Skip to content

Michael Jackson Fans Are Tenacious. ‘Leaving Neverland’ Has Them Poised for Battle, by THE NEW YORK TIMES – VMJ interviews

March 4, 2019

Recently Joe Coscarelli, the music reporter at the NY Times contacted the admins of this blog to say that he was interested in getting the perspective of MJ’s “most loyal fans, supporters and historians” on the documentary which none of us had yet seen by that moment.

Today, the day after the documentary has gone on air on HBO, Joe Coscarelli’s article has been published, quoting us together with other Michael Jackson’s advocates with whom the correspondent has evidently been in touch.

Since most of these bloggers are Americans I presume that their interviews must have been done over the phone, while we (Susanne and I) are foreigners who are absolutely not sure of our English speaking skills and this is why we submitted our replies in writing.

We certainly never expected the NY Times to give a full coverage of our ideas on the present situation around Michael Jackson, so for the readers of this blog to really know what “truthers” like us think about it,  here is both Joe Coscarelli’s piece and our written answers to him sent several days ago. 

Michael Jackson Fans Are Tenacious. ‘Leaving Neverland’ Has Them Poised for Battle.

A new documentary detailing allegations of sexual abuse has the pop star’s most activist supporters ready to jump on Twitter and YouTube to defend his name.

Joe Coscarelli's article cover piece

In the age of the 21st century fan community, perhaps no group is more emphatic, organized and passionate than Michael Jackson’s supporters.CreditCreditIllustration by Javier Jaén; photograph by Yvonne Hemsey/Getty Images

By Joe Coscarelli

  • March 4, 2019

Beyoncé has the BeyHive and Nicki Minaj the Barbz, fan groups who swarm online against anyone who disparages their idols. The Deadheads may have provided a blueprint, though these days they are more likely to bicker among themselves.

But in the age of the 21st-century superfan, perhaps no group is more emphatic, organized and passionate online than the devotees of Michael Jackson, the King of Pop whose legacy includes decades of innuendo and court cases regarding what he did or did not do with young boys.

Across blogs, message boards, podcasts, YouTube videos and especially social media feeds, where a Jackson avatar broadcasts one’s allegiance, they circulate exhaustive evidence that they view as exonerating for the singer, while shouting down news outlets they consider inaccurate and biased.

Brewing for weeks, their fight kicked into a new gear on Sunday, with the airing of the first half of “Leaving Neverland,” an HBO documentary about two men who say Jackson repeatedly sexually abused them as children.

Ads for on buses in London and digital billboards in the United States are proclaiming: “Facts Don’t Lie. People Do.” Under the Twitter hashtag #MJFam, dozens of fan accounts have encouraged counterprogramming to the film, instructing followers to stream Jackson’s music instead of watching. And on Sunday night, fans deluged the #LeavingNeverland hashtag with thousands of tweets, dominating discussion of what they called a “mockumentary” and attacking the two men at its center.

[Michael Jackson cast a spell. “Leaving Neverland” breaks it, our critic writes.]

Dan Reed, the director of “Leaving Neverland,” which concludes on Monday, said that his company had received “dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens” of emails from Jackson fans — “a deluge of hatred” beginning within 20 minutes of the film’s announcement in January. He and the two men in the film, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, said that some fans had taken it even further, with threats of violence.

“One can only compare them to religious fanatics, really,” Reed said. “They’re the Islamic State of fandom.”


Michael Jackson with Wade Robson in 1987, when the two met for the first time. In “Leaving Neverland,” Robson alleges that Jackson sexually abused him for years.CreditDan Reed/HBO

Jackson’s supporters don’t see it that way. Since accusations in 1993 by a boy and his family ended with a $23 million settlement, the fandom’s party line has been that any allegations amounted to extortion plots by hangers-on hellbent on tarnishing Jackson and exploiting his naïveté.

A specific strain of the Jackson faithful has pored over the granular details of his life and cases, including the 2005 trial in which he was acquitted of charges he molested another boy, in hopes of proving his innocence. Those fans — including the young and old, from Queensland, Australia to Moscow to Huntsville, Ala. — view “Leaving Neverland” as a manipulative, one-sided hit piece that rehashes old allegations from inconsistent sources.

The film has also turned what was for years a niche obsession for many Jackson fans into a mainstream battle.

“If you’ve been a fan for a long time, you’ve seen this over and over again,” said Casey Rain, 30, a musician and YouTuber living in Birmingham, England. He called “Leaving Neverland” a “sick attempt at hijacking the Me-Too moment.”

Many Jackson fans resort to indiscriminate, anonymous hate mail targeting journalists and Jackson’s accusers. Others like Rain show their devotion in deeper ways, painstakingly constructing videos and epic polemics that weave together court papers and obscure interviews, then sharing and resharing their work across multiple platforms.

“There’s nothing about Michael that the fan community doesn’t know,” said Rain, whose blog post about “Leaving Neverland” became a go-to text even before the documentary aired. “I really don’t think that we lack objectivity on him.” (Rain and others who had not yet seen the film said their information came from a few Jackson fans who attended the Sundance premiere and took “very, very detailed notes.”)

Susanne Baur and Elena Ovchinnikova, who co-author the blog Vindicating Michael, said they prefer not to be called Jackson fans at all because fan “has a too negative connotation of adoration and worship,” Baur, 60, wrote in an email from southern Germany.


Two Jackson fans drove from Canada to Utah to protest the premiere of “Leaving Neverland” at Sundance.CreditDanny Moloshok/Invision, via Associated Press

Instead they identify as researchers and activists who view Jackson as a civil rights case. In a post about “Leaving Neverland” that totaled more than 10,000 words, Ovchinnikova, who is 65 and based in Moscow, parsed the changing stories of the two men in the film and concluded that they are liars.

“The reaction of the M.J. community is absolutely adequate,” Ovchinnikova said via email. “It is the reaction of knowledgeable people who have to talk to ignoramuses.”

Linda-Raven Woods, a 56-year-old from Huntsville, called herself a former “die-hard metalhead” whose lingering questions about Jackson’s guilt after his death had led her to fansites.

Wowed by the depth of their research, Woods realized, “This is why they defend him so passionately,” she said. She is now an administrator of @MJJLegion, a Twitter account with more than 80,000 followers that has been busy coaching fans on how to counteract the documentary.

Some of these supporters acknowledge that the elaborate lengths of their writing and reasoning invites comparisons to conspiracy theorists, or as Damien Shields put it, a “ranting mob.”

