The Michael Jackson Case for Innocence Podcast
Dec 13, 2022
Remember Ben from Cornwall, the psychosexual therapist with an Irish accent who initially believed Michael Jackson was a predatory child molester, until he did his own research? Yeah, I know, he wasn’t very convincing.
Recently, I came across a relatively new podcast advocating for Michael Jackson's innocence, known as "The Michael Jackson Case for Innocence," supposedly led by a mother and daughter team. The teenage daughter, June, became a fan of Michael Jackson at the age of 10 after exploring 80s music. Her mother, Sheryl, initially had no interest in Michael Jackson's music or the allegations against him.
However, after the release of Leaving Neverland, their household was deeply affected. Sheryl felt uncomfortable about the fact that her daughter’s idle was accused of committing heinous crimes against children, and even encouraged her to take the allegations very serious.
But Sheryl is one of these individuals who always likes to listen to both sides before making a decision, and even encourages her daughter to do the same. So, just like any responsible middle-aged adult, Sheryl, with the support of her husband embarked on a lengthy and time-consuming fact researching crusade, which strangely didn’t seem to involve any great depth into researching child molester characteristics (other than very selective parts) or how victims are groomed, seduced and abused, but instead buried her head in a series of Michael Jackson glorification websites, and stan made “documentary”, Square One, all of which are linked as “factual” resources on her website.
To date Sheryl has published 11 podcasts, including a trailer. These start with the Chandler allegations, with the latest ones addressing the Arvizo’s. All can be viewed on her website, and Twitter account: @Case4Innocence.
If you overlook the numerous stan links, her website does appear somewhat genuine. It features a few pictures of herself and her daughter, often dressed in MJ clothing, along with their remarkable story that they felt compelled to share with the world.
However, one might ponder why a middle-aged "parent" is publicly using her daughter to glorify a man in whom she supposedly had no interest in until experiencing one of those road to Damascus moments!
It all sound somewhat contrived and insincere! The narrative of a young girl being so distraught after the release of Leaving Neverland that it propelled her mother into months of intensive fact-checking, ultimately resulting in the full exoneration of Michael Jackson.
Some Michael Jackson fan sites and Twitter users are thrilled that these newcomers to the Michael Jackson scene have created a podcast asserting his complete "innocence." Vindicate MJ, listed as one of their main sources, even dedicated an entire blog post describing Sheryl as an:
"Exemplary mother who didn’t want to leave her daughter alone to deal with the Leaving Neverland mess and its aftermath, and who undertook a thorough investigation of the allegations against Michael Jackson to see whether they are true or not."
Twitter user Jenny Winings (@JennyW526) seems incredibly taken by the perceived factual accuracy of the podcasts, to the extent that she made an extremely inflammatory comment directed at Martin Bashir.
Listening to @Case4Innocence newest episode makes me LOOOOOOATHE Martin Bashir even more. What a piece of shit he is. He can rot in hell please.
View original tweet here.
Additionally, The MJCast (@TheMJCast), which frequently features "award-winning investigative journalist" Charles Thomson, has retweeted episodes of the podcast.
This certainly appears to be another instance of a poorly disguised Michael Jackson stan, who believes it's a good idea to involve her teenage daughter in an attempt to garner more followers for the fan base.
However, I have my doubts about the authenticity of the mother-daughter team as presented on their website and podcast.
First and foremost, there is little doubt in my mind that Sheryl is insincere. She alleges to have reviewed thousands of Michael Jackson documents, including those documenting his troubling interactions with young boys, yet claims they have convinced her of his complete innocence. Notably, she asserts that Tom Sneddon falsely affirmed the accuracy of Jordan Chandler’s description of discolouration, keeping it under lock and key and away from other law enforcement officers who simply took his word for it. Additionally, they endorse Mary Fisher’s GQ article, the film Square One, and the absurd Sodium Amytal story.
What struck me most, however, were the podcasts themselves. When you listen to a podcast, background noise, coughing, laughter, and overlapping speech are all part of the natural flow. Yet, there's something off about Sheryl, the mother. Her speech sounds somewhat robotic, devoid of emotion, with an unchanging tone and peculiar pronunciation of certain words. Furthermore, she never seems to pause for a breath, even during extended sentences.
