Skip to content

They are firing their fury at an innocent man AGAIN

July 8, 2010


David Edwards has sent us an urgent message concerning a group called ROAD TO RECOVERY, which is planning to disrupt Michael Jackson’s induction into the National Museum of Dance & Hall of Fame (in Sarasota Springs, New York on August 15th.)

The founder of the group, Rev. Bob Hoatson is a clergy abuse survivor. His first cousin James Craig Hoatson was also abused by a clergyman and killed himself as a result. The group of Bob Hoatson is ‘the only non-profit organization in the United States that offers compassionate counseling and referral services to survivors of clergy sexual abuse’, according to their site.

I am sure that all of us have a deep sympathy for the people who were molested in their childhood. And the anti-pedophile cause this group is working for is fully in line with what every Michael Jackson’s follower would whole-heartedly support as children’s wellbeing and their right to a joyful and innocent childhood were the matters of Michael’s primary concern throughout his life.

But since the action undertaken by this group is not targeted at real pedophiles but is  aimed at a completely innocent person who was never found guilty of this despicable crime and who fought tooth and nail for the right to never be associated with these people, we need to speak to this group and try to shatter their concrete-stone views on Jackson formed under the effect of media lies and vicious defamatory campaigns.

Though David Edwards has already tried to approach Rev. Hoatson with a request to refrain from any anti-Jackson activities his communication with the priest has not been very successful yet. I’ve also prepared a letter to him (see the comments) and will make another attempt, though I do realize it that the chances that the people who were abused in their childhood and were brainwashed by the media will see reason are close to a nil. However the hope is always there…

In the meantime please read what DAVID has to tell us about his interaction with Rev. Hoatson. David provides invaluable links and great arguments which speak or even scream in the  defense of Michael Jackson:

Since Road to Recovery appeared to be a legitimate advocacy group (unlike those Westboro Baptist Church lunatics who picketed outside of MJ’s memorial last year ), I assumed that if I contacted them, I could reason with them.  With all of the biased, pro-prosecution media coverage of MJ’s trial, I wouldn’t blame anyone for assuming that MJ was guilty.  But if you’re an advocacy group who wants to label someone as being a molester, then you had BETTER do some serious research to make sure you’re correct!  Not only has this group not done any research, but they REFUSE to do any research!

I emailed Rev. Bob Hoatson, one of the founders, and I sent him some basic info that is the foundation for MJ’s innocence (Charles Thomson’s article, Matt Drudge’s radio commentary from the trial, and confirmation that MJ’s insurance carrier paid the settlement), and he completely IGNORED it all!  He knows that he can’t prove MJ was guilty, so he’s now using MJ’s “bed sharing” as an excuse to call him a molester because to him “a grown man sharing a bed is in and of itself molestation”!

He also condescendingly claimed that I wasn’t with MJ 24/7 so I can’t know if he’s innocent, and of course I replied to him that neither was he, so he can’t say he’s guilty!! And he continues to use the $20 million dollar settlement with the Chandlers as an automatic and absolute sign of guilt!

I tried my best to reason with him, but he seems dead set on protesting MJ just for the sake of protesting.  Please post an update on all of your sites that MJ fans need to bombard Road to Recovery with complaints, and to also SUPPORT the National Museum of Dance and encourage them NOT TO BACK DOWN!

One last thing:  in my second email to him, you’ll notice that I included a story about a priest who was accused of molestation, and his Archdiocese paid a $1.4 million dollar settlement to the victim.  Subsequently, the priest filed a defamation lawsuit against the victim. Very interesting!

Here is the contact info for Road to Recovery : and the Dance Museum: Here is the invitation for the induction event.  Tickets start at $50 dollars, and you should encourage MJ fans to go there and show their support:


From: David Edwards
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 8:43 PM
Subject: Michael Jackson protest

Dear Rev. Hoatson,

My name is David Edwards, and I’m a huge fan of Michael Jackson.  I’m also a huge fan of organizations like Road To Recovery that help TRUE victims of child abuse, and I respect all of the fine work that you do.

I recently read an article about a protest that your organization plans to do at Michael Jackson’s induction into the Dance Hall of Fame.  I’m sure that you have only the most noble intentions, but I would like to respectfully inform you that your assertions that Michael Jackson is a child molester are woefully wrong.

In this article, you are quoted as saying the following:

“Most often a not-guilty verdict means a wealthy defendant had enough money to buy a verdict of ‘reasonable doubt’,’ wrote John Aretakis and the Reverend Robert Hoatson of the group, Road to Recovery Inc, in a letter to the museum.

We know your Hall of Fame may do good work and is trying to secure state and national notoriety, media coverage and significant donations. However, to do so on the backs of childhood survivors of sexual abuse by honoring a pedophile is not a good business decision.”

Rev. Hoatson, I can assure you that in this case, not guilty equals innocent!  Michael Jackson was the victim of a cruel extortion attempt carried out by a family that he had a falling out with, and whose lies were enabled and encouraged by a corrupt district attorney and a vicious media that was hungry to see Michael Jackson in prison in order to generate ratings.