But Shields, the author of a book on Jackson’s music and a fan for more than two decades, said it is all a matter of perspective: “We also view the media as a ranting mob in some circumstances.”

He said that the fans’ support comes from a place of love and passion, comparing those on social media to the Britney Spears fan Chris Crocker, who cried “Leave Britney alone!” in an infamous viral video.


Jackson supporters crowded outside the California courthouse where Jackson stood trial for molestation in 2005. The singer was acquitted on all charges.CreditMonica Almeida/The New York Times

“That’s Michael Jackson fans on Twitter times a million,” Shields said.

In the cases of Robson and Safechuck, fans note that both had previously testified that Jackson never abused them, and that they later unsuccessfully sued the singer’s estate. (Their claims are now under appeal.)

Both men said that it took them years to accept that they were abused and that they had felt pressured to testify on Jackson’s behalf. Reed, the director, said the film was, by design, “about how Wade changed his mind and confronted the truth about what happened to him” — a “radical reassessment of what it all meant.”

In an interview, Robson said that he understood the way many still cling to Jackson’s “very particular angelic persona.” He added, “That was so palatable for so many people, including myself.”

Robson and Safechuck said they, too, had faced an onslaught since coming forward, with Robson describing “thousands of extremely volatile and nasty emails or social media comments.” They cited the intensity of Jackson’s defenders a possible reason more people don’t come forward. “It’s an extremely terrifying thing to do,” Robson said.

As the film’s television premiere approached, some fans struggled with keeping up the fight for Jackson’s reputation as they also girded themselves for the increased scrutiny.

While some said they would boycott the film because it does not include outside context or interviews with defenders, others said they would stomach it for the good of the community.

“I need to know what we’re up against,” said Woods of @MJJLegion.

Shields said he couldn’t help but feel a sense of dread about the coming months: “This literally could be the end of Michael Jackson if — big if — someone in a position of repute doesn’t decide to tell the other side of the story,” he said.

In the meantime, it was “almost like therapy” for fans to do their part to push back on the claims. “Even if their part doesn’t actually make any impact,” he said, “at least they tried their best.”


And here are my answers to Joe Coscarelli of the New York Times:

(Susanne Baur is welcome to post hers as she sees fit)

Joe Coscarelli:  How long have you been a fan of Michael Jackson? Can you tell me a little bit about how your fandom started and developed?

Elena Ovchinnikova:  I am not a fan, at least in the traditional meaning of the word. Like many others I loved Michael Jackson’s music and dance, but we lived behind the Iron Curtain and had little access to western music, so the peak of Michael Jackson’s fame and success somehow bypassed me.

And in the 90s when the borders opened his image was already heavily tarnished by the allegations.

The thought that so nice a guy could be involved in the heinous crimes that were alleged about him was so revolting that I shifted it into the back of my mind to never think about it again – until the moment he died.

I clearly remember that when he came to Moscow in 1993 I didn’t have the slightest desire to see him in concert or even try to buy a ticket. Unfortunately, like many others I thought that there could no smoke without fire and that “all people can’t be wrong about it”. Listening to his music while half-believing all those rumors was impossible for me, so at the time I preferred to simply shut it out of my mind.

Susanne Baur: I don’t call myself a fan, because the word has a too negative connotation of adoration and worship, which is not my approach to Michael Jackson at all. I see myself as an advocate who came to study Michael Jackson after his death – I see him rather as a civil rights case who doesn’t get the justice he deserves.

JC: When did you begin talking and working with other Michael fans online?

EO: Again, I never really “worked” with Michael’s fans. His death was a shock to everyone as he died so young, so even in my far-away part of the world people tried to learn more about the circumstances of his death. And I was no exception. Initially I read everything there was to read about him on the web, which was mostly the media screaming about tons of narcotics in his body (later found to be a very big lie) and some people even celebrating his death. Among other things that came my way was also a Michael Jackson forum where the mood was completely different and more in line with the sudden sadness that fell upon me.

This is probably where I read personal accounts of people who knew and met MJ, as well as some documents. It seems that it was mostly Michael’s interviews that opened up to me a different Michael Jackson, a mega pop star who spoke about things I didn’t expect him to even bother about. A shy and deep thinking man, who speaks about God and is constantly on the road of soul-searching and hoping that human nature will change for the better, and slightly naïve in thinking that it is indeed possible. What I saw was a very clean way of thinking, found in a man in whom I expected it least of all.

However the main problem of the allegations was still there. To make sure that Michael was incapable of what he was accused, the allegations had to undergo the harshest scrutiny possible and this is when I delved into the subject really deep. And over here another surprise was awaiting me – it turned out that the evidence of Michael Jackson’s innocence (documents, witnesses’ accounts, etc.) was all there in the open lying under everyone’s feet for anyone to pick it up, only no one was willing to. Michael Jackson’s fans seemed to know about his innocence without any proof on my part and refused to even discuss what they rightfully called “that filth”. Most of them said that they had been there long before me and didn’t need any more proof than his full acquittal at the 2005 trial, their first-hand knowledge of him and the like.

I argued that the general public was not convinced, especially about the 1993 case and that fans do need to talk to Michael Jackson’s haters, otherwise the latter will feel free to spread their lies about Jackson without any hindrance and no one standing in the way to their lies. Apparently Michael’s fans were too mournful to listen to my nonsense, so I ended up being banned.

JC: What led you to start your website, Vindicating Michael? 

EO: My thread on the Michael Jackson forum was called “Vindicating Michael” and this is where I tried to collect the worst allegations about Jackson and the proof that they were lies. The thread was not popular with fans as only a handful of people followed it. It seems that this kind of activity was important only to novices like me and not to Michael’s fans who had lived with it all their lives and were already sick and tired of it. Apparently they were not disposed to raking in that mud. When my thread was deleted together with all the evidence collected there, I received a message, probably from another novice, who surprised me with the news that she had opened a wordpress page for me asking me to move all the information there for it not to be lost. The name of the blog was the same – Vindicating Michael, the login was vindicatemj, so this was the accidental way the blog started and vindicatemj became its admin. Eventually some other people joined me and each made his or her contribution to it. All of us were driven by the desire to know more and were limited only by the time we could spend on this time-consuming job.

So what began somewhat by accident in November 2009 became a starting point for several inquisitive people to examine every nasty story ever told about Michael and search for information to find out whether it was true or not. Some of these people later opened blogs of their own and summarized the information in a much more compact way, which is why they are now even better sources than Vindicating Michael – ours is more like a diary we jointly kept on a ten-year long journey of ours where we described everything that came our way and how we dealt with it at the time.