Listen to the first podcast trailer below.
Undoubtedly, in every podcast episode, two female voices are heard, along with so-called "voice actors" contributing to the conversation. However, one may question whether these are real individuals or a transcript transcribed by an artificial intelligence text-to-speech recognition program.
For those unfamiliar, text-to-speech is essentially the inverse of speech-to-text, a feature commonly found on Android or Apple devices. Rather than speaking and seeing the words appear on a phone or computer, text-to-speech involves utilizing a website service to have a natural-sounding voice record a 10,000+ word article. This process does not involve a human transcribing the entire transcript painstakingly; instead, it leverages artificial intelligence to emulate an actor's voice.
During my exploration of text-to-speech, I was astonished by how realistic it can be. Numerous websites offer this service, with some providing free but less effective options, while the paid services deliver incredibly realistic results. Users can select and customize from hundreds of voices, with some services even enabling the cloning of one's own voice. These platforms seamlessly integrate all recordings, while incorporating sound effects and music, negating the need for video or audio software to publish the content.
Below is a sample taken from the first paragraph of this website using murf.ai.
As mentioned earlier, even the most professionally produced podcasts have their imperfections. Real individuals convey emotions in their voices, particularly when addressing more sensitive subjects. In conversations involving two or more people, one would expect to hear moments of laughter and overlaps in speech, even if only for a brief instant. Additionally, the occasional cough, deep breath, or minor correction is typically heard. However, none of these natural elements are present in the 11 full-length episodes of the Michael Jackson Case for Innocence podcast. Instead, the delivery is a continuous stream of evenly toned preaching.
For instance, each podcast is introduced with the same phrase: "welcome to the Michael Jackson case for innocence podcast," followed by the speaker's name and, on some episodes, the introduction of her daughter. This identical introduction is heard in every single episode. While it's possible that she pre-recorded the five-second intro and edited it into each podcast, this seems unlikely, as it wouldn't make sense to reuse such a short clip repeatedly. Furthermore, after the intro, she seamlessly transitions to the new subject without a pause or variation in her voice, as if reading a continuous sentence.
These artificial text-to-speech programs are highly advanced but not flawless. While they proficiently pronounce many words and sentences naturally and clearly, a dead giveaway is their consistent pronunciation of every single word and the delivery of identical sentences in exactly the same timeframe, which a real person would not do.
June, the daughter's voice, does sound considerably more convincing. It's possible that this is a real individual, possibly the person behind the podcast, or a paid "voice actor." However, similar to Sheryl, June speaks in a consistent tone devoid of emotion and, notably, never laughs, interrupts, or talks over her mother's voice.
The website indicates that Sheryl, the mother, handles more sensitive and mature topics, while June, the daughter, addresses more mundane subjects. Nevertheless, if these are indeed two real individuals, it is highly improbable that both did not sit together at a microphone and discuss less sensitive material.
On October 4, 2022, a peculiar tweet was shared by the @Case4Innocence Twitter account, stating that they had been grappling with "long-standing vocal cord issues" and had inadvertently released recordings that were not meant to be made public.
As the primary narrator for the series, I want to note that I have longstanding vocal cord issues, requiring multiple recordings. Earlier today a few rough draft recordings were mistakenly released as our first episode--apologies if you downloaded these before they were deleted!
View original tweet here.
To my knowledge, individuals with vocal cord issues typically exhibit frequent coughing and throat clearing, rather than speaking in a consistently robotic-like manner.
The notion of Sheryl recording at least 11 full-length podcasts with such a flawlessly even tone, despite her vocal cord problem, seems highly implausible.
Maybe they were still experimenting with text-to-speech AI software and published content that they should not have, or perhaps it was Sheryl's real voice, before switching to AI.
Another Twitter user (@CdnCapedCrusadr), who expressed admiration for the podcast, commented:
This is a fascinating podcast concept. If you are at all interested in #Michael Jackson, as a fan or detractor, or interested in true crime podcasts give this one a subscribe and listen. Accessible, objective & informed from the most unique genesis. (listens smooth at 1.25x speed)
View original tweet here.