Now, I don’t want to sit here and regurgitate each and every facet of the trial, because if I did this email would be at least 20 pages long.  But I will respectfully ask you to please read the following article, and watch the following you tube videos to help educate yourself with the facts of the case.

1. This is the link to an article that was written (by Charles Thomson) a few weeks ago to commemorate the 5 year anniversary of Michael Jackson’s rightful acquittal in 2005. It discusses the facts of the case, and most importantly, how the media deliberately tried to manufacture a guilty verdict by convicting Michael Jackson in the court of public opinion by showing a pro-prosecution bias in their reporting:

2. Another example of someone who accurately reported on the Michael Jackson trial, and brutally criticized the media for their biased coverage, is conservative commentator Matt Drudge, who runs the Drudge Report. He provided some commentary on the trial to his viewers, and called it exactly how he saw it.  His commentary is part of a youtube series that is dedicated to vindicating Michael Jackson, and obviously I don’t expect you to watch all 60+ videos in the series, but I would definitely appreciate it if you watched the following 4 videos.  To make it easier for you, I included the time segments that include Drudge’s commentary, which is around 17 minutes dispersed over the 4 videos.

Part 45, Drudge’s commentary is from 1:20 to 6:30:

Part 52, Drudge’s commentary is from 7:16 to the end:

Part 53, Drudge’s commentary is from the beginning to 6:49, and from 8:10 to the end

Part 54, Drudge’s commentary is from the beginning to 3:29

3.  Lastly, I would like to debunk the myth that Michael Jackson “bought the silence” of the family that accused him of child molestation on 1993.  That is a lie that the media has peddled for years, and continues to do so.

The family filed a civil lawsuit against Michael Jackson, after the police started their criminal investigation.  The judge initially ruled that the civil lawsuit could proceed to trial before the criminal investigation was complete, and he denied Michael Jackson’s request to delay the civil lawsuit until AFTER the criminal trial was over.  As a result, Michael Jackson’s legal defense insurance carrier negotiated and paid the $20 million (some $15,7 mln. to be exact) dollar settlement without Michael Jackson’s approval  (similar to how your car insurance company will settle a lawsuit without your consent, if it is more expedient to do so. Or how an insurance carrier will settle a medical malpractice claim without the doctor’s approval.)

The reason that Michael Jackson’s insurance carrier paid the settlement is because they didn’t want to negative coverage of Michael Jackson going through back-to-back civil & criminal trials, they were worried about the toll it would have on his health, and they didn’t want to expose their defense strategy to the prosecution before the criminal trial.

The terms of the settlement included a confidentiality agreement that prevented the family from discussing the matter in public (i.e. interviews, book deals, etc.).  However, the family was permitted to testify against Michael Jackson IN COURT!  In fact, it is illegal to obstruct justice by forbidding a victim from cooperating with police in a criminal investigation.

After the family received the money, they REFUSED to testify against Michael Jackson in criminal court, in both 1994 & 2005.  What kind of family chooses money over justice?  If someone molested my child, I would fight tooth & nail to get that person put in jail!

In 2005, the prosecution requested to the judge that they be allowed to present the terms of the settlement in 1994 to the jury as a sign of guilt.  Jackson’s defense team submitted a request to deny it, because Jackson DID NOT pay or approve of the settlement, and the settlement explicitly said that the payment was not an admission of guilt.  I have included that document here, and you can skim over it for your reference ( Please pay attention to the following:

“Because the insurance companies were the source of the settlement amounts, and the insurance companies make the payments based on their contractual rights to settle the proceeding without  Mr. Jackson’s permission, the settlement does not constitute an admission [of guilt]”

“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 her personal legal counsel. It is general practice for a insurer to be entitled to control settlement negotiations and the insured is precluded from any interference.[] An insurance carrier has the right to settle claims covered by insurance when it decides settlement is expedient and the insured may not interfere with nor prevent such settlements.”

“No admission against interest nor acknowledgement of criminality can be inferred regarding Mr. Jackson from the act of the insurance carrier in settling the litigating.”

And about the criminal investigation going on even AFTER the settlement agreement:

“Although Jordan Chandler was interviewed ‘thereafter’ by detectives seeking evidence to offer in a child molestation prosecution against Michael Jackson, “no criminal charges were filed as a result of that interview.

In other words, Jordan Chandler’s statements were not sufficient even at the earlier time, to support child molestation charges against Michael Jackson, and to now permit the suggestion of a settlement agreement for some improper act is not only irrelevant, but also a speculative violation of the statute of limitations.” Source:

In closing, I would just like to say that I respect you and your organization, and I understand why you think Michael Jackson “got away with it like OJ Simpson”.  You have been bamboozled by the mainstream media, and you’ve probably never taken the time to thoroughly investigate the facts, so I am here to help you do so.  Please evaluate all of the information that I have presented here to you, and hopefully after doing so you will reconsider your decision to protest Michael Jackson’s induction into the Dance Hall of Fame.