And what came our way was a huge mass of lies told by people who seem to be dedicated to spreading lies about Jackson. There wasn’t a day without a new dirty story told or an elaborate question arriving like “Will you please explain this particular book found on Michael’s bedside table when police raided Neverland in 2003?” To answer it you had to study all transcripts of the 2005 trial and police reports available online, and after the many hours of research you found that the book wasn’t on the table but in an attic, still packed in a closed box, was probably never opened, and it contained photos of neglected (fully dressed) children playing in the dust and portraying their obviously unhappy childhood. So what of it if Michael purchased it? Wasn’t he an exemplary father himself and didn’t he urge other parents to take care of their children and let them have a happy childhood?

With constant questions like that we were always busy and had our hands full, so the longevity of the blog and the depth of research there is for the most part thanks to Michael Jacksons’ haters who didn’t give us a moment of quiet. However there is no cloud without a silver lining – as a result now most of us are like academic scholars specializing on truth about Michael Jackson while the general public and media are playing with old misconceptions and fabrications about MJ like their nursery school toys.

To give you an example of such misconception, some still believe that the Santa Barbara DA Tom Sneddon seriously intended to produce the photos of MJ’s genitalia at the 2005 trial to prove their “match” to Jordan Chandler’s description, while Michael’s researchers know that it was a mere theatrical show intended for the uninitiated. Sneddon simply could not do it in the absence of Jordan who flatly refused to testify a year earlier, in September 2004. The reason is the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution which allows any evidence from the accuser to be produced only in the presence of such accuser so that the other side is able to cross-examine him. Tom Sneddon knew that Jordan as a witness was not available to him, but still did it, solely for the effect it would produce on the jury, media and the public. The judge naturally declined it, but the majority failed to grasp how clever and devious Sneddon’s maneuver was.

Incidentally those photos were not a match, otherwise Michael Jackson would have been incarcerated long before and on that evidence alone.

JC: What do you think makes the community of Michael fans online special? Michael Jackson is one of the most beloved, well-documented and popular stars of all time. Do you feel like he is under attack, or unfairly maligned in the press, in general?

EO: What makes the community of Michael fans special is knowledge and research. And Michael Jackson is certainly not a well-documented star of all time – a much more proper word would be the worst-maligned star of all time.

I don’t know whether the media did it deliberately or because negative news sells better, or due to the media propensity to copy-paste cheap sensations instead of doing their own laborious research. Whatever it is, the end result is that the major part of publications about Michael Jackson are just lazy lies imitating news, while the real him and truth behind the accusations are silenced and never explored, though this is where the real thriller is if anyone in the media ever cared to look.

Now the true world of Michael Jackson and the false picture of him presented in the media are like two different planes of reality that never cross. It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say that massive fake news started with the media maligning Jackson, and though for some it could look like mere fun done at the expense of just one vilified man, the long-term consequences of such a massive lying campaign are surely underestimated. Even today people are virtually unable to tell a genuine victim from a fake one, and when their inability to tell lies from the truth extends to everything else, there will come a time when the media tries to tell people the truth on some essential and crucial problem, but the confused public will be simply unable to accept it. Unfortunately at a pace like that this time is not too far off.

Question: Do you feel like he is under attack, or unfairly maligned in the press, in general?
SB: Yes!! Definitely! We never see the facts in detail presented by the media and we are asking WHY? With all these accusations coming regularly up at certain times of anniversaries or event announcements of his Estate, it seems to us that his legacy is undermined on purpose. These accusations always pop up first in tabloids like Radar Online, but often they are adopted by mainstream media without examining them (copy & paste journalism).
I am not sure if MJ is really the most well-documented star, at least not in the press when it comes to the allegations.
You are certainly aware of Maureen Dowd’s completely biased opinion piece in the NYT of Feb 16. I know it’s her “opinion”, but how can someone base his/her opinion solely on the statements of two persons made in a film, when they accuse someone of the most horrible crimes, and take them for fact without taking into account that they could lie and what other witnesses and court files say? This should have no place in serious journalism, not even in an opinion sector, and not in a prestigious newspaper like the NYT.

JC: Do you plan to watch the new Leaving Neverland documentary? Why or why not?

EO: Leaving Neverland is not a documentary and I was not planning to watch it as we’ve studied Robson’s and Safechuck’s lawsuits and know what they are going to say. But I will have to because we haven’t come so long a way in debunking lies about Jackson to drop it at the last moment. For me it is a necessity though I know what a nightmare it is going to be.

Why is it not a documentary? A big red flag is that Dan Reed violated the principles of true journalism and by his own admission has not even done basic research about the characters he presents in the film. He takes their stories at their face value, does not fact check a single of their statements, says that the viewers should watch it and decide for themselves. Decide what? The people lacking knowledge and guided only by emotions cannot take a responsible decision about anything at all.

Essentially it is no better than giving a platform to two madmen who are happy to have a chance to reel off their gravest fantasies about someone they used to know and praised for decades, and who now say the opposite at the luring prospect of getting hundreds of millions from his Estate and knowing that it is a safe venue as the law on defamation doesn’t protect the deceased. Their case is still under appeal now, and it is in their interests to make their stories as graphic as only possible as the more public outrage the higher the chances that the appellate judges will give in to this noise.

The first viewers of the film who did no research and know only the media innuendoes about MJ say that the film is ‘powerful’ and its characters look ‘credible’. But the Star Wars is also powerful, and as to the two guys’ performance in the film, anyone would look upset and miserable at the prospect of losing hundreds of millions and would cry like babies out of the sheer shame of having to present themselves as “voluntary participants” of the alleged “sex activities” and possibly also losing the reward for telling so humiliating a lie.

Robson has to feign mental confusion saying that at age 23 he “didn’t realize that rape is abuse” and that he “liked it”, because there is no other way for him to explain how he managed to testify under oath that he had never been touched and after that still expect not to be called a perjurer he really is.

Safechuck’s story is different but is no better. According to his lawsuit he realized that his long psychiatric history could be the result of “abuse” only when he saw Robson on TV in 2013 and until that moment he had no idea about it. Isn’t all of it an insult to intellect and common sense?

Anyone familiar with the history of allegations against Jackson will know that Jordan Chandler in 1993 and Gavin Arvizo in 2005 did not claim even a fraction of what is now claimed by the two guys who were supposed to be the earlier “victims”. So while real predators always progress from bad to worse, for these two characters it worked in the reverse order – when Jackson was still young, naïve and incredibly God abiding, he was supposed to commit much graver crimes than those that were alleged about him years later when he was mature and really grown-up.