That's unusual. I've never heard of anyone needing to adjust the speed of a podcast featuring real people in order to make the voices sound natural.
Alright, one could argue that using voice actors and AI software instead of the actual voices still constitutes a podcast. However, based on the information from the website (and the tweet regarding vocal issues), it is indicated that both the mother and daughter have indeed recorded their own voices. It even mentions that June was not initially part of these podcasts when they began, but as she grew older and matured, episodes were re-recorded with her voice.
I sent a fabricated email to The Michael Jackson Case for Innocence, commending them for their work.
It reads:
Dear Sheryl and June,
I just want to say that I recently discovered your podcast through Twitter.
Just like you, I was one of those individuals who believed Michael Jackson was guilty until I did my own research.
The way you and your teenage daughter present the facts are impeccable. Both of you speak in a way that is clear, easy to understand and highly professional, just like a newsreader who has decades of experience.
I hope both you and your daughter continue to record your voices for more podcasts in the future.
Many thanks.
I got the following reply:
Hi David,
Thanks for taking the time to write to us. We appreciate your thoughtful and positive comments, so glad you find the presentation clear and professional. Hope you continue to enjoy the podcast! We are especially excited about Season 2.
Best,
Sheryl & June
I made a concerted effort to extol the quality of their voices and expressed my hope that they would continue recording more. Interestingly, the individual behind the podcast did not deny that the voices belonged to them or their daughter.
The website is transparent about utilizing voice "actors" for specific segments of their podcast. However, it aims to convey the impression that these individuals are not merely cooperative voices, but also possess comprehensive knowledge about the subject matter, rather than being paid individuals who simply received a script.
For instance, voice actor Paul Stefano (@paulstefano) shared his involvement in the podcast:
Are You a Michael Jackson Fan? Critic? Listen to the podcast I'm a part of for a fascinating look into the trial and allegations against the King of Pop. #vo #voiceover #podcast #podcasting #michaeljackson
View original tweet here.
I sent Paul Stefano the following email:
Hello,
I recently discovered your work, or I should say your voice on a podcast called The Michael Jackson Case for Innocence.
I am also interested in making a similar podcast, and would like to use your voice for my project. However, I'm not entirely sure how it works.
I presume you don't come round to my house, but instead I send you a transcript which you then record.
Also, I did watch a YouTube video about how you say you have licensed your voice, but again, I'm not entirely sure what this means. I get the impression that I may be able to use a website service where I can literally just type words into a box, and within a matter of seconds hear your voice read those words.
Is this correct?
Many thanks for your time.
I got the following reply:
Hi,
Thanks for thinking of me. For a podcast no licensing is necessary. It's just a one time fee based on the amount of words in each episode. Do you have scripts ready yet? Do you know how many words you would need me to voice?
Paul
I sent one more email:
Hello,
No, no script is ready at the moment. But just to make things clear, if or when my script does become ready, I just send it to you via email, and then you send a recording back to me, and so on.
Sorry for the stupid questions, but I'm in the process of learning.
Many thanks.
Last reply:
Yes, so I would record the script. You could offer any suggestions on things to adjust or change, then I would send you a new recording.
See email screenshots here.
So yes, he is simply a paid voice actor, devoid of any knowledge or interest in the material he narrates. He is willing to work from a provided script and make alterations as requested.
For instance, Paul recites a passage from "Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis" regarding the prevalence of child pornography or child erotica among paedophiles in The Chandler Allegations Part 5: Summing Up the Evidence.
Listen to the audio below.
However, Sheryl, who presents herself as a self-educated expert on the subject, seems to be unaware that Michael Jackson did possess child erotica, not only in the form of paedophile-authored books, but also a fully nude picture of a boy believed to be Jonathan Spence.
Undoubtedly, someone has invested significant effort in producing this podcast. Whether it is fabricated or genuine remains uncertain, but I am 99% convinced that the voice is not authentic. Even if it were, there is no denying that Sheryl, or whoever they may be, is a complete charlatan. They have not objectively considered all the evidence or reviewed all the documents to conclude that Michael Jackson was entirely innocent. It appears to be another thinly veiled Michael Jackson stan presenting a preachy and indoctrinating podcast.
