson titled 'Be Careful Who You Love', which Jones inexplicably describes as 'acclaimed'. Acclaimed by who? It bombed spectacularly upon its release.

Jones has employed much the same technique as Jacques Peretti did for his 2007 documentary 'Michael Jackson: What Really Happened'. He has intentionally tracked down only interviewees who he knows have financial motives for portraying Jackson as a paedophile. He has then quoted them as objective experts.

He omits vital information which exonerates Jackson of the 1993 allegations, all the while including mountains of pure speculation, which he represents as fact. He attributes quotes to Jordan Chandler which he cannot possibly verify and even goes so far as to describe the boy's thoughts.

What he neglects to mention is that rather than being 'traumatised', as Jones claims without source in his article, Jordan Chandler reverted in later life to his original stance, which was that Jackson had never touched him. When asked to take the stand in Jackson's 2005 trial - during which Jones seems to forget that Jackson was unanimously aquitted and vindicated - Jordan refused to testify against his former friend. Meanwhile, Jackson's defence had numerous witnesses lined up who were prepared to testify that in recent years Jordan had repeatedly insisted that Jackson never touched him and his father had concocted the entire story.

A vindictive character assassination, David Jones's article is the single most irresponsible piece of journalism I have ever had the misfortune to read. He should be ashamed of himself. But somehow, I suspect that he isn't.

Chandler Suicide Highlights Media Bias Against Jackson

When it emerged yesterday that two weeks ago Evan Chandler, father of Jordan Chandler, shot himself in the head, few tears were shed despite the media's best efforts to eulogise him.

Most media outlets are touting Chandler as 'the father of the boy who accused Jackson of child molestation'. Wrong. Chandler was the father who accused Jackson of molesting his son after the star refused to negotiate script-writing deals for him.

The initial allegations against Jackson were made not by Jordie Chandler but by his father Evan, in spite of Jordie's insistence that Jackson never touched him inappropriately, a stance that the boy maintained for several months.

Relations between the boy's father and Jackson had been strained from the outset as Evan Chandler felt that Jackson was replacing him as a father. The following passage is taken from Jackson biography 'The Magic and the Madness'. Chandler spoke to the author, Randy Taraborrelli, several times:

"June and Evan had been arguing about Evan's involvement in Jordie's life; June didn't feel that Evan was spending enough time with his son. Evan disagreed. However, he couldn't help but feel that he might be losing his place in Jordie's life to Michael. He didn't believe that Michael was doing anything wrong with Jordie. Rather, he simply felt the presence of another man, an influential male figure, in his son's life - and he didn't like it. It didn't help matters that June would often make reference to the fact that Jordie saw Michael more than he did his own father. 'Michael is completely influential on your son,' she told Evan during one conversation, 'and he's taking over where you have left off.'"

The book goes on to describe Evan's chagrin as Jackson performed fatherly tasks, such as buying Jordan a computer: 'Evan was not happy about it. He had planned to buy his son the exact same computer and Michael had beaten him to it.'

Chandler noticed his son becoming distant and began to believe that Jackson was involved with his ex-wife, June: 'I felt then that maybe June should just divorce Dave, since they were having problems, and maybe hook up with Michael.' On a trip to Monaco Taraborrelli describes Jackson as looking close to June: 'In Monaco Michael was often photographed with June, Jordie and Lily. In several pictures, he is seen holding Lily in his arms while walking next to June. Jordie [...] walked ahead of them.'

When Evan first met Jackson he felt 'exhilaration' and 'awe'. However, when Jackson stopped returning his calls he became bitter. On July 8th 1993 Evan was tape recorded during a telephone conversation, complaining that Jackson had stopped telephoning him: 'There was no reason why he had to stop calling me'.

He added that he'd had a conversation with Jackson and told him 'exactly what I want out of the relationship with him'.

'I picked the nastiest son of a bitch I could find,' he said of his new attorney. 'All he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can, and humiliate as many people as he can. He's nasty, he's mean, he's smart and he's hungry for publicity. Everything's going according to a certain plan that isn't just mine. Once I make that phonecall, this guy is going to destroy everybody in sight in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it. I've given him full authority to do that.'

'If I go through with this, I win big time,' he continued. 'There is no way I lose. I will get everything I want and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose [custody] and Michael's career will be over.'

Asked whether that was good for Jordie, he replied: 'That's irrelevant to me.'

Behind the scenes an increasingly embittered Chandler had contacted Jackson and demanded that he negotiate three scriptwriting deals on his behalf. If Jackson did not comply, Chandler threatened, he would accuse him of molesting his son. Jackson didn't comply - and the rest is history.

Jordie maintained for some time that Jackson had never touched him inappropriately. Investigative journalist Mary Fischer uncovered compelling evidence - which she published in her 1994 GQ article 'Was Michael Jackson Framed?' - that Jordan Chandler only subscribed to his father's version of events after Evan - a dentist by trade - plied him with a mind-bending drug called sodium amytal, which is known to induce false memory syndrome.

Even once Jordan Chandler began to toe his father's line, his testimony was so unconvincing that DA Tom Sneddon took his case to two separate grand juries and neither allowed him to bring charges against Michael Jackson. Contrary to widely reported myth, Jordan Chandler did not accurately describe Jackson's genitals. Among other inaccuracies, he claimed that Jackson was circumcised while police photographs proved that he was not.

Unsurprisingly, none of this information has made its way into the mainstream media's reportage of Evan Chandler's death. Instead, Chandler's suicide is seen as another opportunity to sling mud at Michael Jackson and perpetuate the same, tired old myths about the 1993 allegations - particularly with regard to the settlement.

News outlets the world over are once more reporting that in 1994 Jackson paid the Chandlers a settlement. Court documents which came to light in 2005 state clearly that Jackson's insurance carrier "negotiated and paid the settlement over the protests of Mr Jackson and his personal legal counsel."

Amongst the publications that rehashed this age old nonsense was The Sun, to which I often contribute as a Michael Jackson expert. I was contacted yesterday and asked to provide information about Evan Chandler and the 1993 allegations, which I did. However, none of my information was used - most likely because it reflected too well on Jackson. Myths that imply Jackson's guilt are evidently more important than truths which exonerate him.

Noticing that The Sun's article on Chandler's suicide contained several inaccuracies (most prominently that Jordie initiated the claims of molestation and that Jackson paid the settlement) I contacted two members of staff at the newspaper - my usual contact and the journalist who wrote the article. Neither email was replied and the article was not changed.

Elsewhere, The Mirror ranked several places higher on the absurdity scale as it attempted to portray Chandler as a martyr of some kind. 'Michael Jackson sex case dad Evan Chandler wanted justice but ended up destroyed', read the headline.

Justice?

If Evan Chandler had wanted justice, why did he contact Jackson and ask for a three-movie script deal before he went to the police? If he wanted justice, why did he accept a settlement from Jackson's insurance carrier? The settlement specifically did not affect the family's ability to testify in a criminal case. So if Evan Chandler wanted justice, why didn't he allow the police to press ahead with their investigation after he got his money?

The headline, along with much of the article, is nonsense.

Having taken Jackson's insurance carrier for just under $15million (not the $20million usually alluded to by the press), in 1996 Evan Chandler tried to sue Jackson for a further $60million after claiming that the star's album HIStory was a breach of the settlement's confidentiality clause. In addition to trying to sue Jackson, Chandler requested that the court allow him to produce a rebuttal album called EVANstory.

Yes, really.

So the man who The Mirror claims only 'wanted justice' thought that the best course of action after the initial media storm died down would be to release an album of music about the supposed abuse of his pre-pubescent son.

The Mirror alluded to the fact that relations between Jordan and his parents were strained after 1993, but laid the blame at Jackson's door, claiming that the trauma of the case had driven them apart.

In actuality, Jordan Chandler went to court when he was 16 and gained legal emancipation from both of his parents. When called to appear at Jackson's 2005 trial, he refused to testify against his former friend. Had he taken the stand, Jackson's legal team had a number of witnesses who were prepared to testify that Jordan - who now reportedly lives in Long Island under an assumed name - had told them in recent years that he hated his parents for what they made him say in 1993, and that Michael Jackson had never touched him.