For the media to support so obvious a fake is utter disgrace.

JC: How do you feel like the MJ community is reacting to news of the film and the ensuing media coverage? Is there a responsibility felt by fans to protect his legacy?

EO: The reaction of the MJ community is absolutely adequate – it is the reaction of knowledgeable people who have to talk to ignoramuses. In contrast to the public and media many fans and supporters have studied Robson’s and Safechuck’s lawsuits, and are not only aware of what they are going to say in the film, but also know at which point their statements contradict their own previous testimonies and even their own current versions – like Robson, for example, who realized that his initial claims will be disproven by his sister’s testimony at the 2005 trial about the first two nights at Neverland and to be on the safe side has now shifted the beginning of “molestation” to a later time, as I hear.

Or take, for example, Dan Reed’s ridiculous assurances that these two guys didn’t meet each other as adults, when in his 2016 deposition Robson is recorded saying that “the last time they spoke was in early 2014” which was after Robson’s complaint but before Safechuck made his, which was a perfect period for exchanging ideas and unifying their claims.

As to the media coverage I cannot yet figure out whether the media is simply ignorant or has an agenda against Michael Jackson. However there isn’t much difference as both are unforgivable.

Speaking of our responsibility as MJ advocates and fans we’ve found ourselves in the circumstances when the media doesn’t do its work and is counterproductive to the truth, so we have no choice but be the media alternative and keep educating people on the real situation around Jackson.

SB: (I feel) Not only responsibility to protect his legacy, but a strong responsibility for the truth to be told and to expose the liars for what they are. I also feel a responsibility towards real abuse victims because they don’t play any role in this film. Reed’s “documentary” does a disservice to them, and if you read Reed’s interviews about the film (Los Angeles Times/Rolling Stone), you get the impression that the film is promoting pedophile ideas and is supporting the pedophile lobby (like Victor Gutierrez does in his banned book which seems to be the source for Safechuck’s accusations). How can anyone believe that a 7 year old child enjoys anal rape??? So I ask myself whose interests does this film really represent?

JC: Would you be interested in a documentary about the alleged abuse if you felt it was a more balanced portrayal or should the topic be off limits?

EO: The topic is absolutely not off limits and one day there will be a good documentary series about all the allegations about Jackson based on facts and facts alone. I can assure you that that will be a sensation as it will open up so many secrets of the people who consistently worked on stigmatizing Jackson that they will probably wish they had never started it.

One of the lacunas to be filled is the man who spent decades spreading lies about Jackson, who worked in collaboration with Martin Bashir on his second film about MJ and assisted some US TV channels in covering the 2005 trial. His name is Victor Gutierrez and he is a self-admitted attendee of a NAMBLA conference (North American Man Boy Love Association) held in late 80s where its participants decided to turn Michael Jackson into their poster boy. The only problem was to “prove” that he was their kind. Since then Victor Gutierrez has been tirelessly working in this direction and there is no low to which he didn’t stoop in smearing Jackson. Michael sued him and won, but Gutierrez fled the country not to pay him millions in damages, however the court order didn’t prevent him from reemerging in US to work as a TV consultant producer during the 2005 trial. A NAMBLA attendee as a consultant producer of US TV programs – isn’t it a nice piece of news just for starters?

If most of the media never heard of Victor Gutierrez it means that while doing their lazy copy-pasting they failed to notice an elephant in the room.

Dateline NBC image

Dateline NBC program. Victor Gutierrez is a consultant. [September 3, 2004]

SB: Yes, if everything is included what is in the court files, including the whole history since the 1993 case and before, when Victor Gutierrez came into the scene. This documentary should be a series, because it is not possible to tell everything in a 2 hour documentary.
No, the topic is not off limits, unfortunately it is existing and it has to be uncovered for what it really is – extortion. For this reason I appreciate the latest step of the MJ Estate to sue HBO with a “Petition to compel public arbitration”, and that they particularly require a public litigation.

JC: What do you think is the single most misunderstood thing by the public about Michael and the allegations of pedophilia and molestation?

EO: The single most misunderstood thing by the public is that Michael Jackson is absolutely not guilty of what he was accused. We may argue about his way of life and criticize him for behaving like a 12-year old and making a fool of himself by allowing all those slumber parties at his home, but he never molested anyone and his heart was in the right place.

Even when recorded by Conrad Murray when he was falling asleep and was in a half conscious state Michael’s words were about how much it hurt him to see children suffering and that God wanted him to help them. A person speaking about God and the need to help children at the moment when he was unable to control his subconscious surely didn’t have a single dirty thought on his mind. Any anesthesiologist who regularly hears people spilling out their innermost thoughts under sedation will tell you that.

Incidentally the full text of that tape has been very scarcely reported by the press. Why so, I wonder?

Here it is in case you don’t know.1

JC: Why do you think MJ fans are so dedicated and thorough in their defenses of Michael on social media?

EO: You can address the same question to people who know that the Earth is round, but are ridiculed by those who think that it is flat. There is simply no choice, but fight them – for the sake of truth, human sanity and future of civilization. With the wealth of knowledge behind our backs we cannot leave the subject of Michael Jackson solely to flat earthers to handle it and keep all others in the medieval dark. There is no other option for us, but defend the truth.

SB: Because we know every little detail in the court files of his cases and therefore are the only ones defending these facts. We can’t stand the injustice how he is treated. He is treated worse than the most evil criminal, though he was exonerated in trial. That’s why I see him as a civil rights case, because he is not getting justice from the public which is very ill-informed. We see a lot of double standard in his treatment. And in these times of “fake news” people seem to believe everything and don’t fact-check anymore.

JC: What would be the ideal scenario for you, in terms of how the media and the public treat MJ going forward? And how do you think his accusers should be considered?

SB: The media should not only present what is told in the film or by accusers, but also present the facts from court files which are available for everybody. If we as regular citizens from far away countries are able to find the relevant documents, US journalists should even be more capable to have access to these documents and study them. For example, we still miss in the mainstream media the examples of Robson’s and Safechuck’s proven lies given in the Estate letter of 10 pages to HBO. They don’t tell them! They don’t go into detail about the lies that were proven in court. They for example don’t talk about Robson’s foundation he set up to raise money without having to disclose it.

MJ’s accusers should be investigated in depth by journalists! Journalists should examine their backgrounds, especially their psychological backgrounds, their characters, their contradictions (Safechuck and Robson not only contradicted themselves within decades, but also repeatedly since filing their lawsuits), their timelines, all their statements of the past and all the videos with interviews. There was a lot of jealousy among the various families during their relationships with MJ. Joy Robson told in her deposition of September 2016 how they were angry that Michael always forgot to call Wade and how they were frustrated when they had to remind MJ of Wade’s participation in the “Jam” video and about their disappointment when “once again Brett Barnes was there. She clearly tells herself that Jackson was not even very interested in Wade Robson.
This is a job which was done already by MJ advocates. You can find all these details on our blog.
I know that the New York Times is very critical of President Trump and does extensive fact-checking of his statements and exposing his lies – and rightfully so! -, but why not fact-checking the allegations against Michael Jackson in the same way?

EO: For me the ideal scenario would be to make a joint research of all allegations about Michael Jackson with every element of it thoroughly examined without any bias or preconception on any side. Some fans will probably disagree as they understandably want Michael to rest in peace and be left alone at last. But my feeling is that without a proper rebuttal his name will not be cleared and Michael will not get the justice he deserves.

As to Dan Reed’s one-sided propaganda piece the ideal scenario would be to ban it altogether in the same way the media bans other propaganda promoting hatred, discrimination, intolerance and the like. The media will not allow a film where someone propagates any of the above ideas for four hours in the name of freedom of speech, will they? Because even if there is a short post-film disclaimer saying that “these are vicious and hateful ideas, but it is up to you to decide whether they are right or wrong” it will be absolutely not enough – it will not erase the effect of those ideas on human minds when they go totally unchallenged and for four hours too.

So why should the two proven perjurers be given the same chance? The film will become more or less balanced if their claims are alternated with their earlier testimonies and interviews about Michael’s innocence, if correct timeline is provided to disprove their stories (Robson, for example, was to Neverland on four occasions only when Michael was there, as all other stays were in his absence according to his own mother’s testimony2) and exactly half the film footage is given to the facts and witnesses contradicting their claims.

Like this account by German princess Elisabeth von Thurn und Taxis whose brother Albert was also friends with Michael Jackson, for example:

Otherwise the film will remain a blatant propaganda piece intended solely for brainwashing people and a very, very shameful episode in the history of your media which undermines its credibility with its own hands.


1 Excerpt from Conrad Murray’s tape:

“Children are depressed. The — in those hospitals, no game room, no movie theater. They’re sick because they’re depressed. Their mind is depressing them. I want to give them that. I care about them, them angels. God wants me to do it. God wants me to do it. I’m gonna do it, Conrad.”

2 Excerpt from Joy Robson’s testimony:

21       Q.  You were not at the ranch on a number of

22   occasions during 1991?

23       A.  My memory is in the entire time we’ve lived

24   here since 1991, we’ve only been at the ranch with

25   Michael on four occasions in 14 years.

26       Q.  Four occasions?

27       A.  Every other time we’ve been here without

28   him.


Best regards,


30 Comments leave one →
  1. mj4alltime permalink
    March 4, 2019 12:03 pm

    Thank you, Helena.

    We haven’t spoken in years (when you said you were not in the best of health) but I hope all is well.


  2. susannerb permalink
    March 4, 2019 2:49 pm

    Guys, I will add my answers to these questions hopefully tomorrow so that you have the complete view on which information, viewpoints and postitions both of us have given independently to Joe Coscarelli.


  3. Jadz Szuster permalink
    March 4, 2019 6:30 pm

    Thank you Helena
    Your post and facts are always amazing EDUCATING the world is the key to this great Human Michael Jackson the REAL person that people need to know! I a time where you still find the strength to educate the those that still need to be! Thank you.


  4. Elvira Del Biondo permalink
    March 4, 2019 10:28 pm

    Excellent thank you so much.


  5. March 5, 2019 3:45 am

    Wonderful! Beautifully expressed, Helena! If only they had printed all of what you wrote!


  6. Jason permalink
    March 5, 2019 8:46 am

    Have you seen the Michael Jackson’s Full Message to Wade Robson ?
    What this Dan Reed didn’t in his documentary ! Did you know ? If yes, can you explain your point of view about the Jackson’s message about Wade ?

    Thank You !


  7. susannerb permalink
    March 5, 2019 9:57 am

    I now have added those parts of my answers given to Joe Coscarelli which differed from Helena’s to some extent, and I left out those parts which were almost identical or very similar.

    There would be much to say about this article, but one thing is particularly obvious and disappointing, not only in this article, but generally in media reports about MJ fans: Journalists are not interested in the contents of our statements, but only in our traits, behavior and actions. And the weirder we are, the better for their reports (same as Michael). No matter how much we refer to content, whether court records, testimonies, what witnesses say etc., it does not seem to be of interest to journalists.
    So in the end there was close to nothing in the article of what we told in our answers.


  8. March 5, 2019 10:59 am

    “Have you seen the Michael Jackson’s Full Message to Wade Robson ?
    Did you know ? If yes, can you explain your point of view about the Jackson’s message about Wade?” -Jason

    I am surprised that Michael recorded it in advance because the curtain behind Michael and his outfit shows him at the Regent hotel on the 20th February 1990 (while Robson’s birthday is in September). And by February 20, 1990 the whole family had left for Australia as is clear from the timeline in this post

    So most probably Michael used that festive occasion to make a kind of a video birthday card to be sent to Robson in due time. He was not planning to see them in the near future, as Robson’s second visit to the US in May 1990 for making a commercial was a more or less spontaneous decision, and prompted by Joy Robson, if I remember it right.

    As to its contents Michael’s message speaks for itself:

    “Hello Wade.Congratulations little one.Today is your birthday.I don’t celebrate birthdays,of course,but I thought I would take this moment to say congratulations on the day that you were born. In my opinion, you should spend this day with your mother & your father, who conceived you. You should be giving them the presents & being thankful that they brought you into the world.”

    Besides Michael urging the boy to be closer with his parents this message shows the unique way of his thinking – the boy should be grateful to his parents for bringing him into the world and should make presents to them. WOW

    Since the family still has the video it is clear that by Robson’s birthday the family did receive that birthday video card (and presents from Michael for the boy and parents?).
    And it is also clear that for the purposes of Dan Reed’s film the video was tampered with – the most important part was cut out.
    I will be able to say more only when I see the film.


  9. Suparna Goswami permalink
    March 5, 2019 3:53 pm

    Thanks Helen for this blog. I have been an avid reader of your research and writing for the past 6 years. You do a great service in bringing out the truth about Michael. God bless.


  10. Gigi M permalink
    March 5, 2019 9:51 pm

    Yo. Darrin Henderson served some major tea about Wade on Instagram. He witnessed Wade tongue kiss his own sister in a Vegas club. My mind still trippin.


  11. MJLoverforlife permalink
    March 6, 2019 12:56 pm

    @ Vindicatemj (Helena) i just found this site:


  12. March 6, 2019 2:48 pm

    “@ Vindicatemj (Helena) i just found this site”

    I am not surprised. In their text they even make a veiled connection between Michael Jackson “apoligists” and “Kremlin” and their trolls, thus suggesting that I am one of them.

    Their first “hello” to me was when I learned that Dan Reed knows Russian. Knowing the language may come in handy for him to read anything I might have written in Russian on the social media and try to undermine me this way. The only problem for them is that I am not a “Kremlin apologist” either and have always tried to stand for the truth in my own country too.

    A quote from the “” site (the emphasis is mine):

    Dear MJ Apologists, This Is What You Actively Support

    MJ’s Misinformation Troll Factory

    Are you one of those aggressive Michael Jackson apologists who viciously attacks anybody who doesn’t believe he was 100% “innocence” or choose to engage in a Kremlin style misinformation campaign against his accusers?
    If you are, then perhaps you should chill out for a few minutes and reflect on what you’re actually supporting.
    Yes, I know it can be confusing to get a accurate picture of Michael Jackson, especially when you get a group of people who said he did terrible things, and another group who say he was the sweetest man on this earth.
    The truth is, Michael Jackson was neither the devil nor a saint.
    He was, however, a deeply troubled man, a man who clearly had an unhealthy interest in young boys. That unhealthy interest was so intense that he chose to spend hundreds (if not thousands) of nights behind closed doors with young boys, and still did it even after being accused of child molestation.
    Now, of course, your pro Jackson sites will try to paint a very different picture. A picture that Jackson was a special case, a man who had no childhood and therefore was doing nothing more than reliving what he never had.
    …Okay, how about this. Would you wear a T-shirt that said “I openly support unrelated man/boy sleepovers” to your place of work or outside the school gates with other parents as you wait to pick up your child?
    If your answer is again no, then why? Aren’t you the world’s biggest hypocrite in saying it’s okay for a famous celebrity to entice young boys into his private quarters for “innocent” one-on-one sleepovers, but definitely not okay under any other circumstances.
    Yes, I know. Fansites will tell you that Jackson was an international pop star, and we should all universally believe in his innocent Peter Pan persona. But, the truth is, neither you or I personally knew Jackson, and some of those who knew him best of all, have accused him of child molestation and rape. If you need any proof that Jackson lived a very different and troubled life, then look at the final months of his life where he played Russian roulette with propofol until his luck finally ran out.
    If you’re a MJ apologist, and you’re reading this I don’t, for the record, necessarily think you’re a bad person. I think many of you are victims of small minority of deeply troubled and malicious individuals who will pump out an aggressive misinformation campaign against Jackson’s accusers, and get you to regurgitate their dirty work.
    So, just remember. If you don’t believe in unrelated man/boy sleepovers, then think twice before you condemn Jackson’s accusers or doubters. If you want to support such behaviour, then carry on and I’m sure you’ll get lots of kisses and hugs from pedophile organisations such as NAMBLA.”

    Great, so now they are also throwing NAMBLA into the “kremlin” story… However this blog has dozens of articles under the title “Fight pedophilia!” and I was actually the first and initially the only one to write about a connection between NAMBLA and Michael’s haters.

    This is the real reason why they hate me so much.

    Apparently they regard me as the main trouble-maker. Apparently they think that without me Michael Jackson’s fans would not know about his innocence and wouldn’t defend him on their own. Well, it seems they give too much credit to one Russian 65-year old woman and think nothing of millions of Michael Jackson’s fans.

    By the way, when they call Michael Jackson “neither the devil nor a saint” and just a “deeply troubled man who clearly had an unhealthy interest in young boys” it shows that the authors of the text are probably NAMBLA themselves. For me and all normal people any abuser of children is the devil.

    And whether saint or not, Michael was surely not of their kind.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. March 6, 2019 6:44 pm

    Reblogged this on TEE ALI BLOGS TOO.


  14. Linda permalink
    March 6, 2019 8:50 pm

    Thank you once again for your hard work. It is appalling that this injustice continues.


  15. Des permalink
    March 7, 2019 7:15 am

    My dear Helena,let me just start by saying thank you to all of you for standing up for the truth,your must be all exhausted from all the hard work that your do but also stress and frustration as well,but my heart is breaking for Michael’s children.I have seen and read every video clip every open letter comments interviews, and I realise how important education is,there so much I want to say and do and everything it’s in my head but when it comes down to put it in words especially English been my second language I found it really hard. I listen to Charles Tomson interview and in ten minutes he said almost everything to discreded Robson and Safechuck ,we need more of these in front of a camera talking to the world.People who are close to Michael are emotionally involved and it’s hard for them ,plus all the family they are very polite and softly spoken. I have seen Taj interviews and they always asking him about Michael sleeping with children and I really want to say come and study my life and hundreds of us that grownup like Michael and by that amen sharing everything,I can not make people understand it and I am not going to try you have to leave it to understand it. I am fortunate that I haven’t experienced sexual harassment when I was growing up and neither my sisters my brother thirty nine first cousins friends and my community ,but we did share a bed and a bedroom and a house and clothes and food and more. That’s how it was back then,we had beds even in the kitchen and all the beds were against the wall, and we usealy girls will sleep with adult woman and boys with an adult man,the kids will sleep against the wall and the adult on the other side of the bed so we don’t fall,now me or any girl I didn’t have a problem getting undress because we were women and the boys didn’t have a problem with man too. I grew up in a village a small community about a thousand people,we knew each other we help each other ,our fathers worked In the land and in farms and especially summer time school holidays they will take young boys to help them and sleep in the farms ,now I am sixty five years old I heard of affairs back then when I was nine ten years old but I never heard of young people being sexually abused , and am not talking just about my self,we were all the same,it wasn’t strange and dirty to share your bed it was a way of life, and winter time we didn’t have heaters in the houses only in one room so we will heat up a brick in the fire rapid up with material and put it in the bed and sleep with someone else or as many as we can feed in the bed, and many times we will have an adult in the middle man or woman someone that can tell us good stories and making up beautiful stories till we go to sleep.Now there’s so much I can say and even to this day it is an owner in many places to give your bed to someone else and it’s called sharing.That is why when I hear Michael saying,sharing your bed it doesn’t sound weird or wrong to me.Do you know how I picture Michael you know the movie sound of music with Julie Andrews and she is the nanny and seats in the bed under the covers with all the children and tells them stories and sing song and play that’s how I pictured Michael. I am also asking if Michael was a woman doing what Michael was doing would people think differently?And I want to say something else too,here in Australia cardinal George Pell was found guilty of sexual assault and the accuser wants to stay anonymous and leave a quiet and normal life no interviews no media, and we have in Michael’s every accusation the media is the first one to know.Tomorow night and Saturday night they’re going to play the documentary on channel ten I’m not watching I already feel that they are lying to my face . I thank you from the bottom of my heart.


  16. joe permalink
    March 8, 2019 3:41 am

    I am done, I didn’t mean to post more than once, I was trying to find the most recent place. I think acceptance is important, but it will take more time for some to accept the valid testimony from these two boys/men in the movie. Watch the Oprah interview afterward, there is a pure honest exchange among real victims. There is no way, no way, at this point that they are lying or imagining it, just honestly give it a watch. Those boys knew MJ better than most anyone, listen to his sister, his brother, listen to the maid, but listen to all of it as a whole so you get the entire picture. Stop trying to pick it apart. Listen to their accounts. Have a good weekend.


  17. Jason permalink
    March 8, 2019 5:26 am

    We know the sing : You think in bear witness mean the “truth” ? If it the case, why these fools edited their history’s version since 2012 when they say to be molested ? Why in this documentary, these who is mentionned “Brett Barnes and Corey Feldman” said they lied ? And for you, there is no problem for them ??
    Nice try ! So Shut up and be patience !
    Good week too !


  18. March 8, 2019 5:43 am

    Joe is a funny troll. He obviously thinks the more often he copies his comment, the truer his opinion becomes. But the more often he repeats his opinion, the more implausible and foolish he becomes, because even at the umpteenths time he can not deliver any evidence. The frequency of his comment does not outweigh the lack of evidence, lol.


  19. Des permalink
    March 8, 2019 6:13 am

    Hi again my dear Helena,here now they showing the documentary but the TV is off and no one is watching and am here because I wanted to sort of connect with decent people whom they know what they talking about. I watched Taj Jackson another interview today One on One and I got the impression that if he manages to make the documentary we going to see a lot of people coming forward to speak the truth about Michael,maybe for now some of them are a bit quiet but I think it’s ok and I think we going to hear from Lisa Marie Presley too because if am not mistaken the time that Wade accuses Michael of the abuse around that time he was dating Michael’s niece and Michael was married to Lisa,and I loved the nannys statement. I remember listening to Lisa Marie I think it was an interview with Opera and she was saying how she was telling him about the kids and how they wouldn’t leave him alone and Michael said even when he try to stay away they get upset and I don’t want to upset them.I loved the two of them together,and I do believe that they loved each other.Karma will get these liars I’m sure of it.


  20. March 8, 2019 5:38 pm

    “it wasn’t strange and dirty to share your bed it was a way of life” – Des

    Des, thank you for explaining it so well. This bed sharing issue is blown up out of all proportion by people with superficial minds for the audience made up of the same kind of people. If they bothered to give it a thought they would understand that real pedophiles never talk about giving their bed to a child or about arranging sleepovers in their homes. THEY SIMPLY NEVER TALK ABOUT IT. Predators do it, but never talk.

    And Michael didn’t do it, but talked too much. And the reason why he talked is because he simply didn’t understand that a crime like that was possible at all. He was so pure at heart that couldn’t even imagine it. And we, corrupt as we are, cannot imagine him not understanding so simple a matter. This is why we are going rounds and rounds in this bed-sharing problem.


  21. March 12, 2019 1:49 am

    Somebody correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Robson originally claim that the supposed abuse started on the second night of his first visit to Neverland? Has he now changed his story to fit with his sister’s 2005 testimony that she also spent that night in Michael’s room and nothing inappropriate happened at all?


  22. March 12, 2019 11:00 am

    “Somebody correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Robson originally claim that the supposed abuse started on the second night of his first visit to Neverland?Has he now changed his story to fit with his sister’s 2005 testimony that she also spent that night in Michael’s room and nothing inappropriate happened at all?” – martinhay1979

    Yes, he has and several times as I hear. The complaint said that the abuse started on the second night of his very first visit to Neverland. Here is a post about it:

    Then as I hear he changed it into the first night to fit his sister’s testimony. And in his book draft he spoke about the first week, after his parents allegedly left him there and went away to the Grand Canyon. However in 2005 Joy Robson made it clear during her testimony that the whole family left for the Great Canyon and came back only for the next weekend. On the other hand in her email she said to Wade she had “several versions” of their stay at Neverland and she would let him know if she found anything that would benefit him.

    In short whichever way you look at their timeline it is a complete mess.
    Joy Robson had several versions of their stay at Neverland

    In the latest post I spoke about the first night, but you are probably right that I should correct it into the second night, according to the complaint. But essentially it won’t change anything – whether first or second, there was no grooming period.


  23. Maheen Afghan permalink
    April 24, 2019 3:55 pm

    Hi, so my comment may not be very relevant to this post, but I think I have found some valid evidence that needs analysing by someone who has done more thorough research than I have. I decided to leave my comment on a more recent post in the hopes that it can be seen earlier and easier. It is important to note that yes, while these articles may have some evidence which lacks credibility, it provides some valid evidence in explaining the connection between Michael, Mary Fischer and NAMBLA. Now, unfortunately, this article argues that Michael was guilty. Please be open minded to the facts that this person brings up. I’ve also left a message with my email. I would really like to know the truth, so if you can, could someone maybe do a post or two on these articles? Once again, it is important that the evidence against Michael and Mary Fischer in these articles is refuted, rather than just some of the other evidence branded as lacking credibility. Thank you!


  24. April 25, 2019 5:13 am

    @Maheen Afghan: I think Alex Constantine is a very controversial person per se. He seems to be a man who has many ideas about conspiracy theories. He apparently also believes in mind control by the CIA through certain techniques like trauma-based programming or implanting magnets into brains. He said crazy things like this in an interview about folk singer Joan Baez (one of my absolute heroes, by the way) in 1998:
    “It’s known that Joan was used in C.I.A. mind control experimentation at a very early age. She was subjected to trauma-based programming, which is still in use today in the creation of multiple personalities. If you look at the latest record by Joan Baez, she thanks her multiple personalities on the back of the record.”