Another puzzling aspect is their refusal to disclose their last name for privacy reasons. It seems contradictory to post pictures with themselves and their daughter, yet express reluctance to reveal their last name for privacy purposes. This suggests that the individual behind the podcast anticipates scepticism and scrutiny, prompting pre-emptive excuses.
As always, I cannot conclude this blog post without highlighting the irony. We are led to believe that Sheryl is a responsible and concerned mother who felt uneasy about her daughter idolizing Michael Jackson and listening to his music due to the strong possibility of him being a child molester. However, after researching those "exonerating" facts, which must have included Jackson's inappropriate interest in being alone with young unrelated boys in the privacy of his room and bed, she opts not to educate her young daughter about the dangers of adults who display such behaviours. Instead, she chooses to create a podcast, website, and social media accounts that glorifies it.
Update:
It seems that @Case4Innocence has been informed about the artificial quality of her podcast, so she has released a purported "bloopers" audio on December 27, 2022, in an effort to convince her credulous supporters that she is indeed using her own voice.
Listen to the audio below.
The brief three-minute and 43-second audio does not feature many bloopers. In fact, it appears more focused on commending its enthusiastic supporters and even Twitter users who disseminate the "truth" about Michael Jackson.
Sheryl, the seemingly impassive mother, had initially planned to release an unscripted chat between herself and her daughter, but opted to publish an edited bloopers episode instead.
In response to my blog post, it seems that the daughter, June, is capable of laughter, which is not entirely surprising given my suspicion that her voice is likely authentic (although caution is still advisable, as I will clarify later on). On the other hand, the mother does not seem to display the ability to laugh—at least not in the robotic tone that permeates every podcast episode.
The implication is that neither Sheryl nor June excel in producing unscripted conversational content, unless they have a detailed script at hand. This is a peculiar claim, especially considering that producing natural off-the-cuff dialogue would be more challenging. Hence, we are presented with just over a minute of bloopers, where we hear Sheryl's "casual" voice, which unsurprisingly sounds distinct from her "professional" voice.
While June's voice is quite clear, Sheryl's "casual" voice is challenging to discern, necessitating the use of audio software to enhance the sound. After repeated plays, the disparity becomes evident. Firstly, ambient background noise is present, and secondly, she appears to communicate naturally with her "daughter." Most notably, the robotic, emotionless tone devoid of natural breaths is absent, as are any indications of the chronic "vocal cord issues" that she claims to have.
Listen to the enhanced example below.
However, I can't deny that there is a resemblance between the two voices. Yet, I believe I can clarify what this individual probably has done. As mentioned in this article, these text-to-speech services not only offer the option to choose an actor's voice but also provide the capability to clone your own voice.
For example, one service called resemble.ai states the following:
"Upload your own voice data without worrying about formatting and cleaning. We handle all of that for you. As long as you have an audio file, our engine can take it from there."
"Resemble AI can clone a voice with as little as 3 minutes of data. Try recording and cloning your voice for free with just 25 sentences online."
Morning Live on the BBC recently aired a segment that highlighted scammers leveraging AI to replicate individuals' voices from their social media profiles. These scammers then engage in attempts to extort money from the family members of the targeted individuals by falsely portraying the person in question as being in significant trouble.
Watch the Morning Live clip here.
Again, I am convinced that the person behind this, whoever they may be, is not using their real voice, but simply scraping content and using AI technology to transcribe it. The fact that there is also a perfect blend of sound effects and background music, despite Sheryl claiming to be a first-time novice concerning this podcast series, also strongly indicates that a service is being used.
Of course, a simple way to prove me or anybody else wrong, would be if Sheryl uploaded a video of herself and her daughter sat around a table conversing with each other. No tricks, no illusions—let's see with our own eyes and hear with our own ears whether Sheryl's voice matches that of the podcast. Let's truly ascertain whether she indeed experiences "long-standing vocal cord issues" and struggles to complete a long sentence without intermittently clearing her throat, and so on. If we are to believe that the photos on the website and Twitter account portray them accurately, then there should be no excuses for not doing so due to privacy concerns.