The evidence surrounding the 1993 allegations overwhelmingly supports Michael Jackson's innocence. It is for this reason that during the lengthy investigation, which continued for many months, Michael Jackson was never arrested and was never charged with any crime.

The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that Evan Chandler masterminded the allegations as a money making scheme, believing it would help him to achieve his dream of working in Hollywood. The aforementioned tape recorded telephone conversation heard him dismiss the boy's wellbeing as 'irrelevant' and admit that he was out to take Jackson for all he was worth.

Mary Fischer's evidence shows that as well as falsifying the sexual abuse of his own son in an elaborate extortion plot, when Jordan refused to play along Evan plied him with mind-altering drugs in a bid to trick him into believing that he was molested.

But even drugging a child as part of an extortion plot wasn't Evan Chandler's lowest point. That came when he petitioned the court to allow him to release an album of music about the supposed sexual abuse of his own son.

As for the media, this latest incident cements once more the industry's almost total unwillingness to report fairly or accurately on Michael Jackson, particularly on the bogus allegations of sexual abuse that were levelled against him. None of the aforementioned information and evidence was included in any article about Chandler's suicide that I have read so far, despite the fact that I personally delivered it to at least one newspaper which specifically asked me to supply it.

Exculpatory facts are overlooked in favour of salacious myths. A black humanitarian is tarred as a paedophile and his white extortionist is painted as a martyr.

Guardian columnist insinuates that Michael Jackson was a paedophile; Charles Thomson explodes the myths behind the 1993 case

The Guardian was today forced to disable the 'comments' function on an editorial about Michael Jackson after hundreds of readers voiced their disgust at the irresponsible factual inaccuracies that it contained.

Tanya Gold's bemusing rant about Michael Jackson provoked outrage as she lambasted the King of Pop, claiming that he couldn't write hits, wasn't a great dancer and that his innovation of the music video was meaningless.

Most shocking, however, was her strong insinuation that Jackson was a paedophile, which supported with a number of incorrect 'facts'.

Gold's editorial wrongly claimed that during Jackson's 1993 child abuse storm, Jordan Chandler had accurately described the star's genitals to police officers.

This is a fiction.

The myth that Chandler accurately described Jackson's genitals is one that has been perpetuated by hack writers for over one and a half decades.

In 2007 Jacques Peretti - also a Guardian contributor - faced a barrage of OFCOM complaints after his pseudo-documentary 'Michael Jackson - What Really Happened' also rehashed this myth.

It is well documented that Jordan Chandler did not accurately describe Michael Jackson's genitals. Among other inaccuracies, he claimed that Jackson was circumcised, whilst police photographs proved that he was not.

Here is Chandler's drawing of Jackson's penis, which he gave to police officers 1993:



Damning, I'm sure you will agree.

Chandler's failure to corroborate his allegations - including his inability to accurately describe Jackson's genitals - was the reason Jackson never faced charges in 1993.

The media would have you believe that the reason Jackson never faced trial in 1993 was because he paid off the boy's family.

This is also bogus.

The investigation into Jackson's conduct began in 1993 and lasted long into 1994. During this prolonged period - long before the financial settlement was reached - Jackson was never arrested and he was never charged. This was due to a complete lack of corroborative evidence. DA Tom Sneddon took his 'case' against Jackson to three separate grand juries - all three refused to let him bring charges against the star.

But the media won't tell you that.

Ergo, the media's widespread claim that Jackson bought his way out of a criminal trial is a myth - he was never going to stand criminal trial in the first place. When Jackson settled with the Chandler family, he was not being prosecuted. He was being sued.

To claim that Jackson settled the case at all is also a myth, although that's not the way the mainstream media tells it.

Jackson never paid the Chandlers a cent in the 1994 financial settlement. It was the the star's insurance company which covered the costs, not the Jackson himself. Furthermore, documents prove that the settlement was arranged against the star's wishes.

Court documents which came to light in 2005 stated: "The settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Mr Jackson's insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement over the protests of Mr Jackson and his personal legal counsel."

All of this, Tanya Gold fails to include in her editorial.

It seems to have escaped Tanya Gold's notice that Jackson was acquitted and vindicated in his 2005 trial - a trial that included testimony about the 1993 case. As such, Jackson died an innocent man, and no person has the right to insinuate otherwise.

Interestingly, Gold - who never attended a single day of Jackson's trial - seems to believe that she knows better than the 12 jurors who sat through every nanosecond of testimony.

Such breathtaking arrogance is a problem that dogged Jackson for much of his career. The media has a habit of hiring clueless laypersons to offer 'expert analysis' on subjects they don't understand and Jackson fell prey to this trend more than his fair share of times.
The problem hit fever pitch during Jackson's trial. On weekday evenings in spring/summer 2005, shows like 'Richard and Judy' would regularly invite assorted columnists to offer 'expert opinion' on the star's trial. Presumably, none of these journalists had actually attended Jackson's trial, given that it was often in session in Santa Maria at the very moment that they were discussing it on 'Richard and Judy'.

Gold is another in a long line of non-experts masquerading as an expert. Her 'facts' have no basis in reality. She claims that Chandler accurately described Jackson's genitals - he didn't. She claims that Jackson bought off the boy's family - he didn't.

Gold's pathetic editorial is indicative of the systemic failure of the British media to report accurately on black celebrities. Rather than physically check whether Chandler accurately described Jackson's private parts, Gold vaguely recalls hearing some other hack claiming that he did and assumes that this is proof enough. And if it isn't - who cares? You can't libel the dead anyway.

Another half hour of online research - which isn't too much to expect from a professional journalist - would have produced further evidence that the 1993 allegations were a crock.

In the wake of the 1993 scandal journalist Mary A Fischer penned an article entitled 'Was Michael Jackson Framed?' The investigation appeared in GQ magazine and contained compelling evidence that the star had been set-up, including transcripts of tape recorded telephone calls in which the boy's father, Evan Chandler, was heard discussing his plans to extort money from Michael Jackson.
In 2004 Geraldine Hughes, legal secretary to Jordan Chandler's lawyer during the 1993 allegations, wrote a book called 'Redemption'. In the book Hughes detailed how she had witnessed, from the inside, the boy's father and his lawyer masterminding the plot to extort money from Michael Jackson, or destroy him if he didn't comply.

During Jackson's 2005 trial Jordan Chandler was called by the prosecution, but failed to show up to court. Instead his mother, June Chandler, took the stand. During her testimony she admitted that Jordan had legally divorced both of his parents and no longer spoke to either of them.

During a subsequent Q+A at Harvard University, Jackson's lawyer Thomas Mesereau revealed that the reason Chandler divorced his parents was allegedly because he was incensed that they had forced him to lie to the police and in doing so had destroyed his friendship with Jackson.

Mesereau also stated that had Chandler taken the stand, the defence had numerous witnesses lined up who were willing to testify that Chandler repeatedly told them he was never molested by Jackson and that his parents, particularly his father, had concocted the entire story.

The evidence that Jackson abused Jordy Chandler is zero. That is why the star was never arrested and never charged. Conversely, the evidence that Jackson was innocent is overwhelming.

Tanya Gold, like many journalists, would do well to research her subjects in future, rather than arrogantly concluding that her own ill-informed assumptions trump the proven facts. Of course, every columnist has the right to his or her opinion. However, what they do not have is the right to misrepresent facts - and they certainly do not have the right to label innocent men paedophiles.
Put simply - it is irresponsible. In the digital age, the Guardian has a worldwide internet readership. This means that a potential audience of millions could happen upon Tanya Gold's nonsense editorial, consume it and retain her bogus factual information. Similarly, Jacques Peretti's 2007 show was watched by millions and has been repeated incessantly ever since.
Writers - be they journalists or columnists - have a responsibility to their audiences. This is why research is of the upmost importance.
Tanya Gold has failed in her responsibilities. Readers put trust in journalists, particularly broadsheet journalists. Gold's editorial was teeming with factual inaccuracies.
Rarely have I seen such irresponsibility, particularly in a newspaper such as the Guardian.