David Edwards

From: bob hoatson []
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 7:42 AM
To: David M Edwards
Subject: RE: Michael Jackson protest


Thank you for your email and thank you for being a fan of Road to Recovery.  While I respect your admiration for Michael Jackson as an artist, I cannot agree with you that “in this case, not guilty equals innocent.”  For the sake of brevity, I have two observations/questions that I believe will speak to the heart of the issue:

1)             unless you monitored Michael Jackson’s behavior with your own eyes 24/7, including his sleeping arrangements. I don’t know how you can conclude that nothing ever happened between Michael and minor children.  First-hand information is what proves or disproves these allegations, and there is plenty of evidence to indicate that he slept frequently with underage children….that’s child abuse.

2)             agreeing to give someone a $20 million settlement is more than a “here is some money to get rid of the case” arrangement.  That family was given 20 million dollars to keep quiet.

Bob Hoatson

From: David Edwards
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 3:11 PM
To: ‘bob hoatson’
Subject: RE: Michael Jackson protest

Good afternoon Rev. Hoatson,

Thank you for your quick response!  I truly hope that this can be the start of a respectful and constructive dialogue between us about the allegations against MJ.

I will start off by saying this: with all due respect, did you even bother to read the information that I sent you?  Did you read the article, or listen to Matt Drudge’s commentary on the trial?  Did you read that legal document?  I assume the answer to all three of those questions is no, based on the short reply that you sent me “for the sake of brevity”.

This is a very serious issue, and the facts of the case cannot be taken skimmed over “for the sake of brevity”.  If you and your organization are going to take the time and effort to protest MJ’s induction, then you should do some research and objectively look at all of the facts before jumping to conclusions that MJ was guilty but “got away with it like OJ Simpson”.  (That excuse is typically used by people who are too prejudiced or too lazy to do any research.)

Sir, we all know that the justice system isn’t perfect, and guilty people are acquitted and innocent people are convicted all the time.  But in this case, justice was served!  If MJ had been convicted, you’d be saying that the justice system is “perfect”, because the conviction would have coincided with your pre-judgments about MJ.

Personally, I’m confused as to why you’re protesting.  In the article, you implied that you felt MJ was guilty, but in your reply you implied that even if MJ never molested anyone, the fact that he slept in the same bed with kids was “in and of itself” child abuse, and that seems to be the foundation of your argument.  You also said that I can’t know for sure that MJ was innocent because I wasn’t around him 24/7, well in that case you can’t know for sure that he’s guilty because YOU weren’t around him 24/7 either!  Now, here is my response to the two points that you mentioned:

1. You also mentioned that “first-hand information is what proves or disproves these allegations”, well I’m about to give you some first-hand information.

In the following three clips, MJ’s defense attorney Tom Mesereau, Elizabeth Taylor, and Macaulay Culkin each explain and defend MJ’s sleepovers.

MJ did not sneak in little boys to sleep with him; in fact, ENTIRE FAMILIES often slept in MJ’s room! And to call it a “room” would be a gross understatement, because it was actually a duplex that was 2 stories high and had 3 bathrooms! If it had a kitchen, you could literally live inside of his room!

MJ would invite entire families to visit, and when they spent the night, many times they stayed in his room because they always wanted to be around him.  Kids were required to get their parents’ permission, and oftentimes the parents were in the room with them.  During both molestation investigations, there were no corroborating witnesses (i.e., nobody else claimed to have been molested, despite being pressured by police during their rough interrogations).

There were only two scumbag parents who concocted the allegations after they had a falling out with MJ over money in 1993 & 2003.  Each of the following interviews are only a few minutes long, so PLEASE open your mind and hear them explain what really happened.

Attorney Mesereau’s interview with Jay Leno from June 2005:

Elizabeth Taylor’s interview with Larry King from 2006:

Macaulay Culkin’s interview with Larry King from 2004:

2. Let me reiterate myself:  that $20 (or 15,7) million dollar payment was NOT “hush money”!!!  The family filed a civil lawsuit against MJ before the criminal investigation was even completed.  MJ’s legal defense insurance company negotiated and paid the settlement without MJ’s approval!

They did so in order to avoid the negative publicity of MJ having to have two back to back trials (civil and then criminal).  I already explained this in my first email to you, and it’s clear that didn’t even read that far into it.

If MJ had attempted to pay hush money, he would have been immediately arrested and charged with OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.  Besides, if he was guilty, don’t you think he would have paid “hush money” BEFORE the allegations went public, and BEFORE he had to endure the humiliating strip search.

By the way, the boy’s said MJ’s penis was circumcised, when in fact it was NOT circumcised!  This was confirmed in MJ’s autopsy report, and this is proves the boy was lying and hence MJ was NEVER arrested and charged in 1994.

