Reality Check: Would Michael Jackson Defend Himself Against New Allegations Today?
April 15, 2020
A prevalent criticism aimed at James Safechuck and Wade Robson is that they made allegations against Michael Jackson long after his death, preventing him from defending himself. Supporters often assert that if Jackson were alive today, he would aggressively confront these "false" allegations in court.
When Jackson was accused by Jordan Chandler in 1993, and Gavin Arvizo in 2003, he issued almost identical statements to the public, asserting his innocence with emphatic declarations: “These are lies” and “I would never harm a child.” Such statements provided a glimpse into how he would likely respond to the current allegations, echoing his longstanding insistence on his innocence.
It is crucial to recognize that Michael Jackson's ability to share his side of the story gave him a significant advantage in the public arena. The sheer visibility he commanded—backed by a legion of fans—allowed his narrative to overshadow those of his accusers. Conversely, the children involved were virtually faceless figures, unable to publicly defend themselves due to legal protections surrounding minors. This imbalance meant that the public often heard only Jackson’s version of events, amplified at every award show, interview, and public appearance.
Since the 1990s, Jackson's voice has echoed loudly, presenting a singular narrative that many embraced without question. In contrast, the victims' stories remained largely unheard, contributing to a prevalent bias that favoured the renowned entertainer. It is disheartening to see that now, as these individuals step forward to share their experiences, some choose to criticize the platform they are given.
Even if Michael Jackson were still alive today, one might argue that he would not offer any substantial defence against the allegations of sexual abuse facing him. Typically, he would resort to televised speeches, vehemently declaring his innocence. However, the likelihood of him voluntarily standing in a courtroom and subjecting himself to the rigors of cross-examination seems rather slim.
Jackson's historical defences, while passionate, often lacked legal rigor and failed to dismantle the allegations convincingly. Let’s delve into some of these defences and explore why they were seen as weak, suggesting that even today, we might expect a similarly inadequate response.
If you believe ex-Michael Jackson lawyers Brian Oxman and Scott Ross, an insurance company forcefully paid the Chandler family, up to $25 million, effectively preventing Jackson from fighting the case. The reality, however, is somewhat different.
In 1994, Michael Jackson and his legal team reached a settlement with the Chandlers just one week before he was set to give a deposition. By agreeing to this settlement, Jackson effectively circumvented the subpoena mandated for the civil trial. According to the Los Angeles Times:
The settlement of the civil case resolves Jackson's most immediate legal troubles and may effectively put an end to a criminal investigation. The boy's lawsuit was scheduled to go to trial in March. In preparation for that, a judge had scheduled Jackson to be deposed this week.
Jackson previously had resisted giving a deposition, and had the case not been settled he might have been forced to choose between answering questions and refusing to respond based on his right to not incriminate himself--a common legal manoeuvre but one that could have been serious public relations implications for the superstar.
In the same year, Michael Jackson faced a lawsuit from five former Neverland employees who claimed wrongful termination, alleging they were dismissed for "knowing too much" about his relationships with the minors he befriended. In response to this lawsuit, Jackson invoked the Fifth Amendment, choosing not to testify.
Attorney Charles Mathews, representing five former Jackson security guards who have filed suit against Jackson claiming that he fired them to conceal his child molestation, said Jackson is hiding behind the 5th Amendment.
“Michael Jackson had the opportunity today to come into court and say he is innocent,” Mathews said after the hearing. Instead, Matthews said, Jackson “gets up and says, 'Sorry, I want to take the 5th because my answer could incriminate me.' ”
Jackson's attorneys told the singer wanted to testify that he was innocent, but given that he may face criminal charges, his defense team advised Jackson to remain silent.
Source: latimes.com
Later in 1996, in the context of the ongoing lawsuit, Michael Jackson eventually agreed to give a deposition but declined to answer several questions regarding his relationships with the children involved. His attorney advised him not to respond, asserting that Jackson would not discuss those matters because he claimed to have no knowledge of them. However, the opposing attorney skilfully pointed out that this was the first time Jackson was being asked about these issues, making it illogical for him to assert ignorance without knowing the questions in advance (see min 4:29 in the video). Consequently, Jackson and his attorney sidestepped inquiries concerning Jordan Chandler, Brett Barnes, and Macaulay Culkin. Notably, during the same deposition, he did provide answers regarding rumours about his skin bleaching and other topics.
From the above examples, you can clearly see that Jackson consistently invoked the Fifth Amendment, and chose not to provide depositions or respond to questions regarding his relationships with children when questioned.
At the 2005 trial, Michael Jackson had the chance to take the stand and face cross-examination, just as the Arvizo boys did under Tom Mesereau. Instead of testifying, Jackson cleverly sidestepped the cross-examination issue. Instead his attorneys presented a video to the jury and courtroom where he asserted his innocence. Naturally, a video cannot be interrogated like a witness.
Jackson's attorney, Thomas Mesereau, naturally contends that he chose not to put his client on the stand because the prosecution failed to present a solid case.
Jackson's spokeswoman, Raymone Bain, described the decision not to testify as a collective choice made by Jackson and his legal team. "At this stage in the trial, his attorneys felt it was unnecessary," she informed CNN.
The videos shown in court were not police interviews; instead, they were discarded outtakes and segments from Bashir's documentary. The first video debuted on May 11, 2005. Journalist Michael Linder from the KNX Radio network remarked about the tape:
This afternoon, the jury watched outtakes of the Martin Bashir interview that sparked this trial. It’s Jackson, essentially testifying in his own behalf on tape — which cannot be cross-examined.
In it, revelations ranging from a planned birthday party for Bubbles the Chimp to Jackson saying he’s won God’s smile of approval for making children happy.
Like Culkin, Jackson’s stories touched on the loneliness of stardom. In an amazing admission, Jackson told of walking down streets, alone, late at night following a concert, stopping strangers in the street to ask if they would be his friend.
He railed against public obsession with rumors that he had tried to buy the Elephant Man’s bones, slept in a hyperbaric chamber, and had more than one round of plastic surgery (along with another nasal operation to help him breathe and sing better). Jackson talked of the pain he has felt when people call him weird, wacko, a girl or a homosexual.
Jackson basically pleaded victimization. A colleague from Newsday leaned over to whisper, “He sounds just like (the mother of his current accuser).” She was right. They seem to share a feeling that people misunderstand and are out to get them. What happens when two such people mistrust each other? Perhaps the firestorm this trial has become.
Jackson’s take on children was spritual. Talking about his relationship with children, he said “I see God through them… there’s nothing more magical than a baby’s smile.” That everything he does — creatively — is inspired by children.
He defended dangling his son “Blanket” over that Berlin balcony saying he held on strong and tight. “It’s my child, I can do what I want with it.” It?
Source: knx.typepad.com
For further analysis of Jackson's video statements, please click on the links below.
To provide some context, in 2005, Michael Jackson had spent over 1,000 days and nights in unsupervised situations with young, unrelated boys, including behind the closed door of his bedroom. Furthermore, it was a 22-year-old Wade Robson who was shown Jackson's collection of pornographic and nude boy books and was asked whether it was appropriate for an adult man to possess such materials and to sleep in bed with young boys. It’s astonishing that no one in that courtroom was allowed to ask basic yet essential questions to a man who exhibited such questionable behaviour.
In stark contrast, Jackson had no trouble testifying in court on other matters, as seen in 2002 when he defended himself against breach of contract and fraud allegations from promoter Marcel Avram. During his testimony, he contradicted himself and presented inconsistencies with a deposition from June, but that's a different story. He could speak out about various legal issues—one attorney, Brian Oxman, noted that Jackson had given around 500 depositions—but when it came to the sexual abuse allegations, he notably avoided the stand and questioning by authorities.
Many argue that accusing Jackson is unfair because he is dead, but this reasoning is flawed; deceased individuals are judged every day. Most of Savile's victims spoke out only after his death. It's crucial to recognize that while he may be gone, the pain he caused remains with those he hurt, who have every right to voice their feelings and share their experiences. Child sexual abuse often leads to lifelong psychological consequences, such as depression, stress, and trauma, which do not vanish with the abuser's death. Believing that individuals cannot be judged posthumously implies that harmful actions lose their significance, dismissing the ongoing suffering of victims. In fact, survivors often feel empowered to speak out when their abuser is no longer in their lives or has passed away.
In conclusion, James and Wade have not gained anything from accusing Jackson years after his death. As previously noted, this choice has put them at a considerable disadvantage. When their cases eventually go to trial, both sides will have the opportunity to present their evidence and counter-evidence in a fair and legal setting, ensuring that the proceedings adhere to principles of justice.
With permission, the following article was translated and enhanced from The Truth about Michael Jackson.