Clearing Up More Nonsense

After discovering yesterday that one individual was impersonating me on TMZ, I discovered that another was writing inaccurate articles about me for consumption by thousands of vulnerable and impressionable fans.

Bonnie Cox, author of the 'Michael's Guardian' blog, has recently published two inaccurate and defamatory articles about me and has alluded on her twitter page to the fact that she's planning a third.

Cox, a supporter of the Tea Party movement who last year wrote on her facebook page that she hoped President Obama would get on a plane with one of his 'muslim buddies' and crash, insists on her blog that Michael Jackson was murdered by Sony, 'This Is It' is full of body doubles and Jackson's friends are being murdered to disguise the truth about his death.

Among the brainless witterings on her blog, she baselessly accuses me of authoring 'false' blogs about Michael Jackson, suggests that I am only covering him positively for my own financial gain and implies that my friendship with J Randy Taraborrelli is part of a Sony conspiracy to destroy Michael Jackson.

Cox claimed J Randy Taraborrelli's biography 'Michael Jackson: The Magic and the Madness' was sponsored by Sony as part of a campaign to smear Michael Jackson. Not only this, but Cox went on to insinuate that because I am friends with Randy Taraborrelli, I could be in on it.

She later sent me a message via twitter implying that there was something shady about my friendship with Taraborrelli, saying, "I have a photo of you and Taraborrelli together. How am I supposed to deal with that?"

The notion that a photograph of myself and J Randy Taraborrelli is evidence of a conspiracy is laughable. I have made no secret of my friendship with Randy Taraborrelli and nor has he. We had dinner together in LA several weeks ago and both posted the pictures on our facebook pages. I'm not ashamed of our friendship and nor should I be. Taraborrelli is a kind, warm, funny and generous man, and any implication that he's part of a conspiracy to destroy Michael Jackson is beyond absurd. The idea that a photograph of us together would evidence any shady conspiracy or subterfuge, or would be of any interest to Cox's readers, is insane.

Randy Taraborrelli and I in Los Angeles.

Cox has since threatened me indirectly via twitter, writing a message that I'm 'not going to like tomorrow's blog', so apparently her next entry will be filled with even more deluded nonsense.
Cox, by her own admission, only began writing about Jackson after his death. I, meanwhile, have a documented history of Jackson-related journalism stretching back at least as far as 2008. Ironic, then, that Cox should accuse me of being the bandwagon jumper.

Her inexperience shows, too. Among her 'evidence' of Randy Taraborrelli's anti-Jackson agenda she cites Bob Jones's tell-all book about Michael Jackson. That would be Bob Jones who admitted on the stand during Jackson's trial that his book contained fabricated information, such as false claims that he witnessed Jackson licking the head of a young boy.

Cox also neglects to mention that in a series of tape-recorded telephone conversations between Jackson and a female friend, known as the 'Glenda Tapes', Jackson name-checks Taraborrelli's book and confirms its accuracy.

A final word: The idea that I have only started writing in Jackson's defence since he died and it became profitable is easily disproven by this 2008 interview I conducted with Aphrodite Jones about her book 'Michael Jackson Conspiracy'.

As for the idea that I am benefitting financially from my articles about Jackson's media treatment, my work on the Michael Jackson case has been conducted largely at my own expense. My most recent Huffington Post article, 'One of the Most Shameful Episodes in Journalistic History', took a month to research and is over 5000 words long. I was not paid for any of my research or writing on that piece. I wrote it because I am passionate about the cause and believe the injustice needs to be highlighted.
Quite how my willingness to spend one month doing unpaid research and writing on a pro-Michael Jackson article ties in with the theory that I'm part of a Sony-controlled anti-Michael Jackson conspiracy, I'm not sure. You'll have to direct that question to Bonnie Cox.

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.

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

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.

Conjuring a Chorus of Boos; The Truth About Michael Jackson's UK Comeback

I feel compelled to write this blog today because as I sit here in front of my computer, it is seven years - to the day - since I experienced an epiphany of sorts about the media's coverage of Michael Jackson. I had followed his trial quite carefully, of course, comparing court transcripts to media coverage and being distressed by the horrendously biased reporting. But those reports were often at least rooted in fact. Journalists would misrepresent genuine testimony, in most cases simply 'lying' by omission.

What happened seven years ago was different.  I witnessed firsthand the construction of a purely fabricated story; one which shot around the world, once again making Michael Jackson a global figure of ridicule, and became immediately accepted as 'fact'. To this day, I read occasional press reports which mention this fabricated event as though it were an objective truth. It has even been listed as a significant career event in Jackson biographies.

Witnessing the creation of the myth was an experience that has stayed with me ever since. For an enthusiastic journalism degree student, it was a shocking and saddening insight into the media's more sinister machinations.

On November 15, 2006, Michael Jackson attended the World Music Awards at London's Earls Court Arena. It was his first official appearance in the capital since his acquittal in June 2005 and I was fortunate enough to be there. Some fans queued all day to secure prime positions in front of the stage but I had to go to university and then travel into London in the evening. Nonetheless, my friends and I easily claimed a spot against the front barrier, just off to the side, immediately beside the mixing desk. We spent part of the evening chatting to the sound and security staff, who tipped us off that they'd been in rehearsals and heard Jackson rehearsing 'that save the world song'. We met Katie Melua and got an autograph as she watched some of the show from the side of the stage.

It seemed like everybody was there for Michael Jackson. At any gap in the ceremony, chants of his name would erupt around the arena. Other performers on the bill included Enya, Beyoncé and Andrea Bocelli, but they mostly received tepid responses and their performances were often book-ended by increasingly loud chants of 'Michael! Michael! Michael!'

The night was plagued by delays. Lindsay Lohan, on hosting duty, fluffed almost every line she spoke and had to record all of her links multiple times. The turnaround between acts was slow. At one point there was a half hour or more of just nothing at all: an empty stage.

When Michael Jackson eventually appeared, to collect a Diamond Award for album sales over 100million, the place exploded. I have seen Paul McCartney. I have seen Madonna. I have seen Prince. I have seen George Michael. I have never in my life, before or since, witnessed any artist provoke the response that Michael Jackson provoked that night. He received the most sustained, thunderous reception I've ever seen.

He remained on stage for several minutes to deliver two short acceptance speeches - one for his Diamond Award and one for a Guinness World Record presentation. For the duration of his speeches, I hardly heard a word he said, despite the booming sound system. Most artists receive a big cheer as they walk onstage, then the audience settles down. Michael Jackson provoked hysteria. Shrieking and crying. It didn't lull once from the moment he appeared on that balcony until the moment he disappeared backstage again. It was an unforgettable sight.

He emerged again later for a brief performance of sorts. He walked onstage to another cacophonous reception as his record-breaking humanitarian single We Are The World played over the speaker system. He sang a few lines and seemed to look pleadingly towards the mixing desk. My suspicion is that the fans were making such a din he couldn't hear himself. It was like one of his concerts from the 80s. I saw bodies pulled from the crowd and rushed away in wheelchairs.

A few minutes later the sound people bizarrely turned the track off just as he started singing again. No matter. The place just went even crazier. It was an emotional moment, watching him receive such a rapturous welcome after the previous summer's events. After standing for a while on the runway that jutted out from the stage into the crowd, he began to exit, but as the cheering swelled - the audience not wanting to lose sight of him so quickly - he stopped and turned around. Playfully, he lifted a finger to his lips as if to ask the question, 'Shall I stay or shall I go?' The shrieking intensified.

He stood for a while, smiling, and just soaking in the adulation, then raised his fist into a triumphant black power salute. With that, he turned and coolly strolled off-stage, the applause continuing fiercely as he disappeared from view. I have never seen a human being cause such chaos. It was deafening.

You can watch a video of the performance here:



The following day I was back at university. As I walked along the corridor towards my first lecture, I met two female classmates. Looking at me pityingly, they asked: "How did it go?" I began telling them about the awe-inspiring reaction Jackson had received; how shocked I was at the scale of the outpouring. It had been one of the most incredible spectacles I'd ever witnessed.

I noticed they were now looking at me as though I were a crazy person. I asked them what was wrong and it transpired that the media was not quite reporting the night's proceedings as they had happened. Once I gained access to the internet, I discovered multiple publications were claiming he had been booed offstage.

"Michael Jackson walked offstage to a chorus of boos last night," the Mirror's Tom Bryant wrote. "The crowd, expecting a proper version of his song, booed the star who then scuttled offstage."

Scuttled offstage.

Watch the above video. Jackson not only does not 'scuttle offstage' to 'a chorus of boos' - he remains onstage long after his performance ends, absorbing the most emphatically positive reaction I've ever observed at an awards ceremony.

The Daily Record's Julia Kuttner wrote an almost identical story: "Michael Jackson walked off stage to a chorus of boos last night - just four lines into his first performance in the UK for nine years. Jacko had picked up a gong at the World Music Awards in London minutes before. But after singing only the chorus to his charity single We Are The World, he stopped to repeatedly tell the audience: 'I love you'. Jackson scuttled off the stage after he was booed by the crowd, who were expecting a proper version of the song."

The Evening Standard also got in on the action. Reporters Chris Elwell-Sutton and Valentine Low wrote: "His much-vaunted reappearance turned into an embarrassing disaster. His entire performance consisted of one mangled line, several missed high notes and an exit to a chorus of boos from the audience. 'I love you', he told them - although whether the feeling was reciprocated is open to question."

I was in complete disbelief. Had one rogue reporter claimed Michael Jackson was booed offstage, I wouldn't have been so angry. Every profession has its bad apples. But for multiple reporters to have attended an event at which Michael Jackson demonstrably and categorically was not booed offstage, yet to all then write articles claiming he was, demonstrated a clear conspiracy between multiple parties to fabricate and perpetuate a bogus story. 

That myth went around the world. Michael Jackson getting booed offstage became the biggest source of mirth on many a topical panel show and celebrity chat programme. It prompted further stories. The Guardian's Martin Hyde repeated the lies, declaring Jackson the 'ex-King of Pop' and claiming he had only managed a few lines 'before the booing began'. The Sunday Mirror captioned a follow-up story: "Plastic freak's comeback was truly diabolical."

Even celebrity publicist Max Clifford was hoodwinked into commenting on the bogus story, telling the Daily Record: "The one thing that always stood him in good stead was, as a performer, he was one of the greats. This week, he destroyed that image. The reports from the awards say he sang one mangled line, several messy high notes and exited to a chorus of boos. As a performer that was incredibly damaging, and that's all he's got left. I think Michael is probably beyond help."

Researching the story years later using newspaper archive service Infotrac, I discovered something very interesting; an earlier report from the Mirror which completely contradicted the fabricated version it later settled on. In at least one edition of the November 16 paper, a story by Eva Simpson and Caroline Hedley read: "He's back! Michael Jackson was the biggest winner at the awards where he gave his first public performance for nine years. The star was honoured with a Diamond Award for selling more than 100 million albums in his career. Hosted by Lindsay Lohan, the starstudded event at London's Earl's Court saw Jacko give a stunning performance of We Are The World. You sure are, Jacko."

So it would appear that at some point an editorial decision was taken that instead of continuing to report what had actually happened, the newspaper was going to rewrite the night's events to tell the exact opposite of the truth - and several other publications were going to do the same. 

It seemed to me that the media had already decided what story it wanted to tell about Michael Jackson's appearance in London - it was just an irritation to them that he hadn't played ball. When his appearance prompted a powerful outpouring of adulation - fans being rushed away in wheelchairs like the tours of his heyday - it didn't suit the industry's preconceived narrative. Certain figures were intent on Jackson being the 'ex-King of Pop'. When Earls Court actually went just as crazy for him as it would have done 20 years prior, it didn't fit - so they simply ignored that inconvenient turn of events and conjured a 'chorus of boos' from thin air. If Jackson wouldn't play his 'ex-King of Pop' role like a good boy, they would attempt to manufacture it. It was classic British tabloid muscle-flexing. 

The frustration and the sadness I felt that day when I observed this lie being willfully peddled, and the powerlessness I felt just watching TV presenter after TV presenter, comedian after comedian, recycle the nonsense for the consumption of millions who were not there and would never know it was all made up, bubbles back up whenever I remember the debacle. It was a sorry day for journalism - but the profession has had many of those where Michael Jackson is concerned. 

I'm not sure why I've never written anything about it before, but a friend posted a video from the event on Facebook earlier today to mark the anniversary. It was the last time I saw Michael Jackson perform live, but the memory is always tinged with sadness and frustration for what happened in the following days. It's about time somebody set the record straight on this particular fallacy. 

My Upcoming French TV Appearance: A Preview

On June 20th, French TV station France Ô will screen Conrad Murray's controversial documentary about the death of Michael Jackson - and a lot of Jackson's fans are less than happy about it. Largely shot during Murray's trial and shown around the world in the weeks after he was found guilty of Jackson's manslaughter, the documentary tells his version of what happened on June 25th 2009, the day Michael Jackson died in his care.

The documentary sparked outrage when it first aired in November last year. Jackson's fans organised a campaign and vowed to boycott, while his Estate publicly demanded that it be banned from the airwaves. In an open letter to Comcast, NBC and MSNBC, the Estate complained that Murray had 'refused to tell his story under penalty of perjury in a court of law' but had now, post-conviction, released a documentary in which he blamed Michael Jackson for his own death.

Ultimately, the documentary did Murray no favours. It actually became an aggravating factor in his sentencing hearing. In a witness impact statement, Jackson's mother Katherine wrote that Murray's comments in the documentary had added 'insult to injury' and showed that he was 'clearly not remorseful'. Judge Pastor, who presided over Murray's trial, agreed and sentenced him to the maximum possible jail term for Michael Jackson's manslaughter.

Fans have set up petitions and launched a huge campaign to have the documentary pulled from France Ô's schedule. Of course, the petitions will almost certainly be futile affairs. There's probably more chance of Conrad Murray releasing an album called Michael Jackson's Killer and outselling Michael Jackson's Thriller than there is of the show being pulled from the airwaves at this stage. If anything, the fans are most likely generating more buzz around the show, which will ultimately lead more people to switch on and see what all the fuss is about.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. A lot of these fans have never seen the documentary. I remember mentioning on Twitter that I'd watched it back in November and being sent a number of rude tweets, informing me that I should be ashamed of myself for tuning in. It was awful, the fans said, and they were boycotting it. But how did they know it was awful if they refused to watch it? How can one intelligently comment upon a documentary without having seen it?

If those fans had tuned in, they would know that for the vast majority of the show - currently on YouTube, for anyone interested in checking it out - Murray comes across as a deeply deluded individual, to whom telling lies comes as naturally as breathing. He constantly makes claims which were refuted by the evidence in his trial and the camera crew also films his defence team as they scheme to concoct outlandish theories around the prosecution's evidence.

In one scene, Murray's defence lawyers are seen wracking their brains for ways in which to counter the evidence of anesthetic expert Dr Steven Schafer, who quite literally wrote the instruction manual that comes inside every propofol box.  Lawyer Michael Flanagan is actually filmed suggesting that the defence needs to convince jurors that the coroner's verdict on Jackson's cause of death is incorrect. "We gotta get it to be a cardiac arrest," he says. The scene epitomises Murray's defence: 'Ok, our last harebrained theory hasn't panned out, what's our next one?'

In another scene, Murray - looking like a pay-per-view faith healer - closes his eyes and waves his arms in the air as he describes how the Holy Spirit came to him in a dream and promised to 'keep me safely in the secret chambers of his tabernacle'.

Any right-minded viewer watching the deranged doctor's ramblings will be left with the impression that this is a man they wouldn't leave in charge of their shopping cart, let alone their life. Far from painting Murray as a sympathetic figure, it only reinforces the perception of him as a charlatan. In the UK, it was screened under the title, The Man Who Killed Michael Jackson.

Amid all the controversy surrounding Murray's documentary, I was contacted a few weeks ago by a production company working for another French TV station called M6. The company was putting together a documentary to mark the third anniversary of Michael Jackson's death. The show would focus on the circumstances surrounding Jackson's death and, specifically, whether Conrad Murray was the only doctor to blame.

I am firmly of the opinion that Murray is the only doctor to blame for Jackson's death and thought taking part would be a good opportunity to make that point. The M6 documentary, titled Access Privé, is scheduled to air on June 25th, five days after the Murray documentary, and M6 scores far higher ratings than France Ô.

Picture: Angela Kande

I was interviewed for the show on Thursday, June 7th, at the Millennium Hotel in Knightsbridge, London - about a two-minute walk from Jackson's favourite London shopping centre, Harrods. I was interviewed for roughly an hour by Amal El Hachimi from Spica Production TV, the company making the report.

It wasn't the easiest of interviews. The documentary's aim is to explore whether any other doctors were at all culpable in Jackson's death. I was repeatedly asked about the actions of other doctors who treated Jackson over the years. Questions like that are a legal minefield. To even hint that a doctor may have behaved unethically when they have never been charged, let alone convicted, is extremely legally precarious.

I wasn't too put off by the line of questioning. Amal kept returning to the subject, but I remained resolute: Michael Jackson's cause of death was acute propofol intoxication. Ergo, the doctor who administered that propofol - Conrad Murray - is the only doctor legally culpable for Jackson's death. If other doctors gave him medication over the years which they shouldn't have done, they should certainly be prosecuted for that - but the fact is, Jackson died on Murray's watch and as a direct consequence of Murray's actions.

I was asked a lot of questions about demerol, but stated repeatedly that there had been no findings in Jackson's autopsy to indicate any demerol addiction. There was certainly never any implication that it played a role in his death.

Other topics covered included theories that Jackson was worth more dead than alive, speculation that his publishing catalogue was a motive for murder and the hotly debated subject of Jackson's well-being during This Is It rehearsals. Discussing the latter, I recounted evidence given throughout Murray's trial from both sides of the fence, including both Ortega's email about 'pulling the plug' and the coroner's assessment that Jackson was 'above average health for a man his age'.

Almost every topic discussed during the interview was legally questionable but I took extra care not to say anything dangerous. My interview lasted an hour but the entire show - which will feature other interviewees including Frank Cascio - will only last 15 minutes. My primary concern is that during the editing process my considered, legally sound responses will have vital sentences lopped off of their beginnings or ends.

J Randy Taraborrelli once told me about the dangers of giving TV interviews. He said that he always took care to be fair and balanced but often found that in the editing process, vital material was cut away and what was left in didn't accurately represent the totality of his answers. I hope I'm not left feeling that way on June 25th, although it may take a while for me to find out what's actually been included, as my voice will be over-dubbed in French!

I took extra care to be fair, balanced and honest. I hope that's reflected in the edit and that I don't piss off too many fans. I don't want to be the subject of their next petition.

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.