Why would anyone PUBLICLY announce to the world that they were paying “hush money”?  Hush money is ILLEGAL. PLEASE skim over the document that I sent you.

You used that as a sign of guilt, when it didn’t even happen like that.  Now let’s reverse the equation, and look at the family.  Since they ACCEPTED the money, and REFUSED to testify against MJ in both 1993 and 2005, what does that say about the validity of their accusation?

How come NOBODY ever vilifies that family for not testifying! Why are they sooooooooo afraid of being cross-examined in a court of law?  If somebody molested your children, you would fight tooth & nail to put the perpetrator behind bars!  You would go straight to the police with your complaint, not to a civil attorney to file a lawsuit!

Rev. Hoatson, if you are truly open minded and willing to have a respectful and constructive dialogue, then we can continue with these emails.  But if you have already convicted MJ of some HYPOTHETICAL molestation that you ASSUMED happened, and nothing is going to change your mind, then let me know now and I won’t waste your time anymore.

I decided to write you because I respect what your organization stands for, and I thought that I could reason with you (unlike those Westboro Baptist Church lunatics who protest gay rights at military funerals).  I thought that perhaps you were just misled about the allegations due to media distortions, and that I could prove to you that MJ was truly innocent.

It’s truly sad when children are abused, and it’s equally as sad when INNOCENT people are falsely accused!

Below is an article from earlier this year about a priest who was FALSELY accused of molestation in 2006 (the “victim” claimed that the molestation occurred in the 1980’s).  Despite his claims of innocence, his Archdiocese paid a $1.4 million dollar settlement to the victim. (Do you think they paid it because they thought the priest was guilty? According to your logic, the Archdiocese paid the settlement as “hush money”.) The priest has since filed a lawsuit against the victim for defamation and malicious prosecution.  Now, since you’re a priest, I’m sure you have some compassion for what the priest in this article went through, and I would only ask that you extend that same compassion to Michael Jackson.  Thank you!


14 Comments leave one →
  1. Suzy permalink
    July 8, 2010 11:17 am


    Your argumentation is perfect. The one thing I’m not sure of is he will feel compassion about the priest you mentioned at the end. In fact, he and his attorney John Aretakis filed child abuse allegations against Bishop Hubbard in the past, which were dismissed by the supreme court. He seems to be on a mission against the Catholic Church.

    More on Hoatson:


  2. Emma permalink
    July 8, 2010 7:21 pm

    Unfortunately i think that this organisation is under the misguided belief that children do not lie and that all accusations of child abuse are genuine, when this is clearly not the case. There are a lot of footballers who are falsely accused of rape by women and to me this is comparable to michael; the only reason it was child abuse allegations instead is because he was rarely seen with women. It’s just disappointing when people have a knee-jerk reaction that because he was rich and a star, it meant that he could either pay people off or dazzle the jury, when any decent parent would not care about money but would want justice, no matter how big the star.


  3. Truth permalink
    July 8, 2010 10:54 pm

    Yeah I hate that pathetic excuse that “oh the jury was starstruck” – give me a break!

    1. This was 2005 not 1985 – Michael’s reputation had declined immeasurably – remember that Bashir documantary was fresh in everybody’s minds. The public perception of him in the USA was very bad. It was the only country where his ‘Number Ones’ album didn’t do well. It’s safe to say that most of America fell out of love with him.

    2. The jury members were predominantly white, middle-class and middle-aged from a conservative community. Most where parents.

    3. The majority of the media coverage in the USA was pro-prosecution. This can be illustrated by how many people thought he would be convicted, hence why so many people were shocked with the verdict and then thought the only explanation could be ‘trial by celebrity’.

    So how on earth were they ‘starstruck’?!

    Now all objective legal analysts said there was no case – the evidence was too weak – like the jury said there was no ‘smoking gun’ evidence. Even Roger Friedman said there was no case!

    The point is – when the media resorts to talking about ‘pyjama day’ – you know there has to be flimsy evidence!


  4. Ali permalink
    July 9, 2010 9:26 am

    Hi there,

    Ive been having a back and forth email argument (respectfully) with this man also. I did not present my facts in the great detail that you did, but essentially we were both “singing from the same song book”. He used the same BASIC arguments when talking to me too. Stuff steeped in OPINION and not FACT. But it has become clear to me that this man doesnt actually want to hear anything other than the voices inside his own head.

    Thank you for trying, but he is a lost cause. All fans can do now is protest louder than he.



  5. July 9, 2010 3:08 pm

    Here is a letter I’ve sent to Rev. Hoatson. At the time of writing it I didn’t know that he was an abuse survivor himself, otherwise I would have changed the text. I wish I had known it before… Well, anyway…

    Dear Rev. Hoatson,

    There is some news in the internet about your Road to Recovery group protesting against Michael Jackson’s induction into the National Museum of Dance & Hall of Fame. I am afraid you are making a mistake here as you have definitely chosen a wrong target for your anger.