    His opinion about Michael Jackson and Mary Fischer is only one of his many crazy theories which he cannot prove. In his posts about them he didn’t present one solid evidence for his theories. From the posts I read, it seems all his writings are not based on facts, but on speculations and theories.
    His idea of Mary Fischer being a NAMBLA representative as a woman is ridiculous. He seems to have a very personal problem with Mary Fischer and an axe to grind with her for some reason.
    In my opinion (as co-admin of this blog) we shouldn’t give him more attention on this blog here. If Helena is interested in it, of course it’s up to her to investigate this man, but I personally think this is a waste of time because this would have to include investigating his whole personality and conception of the world which obviously is based on distrust towards everything and everybody. He must live in a very dark world and appears to have a very confused mind.

    And by the way: Your comment under this post is actually very suitable, because if the mainstream media like the New York Times are joined by authors like Alex Constantine in their opinion about MJ, they are in company of someone they should not be fond of.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Maheen Afghan permalink
    April 25, 2019 3:44 pm

    Hi, thanks for the speedy reply, I feel like I needed a second opinion on these two articles. Honestly, I think they have almost no evidence, apart from this
    ‘JACKSON’S ATTORNEY COULD HAVE ARGUED THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANY (AND LIZ TAYLOR) INSISTED ON A SETTLEMENT … BUT HE DIDN’T. HE ARGUED – “INSISTED” … “The singer’s lawyer insisted the payments were made because Jackson didn’t like ‘courtrooms and lawyers,’ preferring to focus on his musical career.”
    There you have it, a notarized transcript. The “settlement” (bribe) was Jackson’s decision. This is the authorized “explanation” – not from a fraud, Mary Fischer, in a men’ magazine, but Jackson’s own legal representation in the courtroom, explained to the jury and press’

    It is hard, I think, to not take this into account.

    I really do think that the stuff he says and the whole article overall lacks credibility. Alex clearly seems quite disturbed, but I’ve been reading this:

    Now, I know MJFacts can be flawed in many ways, but I think this further makes me question Mary Fischer and the credibility of the GQ article. Also:

    If the sodium amytal claim is pretty much disproven here, doesn’t that suggest that Mary Fischer was in fact hired to invent such false facts? P.S. I know I may seem skeptical, but I want to have the most objective view. I have more belief in Michael’s innocence and I just simply want to pick apart everything before I defend him fully.


  26. susannerb permalink
    April 27, 2019 3:40 am

    Maheen Afghan: Just to be clear:

    1. Which “notarized transcript”? Where is the proof? No link, no source of an original document that this was a statement in court. It may also have been just said in a press conference. – And if MJ “preferred to focus on his musical career” – what’s wrong about it? Many people don’t like courtrooms and lawyers. Out-of-court settlements happen every day because people want to go on with their life. And this settlement (in a civil case) didn’t prevent the Chandlers from testifying in court in a criminal case, because criminal cases cannot be settled. But they didn’t want criminal proceedings and didn’t cooperate with the prosecution.

    2. MJFacts is an opinion-based blog, not a fact-based one, with many distortions of the truth, and we don’t see them as a factual source.

    3. Mary Fischer is a very serious and respected journalist who did a very good job in investigating the Chandler case (and others). As told in the post of michaeljacksonallegations, she had several sources for her article and didn’t invent the Sodium Amytal story herself.
    And as also said in the post, the use of Sodium Amytal is not pivotal in this case at all. Her conclusions have nothing to do with NAMBLA and don’t suggest anything like Constantine’s claims. The connection Mary Fischer/NAMBLA is so absurd, I don’t even know how insane someone must be to get this idea. As an award-winning writer, she really has no reason to have herself hired by an illegal organisation and endanger her good reputation.

    So please just use your common sense!


  27. Maheen Afghan permalink
    April 28, 2019 11:46 am

    Yeah, after doing some more reading I chose to completely disregard the articles. The settlement is an obvious indicator of his innocence and it’s so annoying that people use that to argue his guilt. If you are the parents of an abused child, why on earth would you refuse to cooperate in a criminal investigation against your child’s abuser? They received the $20 million (or whatever amount of money it was) and ran away from any criminal investigation; because they got what they wanted and knew they would be caught lying if they didn’t fight it.


  28. April 29, 2019 9:08 am

    Hello Helena. I’m a newer fan (about 2 years) and ran across some confusion while reading the pdf of 1993 allegations. It said that Larry Feldman gave MJ a multiple choice request, either he submit to a second search, provide copies of the photos, or have the pictures barred as evidence. Which one of these occured? Did the pictures and Jordan’s description ever get shown to the 1994 grand jury?


  29. June 1, 2019 2:58 pm

    “It said that Larry Feldman gave MJ a multiple choice request, either he submit to a second search, provide copies of the photos, or have the pictures barred as evidence. Which one of these occured? Did the pictures and Jordan’s description ever get shown to the 1994 grand jury?”- beatofmjj

    None of the three occurred, but in this case it is Larry Feldman’s request that matters. If the pictures had matched Jordan’s description Larry Feldman would have been perfectly satisfied with the result and wouldn’t have asked for a second search. And certainly wouldn’t have wanted the pictures to be barred as evidence.
    Were the photos shown to the 1994 grand jury? This question should be addressed to the prosecutors. The grand jury hearings take place in the absence of the defense attorneys with only prosecutors and their witnesses present. And if there is no indictment all transcripts of the grand jury hearings are to be destroyed (with the exception of copies of witnesses’ testimonies which can be obtained only if they are willing to share them).

    So there is no direct evidence whether the grand jury saw the pictures or not. But indirect evidence suggests that they were not. For example, the media reported that the prosecutors subpoenaed Michael’s mother and she had to answer questions whether he had had any operations on his genitalia. This question alone means that they were aware of the fact that Michael was uncircumcised and that the photos were at variance with what Jordan claimed.

    Moreover we know from all participants of this circus that none of them had a chance to compare the pictures of MJ genitalia with Jordan’s description. All of them say that “they were told that it was a match”, because all of them saw one thing and didn’t see the other – either the genitalia or the description, even the doctor and Jim Thomas, the Santa Barbara sheriff (who laughed it off and said he had no desire to look, as if it wasn’t his duty to do so). Most probably he did see and compare but didn’t want to take any responsibility for the fraud.

    The only person who “made the determination” was Tom Sneddon. For the 2005 trial he wrote a highly misleading declaration (the white splotch was called “a dark spot”, the matter of non-circumcision was evaded and replaced by “erection”, etc.). In that document Tom Sneddon actually stated it himself that the determination was made by him, and not some third party expert.
    And if you think about it, allowing the prosecutor to play the role of an expert is the same as allowing the defense attorney to be the final expert.


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: