At the end of January Forbes published an article prompted by the documentary Leaving Neverland that defenders of Michael Jackson have been circulating on social media as evidence of his innocence.
In it music writer Joe Vogel concludes: “My assessment is that the evidence simply does not point to Michael Jackson's guilt.”
The writer outlines circumstances that he believes indicate the singer’s innocence. Here’s an analysis of his main points:
Wade Robson. HBO
Why has Wade Robson only come forward now?
The article starts by outlining how accuser Wade Robson, one of two men who claim to have been victims of child sex abuse by Jackson in the two-part documentary, paid a heartfelt tribute to Jackson when he died.
It also highlights how he testified on the star’s behalf in the 2005 trial – where Jackson was found innocent of all charges including four counts of molesting a minor –and how he enjoyed barbecues with Jackson and his children decades after his alleged abuse took place.
On the face of it, it does seem odd that Robson did these things, only to come out with the allegations years later. Robson says that after he married and had a son he suffered two nervous breakdowns that finally forced him to reveal the alleged abuse to a therapist and his family.
“It was just pain and disgust and anger of the idea of that or something like that or anything like that happening to my son,” he said.
The depressing truth is extreme repression and denial among victims of child sexual abuse is common. And the complex emotional attachments formed by manipulative child abusers – Robson speaks of his love for Jackson in the documentary – may also have factored into his actions, even into adulthood.
Ron Zonen, a prosecutor in the 2005 trial who has tried many sex-abuse cases, told Vanity Fair that for male victims testimony “has to be on their terms”.
“They finally decide to disclose when the pain becomes unbearable and it’s not going to get better until they talk to somebody and tell the truth about it.”
Lawsuits
The article brings up the unsuccessful $1.5 billion dollar civil lawsuit brought by Robson and co-accuser Jimmy Safechuck in 2013.
What it doesn’t mention is that it was dismissed because Robson had missed the 12-month statutory deadline after Jackson’s death. The judge did not rule on the credibility of the allegations.
A second claim against MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, two companies owned by Jackson, was dismissed because a judge ruled that as Jackson was the sole shareholder of the companies, no one else had the power to override his wishes. Again, the judge did not rule on the credibility of the allegations.
Legal proceedings that go unmentioned in the article is Jackson paying millions to the families of children he allegedly abused.
These include a $23m settlement to the family of Jordy Chandler, who claimed Jackson groomed and molested him.
Wade Robson and Michael Jackson
The circumstances surrounding the settlement are far too complicated to go into here, but it is worth noting the boy was reportedly able to accurately describe marks on the underside of Jackson’s penis.
Following a strip search by cops, Jackson agreed to the massive settlement. The singer claimed he made the payment in order to move on with his life and it did not represent an admission of guilt. He later expressed regret about the decision.
To Kill A Mockingbird
Vogel writes: “It is no accident that one of Jackson’s favorite books (and movies) was To Kill a Mockingbird, a story about a black man—Tom Robinson—destroyed by false allegations.”
Jackson enjoying a book beloved by millions is no indication of guilt or innocence, whatever its subject matter.
No physical evidence
When Jackson’s homes were ransacked in two police raids in 2005, nothing incriminating was found, writes Vogel.
There is rarely physical evidence in cases of historical sex abuse.
Jackson’s defenders
The article states that “dozens of individuals who spent time with Jackson as kids continue to assert nothing sexual ever happened”.
It adds: “This includes hundreds of sick and terminally ill children such as Bela Farkas (for whom Jackson paid for a life-saving liver transplant) and Ryan White (whom Jackson befriended and supported in his final years battling AIDS).”
It also lists celebrity defenders like Macaulay Culkin, Sean Lennon, Emmanuel Lewis, Alfonso Ribeiro, and Corey Feldman, as well as Jackson’s nieces, nephews, and his own three children.
So, the fact that Michael Jackson didn’t molest these particular children is indicative of his innocence as a whole? And the fact his friends did not witness any abuse means its unlikely to have happened?
Paedophiles identify and carefully groom vulnerable victims they can coerce into silence and go to extreme lengths to hide their crimes from friends and family.
The donations highlighted are also irrelevant to the issue – Jimmy Savile raised millions for charities.
Public target
The article states: “As an eccentric, wealthy, African American man, Michael Jackson has always been a target for litigation.
“During the 1980s and 1990s, dozens of women falsely claimed he was the father of their children.
“He faced multiple lawsuits falsely claiming he plagiarized various songs. As recently as 2010, a woman named Billie Jean filed a frivolous $600 million paternity lawsuit against Jackson’s Estate.”
This is false equivalency. Jackson being the victim of frivolous litigation doesn’t mean all accusations against him are not credible.
Also, false sexual abuse allegations are incredibly rare.
Michael’s defenders (again)
The Forbes article concludes that none of the people who knew Jackson best believed he was a child molester.
This Vanity Fair article shows that statement to be simply incorrect. And there are at least two boys who arguably knew him better than anyone who believe he was.