    Since I (as many other Michael Jackson’s followers) fully support the anti-pedophile cause you are working for I have done some research into the problem and would like to alert you to the existence of REAL pedophile circles which present a grave danger to the children the world over. Here is a link to some of these findings:

    – about the general situation in this field:

    – the university professors who recently publicly recommended a book (written by a convicted pedophile) as an “enjoyable read”: and

    – the strategy employed by pedophiles to introduce their ideas into the society:

    – the conclusions about complete impossibility of putting Michael Jackson on a par with REAL pedophiles:

    The research done is giving me reasons to believe that Michael Jackson fell a victim to the slander and dirt spread about him exactly by PRO-pedophile groups. They made it their goal to bring down a person who took genuine care of children and worked for their well-being and was thus standing in the way to the fulfillment of their own despicable plans.

    Michael Jackson proved himself a perfect father as you surely know from various sources and lost all his health and partially money fighting for his good name for some 15 years or more. He never allowed anyone to link him to the class of the people mentioned above and defended his innocence both in courts and his songs imploring people never to believe the dirty allegations made about him.

    Since Michael Jackson was genuinely concerned about the fate of children and spent hundreds of millions dollars on medical help to them the message he thus left to his supporters is turning them into the defenders of children’s well-being and their right to a joyful, healthy and innocent future. YES, Michael Jackson’s fans see children’s protection from any kind of abuse as the job Michael would want and expect his followers to do.

    This makes us a natural ally to your group, and in fighting for your noble cause you can now have an enormous army of Michael Jackson’s supporters who – same as Michael Jackson – also consider it their duty to protect children from any dirt, injustice and misbehavior on adults’ part.

    Let me assure you that no matter whether the effort of Michael Jackson’s supporters in this direction is or isn’t acknowledged by the anti-pedophile groups like yours, the work for a better children’s future will be nevertheless done by the majority of Michael’s followers.

    Please consider the information provided above on the horrible extent of pedophiles’ activities and their powerful influence on the present society as the first contribution from Michael Jackson’s supporters to the great cause you and your group are working for.

    Since Michael Jackson was a deep believer in God I think it would be proper to close this message with the following words from Psalm 85 on his behalf:

    Mercy and truth have met together;
    Righteousness and peace have kissed.
    Truth shall spring out of the earth,
    And righteousness shall look down from heaven.
    Yes, the LORD will give what is good;
    And our land will yield its increase.
    Righteousness will go before Him,
    And shall make His footsteps our pathway.

    Faithfully yours,
    Elena Ovchinnikova
    Michael Jackson’s supporter, fan and follower

    P.S. After sending the letter I looked up their site and realized that Rev. Bob Hoatson is a clergy abuse survivor HIMSELF. His first cousin James Craig was also abused and committed suicide as a result.


  6. pauline permalink
    July 10, 2010 11:52 pm

    Chris tucker’s ex-girlfriend actually wrote an open letter to the 2005 family. Her name is Azja Pryor. She was called as a defense witness and basically killed the prosecution’s conspiracy case. Here’s her open letter:

    Dear Gavin, Star, Davellin, and Janet:

    After Michaelʼs tragic death last week, I have to say that all the negative feelings Iʼve had towards your family following the outrageous claims made by you Gavin and your mother Janet–against Michael–came back to me tenfold. The pain, disappointment, anger, and betrayal I feel towards you simply cannot be put into words. You have shown me that your greed, lies, and personal gain override any “morals” your family claims to have; and you have proven yourselves to be the kind of people capable of turning your back on the very person who came to your rescue when you were most desperate.

    The fact that you falsely accused Michael of the most heinous of acts, and made his life a living hell in what would become his last years is unthinkable; and I am sure some would say, unforgivable. In your attempts to destroy him once again, you, Gavin, accused the man you called your “best friend” of the one thing that you (and everyone else) knew would completely turn his life inside out. You took the one thing we all know that Michael cared about most in life–children, especially children who are suffering, and you tried to turn it into a bad thing. You Janet, as a parent, allowed this, encouraged this, and went forward with the awful lies in an attempt to destroy Michael Jackson and swindle money from him.

    Shame on you!

    This man did nothing but help your family in their darkest hour. I know Michael was just like my family. We were all pulled into your woeful stories and shared your familyʼs plight as Gavin fought for his life during his battle with cancer. Gavin, you told me that Michaelʼs love helped cure you of cancer. Your entire family praised Michael privately to everyone who would listen, yet turned against him so viciously in public. I have remained silent for many years, but I can no longer do so. Right now I struggle to find the words to adequately write this letter, as I am so filled with anger towards you and pain for the Jackson family.

    You call yourself Christians. If this is true I call on you, Gavin, and your mother Janet to finally do the right thing for Michael in death that you never did during his days here on earth. You need to completely exonerate Michaelʼs name and legacy from the awful, disgusting claims you made against him. Claims and allegations that you and I both know are completely false and utterly ridiculous. Whatever your motives at the time to create such accusations are now minute and unimportant.

    It is much bigger than you.

    We are speaking on this manʼs legacy; a man who positively touched lives around the world. A man who is arguably the greatest entertainer the world will ever know. Michael is someone who shared in your familyʼs pain; opened his home to you and included you in his very own family. He was a human being who never deserved any of this.

    Gavin and Janet, you can change your identity and try to hide from the public scrutiny, but ultimately, you cannot hide from the wrath of Godʼs judgment. This is the right thing to do. It is the very least you can do for Michael, his children, and his legacy. Gavin you are now 19 years old, no longer an impressionable young boy under you motherʼs guidance, nor are you a pawn in this grand scheme to assassinate Michaelʼs character. I know your heart, and I know that you are capable of doing what is right. Clear Michaelʼs name of your ugly accusationsonce and for all. You owe it to him. You owe it to his family. And you owe it to God. Letʼs finally give Michael the ability to completely rest in peace.

    Azja Pryor
    July 4, 2009


    Also, here’s a transcript of an interview Azja did for Access Hollywood. You can find the video on youtube.

    Azja Pryor interview….

    Interviewer: How did you come to know Michael Jackson?

    Azja: Um actually, I never knew Michael. My son’s father was the one who was close to him. They hung out all the time and they were very good friends. I only met Michael once and it was at his trial. We spoke briefly during one of the courtroom breaks.

    Interviewer: But you were close with the family who accused him of child molestation, right?

    Azja: yes I was.

    Interviewer: what messages do you have for the accuser and his family?

    Azja: I don’t know how they sleep at night. Knowing that they accused someone who they called their friend and their family of the ugliest most heinous things you could say about a human being, and it’s time for Gavin to finally stand up and do the right thing. He is an adult. He’s always known that Michael never touched him, Michael never abused him.

    Interviewer: You know, someone who’s watching this is going to say, how do you know he didn’t do anything? You only met him once. How do you know his character so well that you could defend him so strongly?

    Azja: I was present when these children were at neverland. I spoke to these children several times a day when this was supposedly happening.

    Interviewer: You were present at neverland?

    Azja: yes I was and these children were very happy to be there.

    Interviewer: tell me about your experiences with this family

    Azja: well, when I first met the family, the accuser bragged about how Michael was his best friend and all the things that they would do and the friendship that they had, and it seemed like something that really brought joy to his life. In the entire time while he was sick and undergoing chemotherapy, I actually never even met the mom. The mom never seemed to come around until after he was better. And you know, once he was better and we started to do other things, then the mom was around all the time and I never saw his father anymore.

    Interview: So the mom was not there in the beginning, and the dad was not there in the end?

    Azja: I never met the mom for a year

    Interviewer: Didn’t that ever confuse you? I mean, to not meet the biggest pop star in the whole world? You wouldn’t be curious to come meet him, your son’s hanging out with him calling him his best friend?

    Azja: yeah I thought it was weird. There were times when we would spend the night with the accuser in the hospital while he was undergoing chemotherapy and the mother was never there.

    Interviewer: So whose we?

    Azja: My son’s father, myself, and my son.

    Interviewer: wow, and the mom was never there?

    Azja: The mom was never there

    Interviewer: Ok fast forward. Michael’s accused of child molestation by this family, and before you even find out who the family is, you already know?

    Azja: I already know

    Interviewer: What happens from there?

    Azja: everything is then a world wind. I’m thinking about the times that I was around them, the times that I took them to Neverland. These kids were very comfortable being at neverland. These kids knew all the security passwords to every room you could imagine, and even the rooms that were blocked off to anyone else that were personal to michael—His dance room, which no one was to go into. They knew the codes. These kids, the last time I actually saw them, I left them at neverland. I spent the night and then I left. But the night that I spent the night, they had actually asked to sleep in michael’s room, however, michael was not there. And so one of his employees said that he could not allow them or anyone into the room while michael was not there, but they insisted and they really wanted to, and when I thought of what the accuser was saying Michael did, I thought to myself, “what child would want to go into the room where these awful things were supposedly happening to them?”

    Interviewer: but was that before or after the molestation could have happened?

    Azja: according to the timeline, it was after these things had already been happening to him.

    Interviewer: Interesting point.

    Azja: yes

    Interviewer: now you were called to the stand

    Azja: yes I was

    Interviewer: what was that experience like?

    Azja: it was a very emotional experience for myself. I felt betrayed by this family. I felt that they had really taken someone who had really come to them in their darkest hour and who had really tried to be a friend, who had tried to show them support that they were not getting from their parents or from anybody else, and he just tried to do so much for them, he really tried to help. And they told me that michael was the one who helped cure this child of cancer, just his love and his support. I couldn’t believe that the same people that were able to say that, were also capable of turning their backs on him and making these awful allegations for the sake of money or whatever it was, was just—I just really felt betrayed.

    Interviewer: What I don’t understand is why would a family who credited Michael as the person who saved their child’s life, later turn around and accuse him of molesting the boy if it weren’t true?

    Azja: Something you have to understand is that Michael knew this child for over 2 years. The allegations didn’t come until after the airing of the Martin Bashir documentary.

    Interviewer: So you’re saying the Bashir documentary was the motive?

    Azja: Yes. I think they felt like Michael should have done more for them financially, specifically after the martin bashir documentary aired and this child was basically thrust into the public spotlight. They felt that they should have been compensated and that maybe what Michael’s camp was willing to do just wasn’t enough. I don’t know, but it was somewhere around that period of time, something just went wrong.


  7. July 12, 2010 3:41 am

    its really a nice article. best wishes from .


  8. July 12, 2010 8:32 pm

    It seems that everything is not that simple as I thought it to be. Our story with Rev. Hoatson is receiving some continuation – here is a link to the “Statement by James Goodness, Director of Communications, Archdiocese of Newark, in response to a lawsuit filed against the Archdiocese and Archbishop Myers” by Rev. Hoatson:

    “I have stated on a number of occasions over the past few years that Fr. Robert Hoatson is a troubled individual. Based on information contained in his filing with the federal court yesterday, I can only reiterate this statement forcefully and unequivocally.

    I will not deal with his personal allegations against several bishops, in particular Archbishop John Myers. These allegations are simply preposterous. I believe (a phrase that Fr. Hoatson is very quick to make use of in his filing) that Fr. Hoatson will carelessly and recklessly use falsehoods to draw attention to himself. In making these allegations, he sullies not the reputations of the individuals he is attempting to bring down, but rather his own reputation.

    But the mirror has two faces, as they say, and there are some things that Fr. Hoatson has conveniently tried to hide from view.

    Concerning his “firing” from the position of director of Our Lady of Good Counsel School in Newark, Fr. Hoatson has conveniently forgotten that on November 6, 2002 – well before he claims that he was fired, Fr. Hoatson wrote to Archbishop Myers requesting that he be relieved as director of Our Lady of Good Counsel School. He cited as his reasons a personal assessment that his work at the schools was completed, and his desire was to return to full-time parish work. He asked for a reassignment by January 1, 2003. Archbishop Myers tentatively approved the request on November 8, 2002

    On December 18, 2002 Fr. Hoatson again wrote to Archbishop Myers asking for an appointment. In that letter, he reiterated that he wished a change of assignment by January 1, 2003.

    The Archbishop met with Fr. Hoatson on January 14, 2003 and discussed Father’s hopes for a new assignment. In that discussion, Father agreed to remain in the post of director of the school for the spring 2003 semester.

    On February 5, 2003 Bishop Arthur Serratelli, then Vicar General of the Archdiocese, wrote to Fr. Hoatson confirming that the reassignment would be effective in June 2003. At this point, the decision had been made to grant Fr. Hoatson’s request to leave Good Counsel School. It is important to note that during this time period, the Archdiocese received correspondence from a number of laypeople involved with Our Lady of Good Counsel advising that during his tenure, Fr. Hoatson was responsible for strained communication with administration, faculty and staff, and that he dismissed the role of parents and other laypeople in the life and direction of the school.

    During this time period, and even before he wrote to the Archdiocese in November 2002, Fr. Hoatson frequently made visits out of the diocese as an advocate for victims of sexual abuse. At no time was he reprimanded for these actions or told to cease. However, I must note that while he was away on these visits across the country, he was not performing his duties as director of the school. I can only surmise from his actions that he did not feel that his role as director was an important or necessary one. I can also only surmise that he did not feel that the children of Our Lady of Good Counsel School were important.

    On March 27, 2003 Fr. Hoatson wrote to withdraw his request for a new assignment. Unfortunately, a new director had already been selected and was preparing to assume the post, so it was too late to put him back. I can only surmise that Fr. Hoatson finally understood the old adage, “Be careful what you wish for.”

    Therefore, Fr. Hoatson’s contention that Cardinal Egan and Bishop Hubbard contacted Archbishop Myers in May 2003 to seek his removal from Our Lady of Good Counsel School simply does not bear up under the facts.

    Fr. Hoatson also claims that for his entire time as a priest, he has been a “victim of clergy abuse.” What this accusation really comes down to is the following:

    Fr. Hoatson appears to believe that the extraordinary amount of work that every parish priest must undertake, and the multiple hats that they must wear as they work in ministry, constitutes abuse. With respect to Fr. Hoatson, such abuse included his work as chaplain of the town fire department and moderator of the parish pre-Cana program. Yes, these duties were in addition to his duties as principal of the parish school and his sacramental work in saying Mass or hearing confessions. All priests are overworked. Most priests in this Archdiocese have multiple assignments and duties. They may be weary, but they do not feel abused. In fact, if anyone should have been pitied during Fr. Hoatson’s parish assignments, it probably would have to be the pastors who had to put up with what soldiers during the Civil War would have called Fr. Hoatson’s “malingering” – shirking one’s duty.

    From a brief review of his history, it appears that the only time Fr. Hoatson may have been happy was when he was on leave from religious life and employed as a golf instructor.

    Archbishop Myers did issue a “precept” against Fr. Hoatson about a month ago, and here are the reasons for this precept:

    1. Fr. Hoatson does not live within the geographic area of the Archdiocese, as required under the laws of the Church. He maintains a regular residence in Rockaway Park, New York, within the geographic area of the Diocese of Brooklyn. There is a residence for him within the Archdiocese – at Nativity Parish in Midland Park. He has not used it. While it is permitted for priests to maintain residences outside of the diocese for which they are ordained for their days off or vacations, they must live the majority of the week “where they work.”

    2. Fr. Hoatson established a counseling and advocacy organization – Rescue and Recovery International – located within the geographic area of the Diocese of Brooklyn, without seeking the consent of the Archbishop or the Bishop of Brooklyn. Neither bishop ever gave such permission. Under Canon Law, diocesan priests cannot undertake a ministry or establish a business without receiving permission from their bishops. Nor is it permitted to establish a ministry in another diocese without the permission of that bishop.

    3. The precept also calls for Fr. Hoatson to adhere to his assigned duties as chaplain of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Newark, an assignment that he accepted in 2004 but which he apparently deems is a “no show” job. The managers of Catholic Charities have reported that he does not regularly appear and perform the duties he has been assigned. We know this for a fact because, on his own Rescue and Recovery website, Fr. Hoatson claims that he is regularly in Boston working with victims of abuse, and that he travels extensively to promote his work as a victims’ advocate. Unless he has mastered bi-location, Father cannot be in two places at once. He apparently has chosen to be someplace other than the assignment he accepted.

    It should be noted in this particular matter that when Fr. Hoatson was offered the chaplain position at Catholic Charities, Archbishop Myers stated that Father could work with victims of sexual abuse within the framework of Catholic Charities, which has extensive facilities and resources to deal with victims. Obviously, Fr. Hoatson chose to disregard the Archbishop’s encouraging recommendation.

    4. The precept also reminds Fr. Hoatson that he is to show proper reverence and obedience to his bishop, something that he promised to do when he was ordained in 1994. It is obvious from the filing that Father has forgotten this part of his ordination promise, and has forgotten his calling to serve the Church.

    Finally, Fr. Hoatson contends throughout his filing that he has been a victim of abuse from his earliest days, and that his time in high school, and as a member of the Christian Brothers congregation, and as both a seminarian and priest have been marred by a constant stream of sexual abuse by clergy and religious.

    Yet, in his own words, written during the time he was preparing for the priesthood, Father presents a very different picture – one in which he claims that his time in high school was idyllic, that his role models among the Christian Brothers in high school were exemplary, but that his problems with the religious life were centered around the rural atmosphere where he was living, and the onset of panic attacks. Archbishop Myers has dealt with Fr. Hoatson and his troubles most patiently and compassionately over these past few years. The disciplinary action taken in November 2005 was necessary only because of the magnitude of his failure to perform his assigned duties.

    Throughout his filing, Fr. Hoatson talks about his “belief” in the fabrications he outlined. As a Catholic layperson I, too, believe in many things – in redemption, and most specifically, in the power of prayer. I pray that you will all see Fr. Hoatson’s attempt to hide his own failings for what it is – the work of a troubled man, and that you see that this is newsworthy only in that a priest with failings has chosen not to seek help, but to lash out at those who are ready to help him through his troubles”.


    Two additional pages — Fr. Hoatson’s November 6, 2002 request to leave Our Lady of Good Counsel School and Bishop Serratelli’s February 5, 2003 response acknowledging that his request would be effective in June 2003 – are linked above, completing this transmission.
    (Statement issued by the Diocese of Albany, December 14, 2005, in response to a lawsuit filed in federal court in New York by Fr. Robert Hoatson)


  9. August 7, 2010 2:34 am

    I don’t know if this is true maybe one of the researchers can check it out, but I just heard that the protest has been cancelled.


  10. David permalink
    August 8, 2010 5:40 am

    @ Teva

    Yes, Road to Recovery has indeed cancelled their protest! Our hard work paid off! For more info, read this post, and my comment at the end of it.


  11. August 22, 2010 8:31 pm

    What was the name of Michael’s insurance company? Believe it or not, some hater’s want to know. To me it’s just good enough to know that just he didn’t settle, but his agency did.


  12. August 22, 2010 8:42 pm


    In her book “The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour” Lisa Campbell names TRANSAMERICAN INSURANCE as the suppliers of Michael Jackson’s personal liablility insurance:


  13. August 22, 2010 9:33 pm

    THANK YOU so much!

    And for the link. 🙂


  14. lynande51 permalink
    August 22, 2010 11:47 pm

    I can verify that with my Time Magazine article that says that Johnny Cochran was asking Michael’s insurance to cover it. That is a second reporting and suporting article stating that same thing. Time is considered a very reliable and factual publication.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: