Today marks the 14th anniversary of the day Michael Jackson was found not guilty of all counts in the trial of his life, a trial that pushed him to his physical and mental limits, where he was required to prove that the accusations lodged against him, again, were totally false. Over the last decade since his passing, this moment in Jackson’s life has been downgraded as almost insignificant. The verdict was largely accepted and the world moved on. Unfortunately in 2019, we must acknowledge the 13th June and the utmost importance that it holds, because once again, it’s become all too relevant.



The first few years that followed the verdict, I was a vocal advocate of the result, making sure that the public were reminded that Michael Jackson was found not guilty. We’d had these accusations thrust into every social gathering, every newspaper we read, every magazine, it was now our time to thrust the verdict back in their faces.



After the first three years, I decided that it was time to move on from the verdict. I’d had the satisfaction of reminding the public of his innocence and felt that any future acknowledgement of 13th June would only serve as a reminder that he was accused, not that he was found not guilty. Jackson wanted to move on from this terrible time and rebuild his life, so it didn’t need any of us harking back once a year.



However, times have changed and today it’s more important to speak about 13th June and the huge significance it has in the discussions of Jackson at present.



On reflection, what does the verdict actually mean? I think that’s really a two-fold question into what it ‘should’ mean and what Jackson’s detractors want it to mean.



Ultimately, the verdict asserts the fact that Michael Jackson did not abuse Gavin Arvizo. There was no room for ‘yes, but maybe’ or ‘not enough evidence’ to support the accusations. A four month, lengthy trial took place, with multiple witnesses, multiple pieces of ‘evidence’ presented by the District Attorney, which Jackson’s legal team, headed up by the calm and collected Tom Mesereau proved was utter nonsense. We’re to believe that the entire concept of Jackson being a paedophile rested on the fact he owned a selection of art photography books, selected from a library, of 10,000 assets. In addition, the apparent ‘eye witness’ testimony of Star Arvizo who claimed to have bypassed the alarm on Jackson’s bedroom, climbed the steps, which he re-told to the number, and claimed to have witnessed Jackson abusing Gavin. On cross-examination, Star’s testimony was blown out of the water and his claims were exposed for their ridiculousness.



But we don’t need to replay the facts of the trial. The court transcripts have long been available. Countless interviews from Mesereau, Conspiracy by Aphrodite Jones and countless other source materials will affirm for the reader exactly why, aside from the fact Jackson wasn’t actually guilty, he was found not guilty.

Furthermore, there’s the first witness testimony, opening the case for the defence, former dancer, turned now-Jackson-accuser, Wade Robson. His testimony is significant today for a number of reasons, not mostly because he sat on the stand and told the truth, that Jackson never behaved inappropriately with him in any way. This is a statement he stood by when interviewed in 1993 and countless times over the 20 years that followed.



Robson clearly stated his position and answered the questions as they were directed to him.



He started by outlining how he’d connected with Jackson after their initial meeting in Australia on the BAD World Tour



As I said, we’d had no contact with Michael or anything. Somehow my mother got in contact with Michael’s secretary at that time, who was Norma Stokes.



Followed by discussing his visits to Neverland with his mother and sister, the latter of whom also stayed in Jackson room. And yes sister means female here.



He was then asked twice if Jackson had ever molested, touched him in a sexual way or touched him inappropriately, all of which Robson confirmed Jackson had not. Additionally, he confirmed he understood exactly what Jackson was being accused of.



In closing, Mesereau asked Robson, “Has anyone told you what to say in this courtroom today?” Robson’s answer was a firm ‘No’.



All the responses Robson gave back then at the age of 22 are in direct contradiction to the claims he makes today as a fully-grown adult.



Today as he tries to make the ludicrous claim that he defended Jackson firstly because he claimed not to be aware sex between an adult and a child was wrong, but later claiming it was out of fear and and intimidation from Jackson, before finally claiming Jackson coached him on what to say. Each point contradicts the other and all contradict the responses he gave, under oath in the 2005 trial.



What’s interesting is that the questions asked by the prosecution in cross-examination were specific enough about whether Jackson touched Robson, “Mr. Jackson would periodically kiss you, would he not? Periodically hug you? Touch you? Put his hands through your hair? Touch you about the head and the face? Did he ever kiss you on the cheek? Did he ever kiss you on the lips? – Robson wasn’t asked to determine if these were prerequisite for abuse, he was asked it they happened. He confirmed he wasn’t periodically kissed, kissed on the lips, had hands through his hair, but that Jackson would hug him, something Jackson has been photographed doing with children and adults all over the world, for decades.



In the lead up to the defense’s case, 500 people were explored, contacted and interviewed as options and the Robson family were deemed some of the strongest. Jackson and his attorneys did not need Robson as they had another 499 people in the pipeline, but after extensive interviews to check his suitability, Robson took the stand. If there was any truth in the prospect that Jackson had abused Robson, it would have been a frankly idiotic move to put him on the stand, as oppose to anyone else from the pool of 499 people.



What the trial did serve to do is to put Robson’s true story of his experiences with Jackson in the public domain. Bear in mind that Jackson was not being accused of molesting Robson, that’s not what he was on trial for, but Robson’s testimony served as almost character-witness in nature. For those who claim Robson ‘helped get Jackson off’, again are over emphasising the Robson-agenda. Robson’s testimony and character-witness presence would have been rendered useless if the prosecution were able to prove that Jackson abused Gavin Arvizo, after-all, that’s what he was on trial for. Seeing as Arvizo’s claims had more holes than a colander, it wasn’t difficult for the defense to tear apart the thinly veiled attempts to accuse Jackson.



Where the trial testimony from 2005 becomes relevant once again is when we look at, what relevancy chaser, Oprah Winfrey refers to as ‘patterns of abuse’, No matter how hard they try and claim it, there is no ‘pattern’, and here’s why.



If our ill-educated Leaving Neverland audience believe that Jackson abused Robson and Safechuck then they have to accept that Chandler/Arvizo were NOT abused. If they (stupidly) believe Chandler/Arvizo were abused, then they have to accept that Robson and Safechuck were not. If they were smart, they’d see very clearly that neither Chandler, Arvizo, Robson or Safechuck were abused by Jackson.



Simply put, the accusations made by Robson and Safechuck in their movie do not match the accusations made by Chandler or Arvizo. We’re meant to believe that Jackson went from being a full-on child rapist to the most self-controlled abuser in history. The patterns Oprah and Co want the world to believe, are just not there, because it’s clear that the abuse didn’t happen.



Where there are patterns, as is evidence from the 2005 trial testimonies, is that Jackson was generous with families who he came into contact with, that he would welcome them into his home, treat them like family and allow them to share in the good fortune he’d worked hard to amass. This was a good-natured, generous individual. What this wasn’t, was ‘grooming’.



In the late 80s, Jackson invited his then-manager Dileo to Neverland Ranch as he had somebody he wanted him to meet. On arrival, Dileo met ‘Dave Dave’, the little boy whose father had set him on fire. He was in the arcade room with Jackson and Dileo recalled how Jackson allowed the boy the freedom of all the games, how Jackson’s success could allow this child to find enjoyment when he was in so much pain. Dave Dave also wanted to learn how to shoot film and Jackson funded equipment and education to help him achieve this. The two remained life-long friends.



For Ryan White’s 16th Birthday, Jackson gifted White a Mustang convertible. Again, Jackson used his good fortune to bring joy to somebody. Today we see the same thing echoed; Usher purchased Justin Bieber a $100,000 Fisker Karma sports car for his 18th birthday. Recording artist and Leaving Neverland Sympathiser Sia purchased her protege Maddie Ziegler an Audi for her sixteenth birthday.



You’ll notice that Jackson’s actions are labelled grooming by those who want to assert guilt to him, whereas the actions of the others mentioned, were not. These same kind of actions were what the prosecution in the 2005 trial were attempting to use to support nothing but a theory. A theory that was easily dispelled when you look at just how wide Jackson’s generosity would stretch.



As we learned from the testimonies and stories from the hundreds of people who were around Jackson, he was a kind, generous, giving person. Dileo recalled in 2010 that during the BAD Tour, Jackson would have his team contact hospitals and find out what equipment they needed and then request his team source the equipment and pay for it. “If a hospital needed a new x-ray machine, or something like that, he would get it for them.” – That is who Jackson was.



District Attorney Thomas Sneddon dedicated an entire decade to attempting to prosecute Jackson on the accusations of child abuse, which included sporadic public appeals for other ‘victims’ to come forward, a phone line, the use of other departments to investigate Jackson and aiding the false narrative that was spread about Jackson through the media. His 10 years of commitment hung on the idea that Michael Jackson had abused Gavin Arvizo AFTER the airing of Living With Michael Jackson. The same Living With Michael Jackson that caused a media storm and shone a spotlight on Jackson. The fall-out for Jackson was such that his team explored ‘crisis management’ options on how they could repair his image and negative media coverage Jackson was receiving. Sneddon took the opportunity to put out his own press release detailing under California law an adult sleeping in a bed with a child was not deemed a criminal offense, unless “affirmative, offensive conduct” occurs.



With attention solely focused on Jackson and the media on a rampage, It’s the weeks after all this that Arvizo claims the abuse by Jackson took place.



In June 2003, Sneddon claimed to ‘re-open’ the case against Jackson, when in truth, he personally had never closed it. And so desperate was Sneddon to get Jackson on something, that lesser charges and accusations of kidnap were added to bill of counts. Anyone who has been to Neverland or even outside of it will attest to the fact the fence is all but rendered useless in terms of security, allowing pretty much anyone or anything to pass through.



As the circus played out in court, what became apparent is that the prosecution’s case lacked any foundation and was built on a rag-tag bunch of disgruntled ex-employees and the Arvizo family’s own testimonies. From morally corrupt individuals who had attempted to sue Jackson in the past and lost claiming to have ‘witness Jackson abusing children’ but chose to do nothing’, to the prosecutions attempt to assert that Jackson’s extensive range of straight, legal, adult, female pornography was kept to ‘insight abuse’, to the Arvizo’s claiming they were kept from knowing the time when at Neverland, in-spite of the multiple clocks, including the giant one that sits in front of the 1994 train station, it’s a wonder that the entire case was not thrown out. But it played out until June 2005 when the jury returned on 13th to deliver a clean sweep of not-guilty verdicts.



On reflection, in getting to that verdict, a deep look at Jackson’s life and conduct took place and what was revealed helps to strengthen Jackson’s innocence as he is once again being accused today. What we saw was a man who was sensitive to the needs of those less fortunate, a man who understood the talents of others and wanted them to use these talents to be the best they could be. A man who was generous with his giving, and a man who wanted desperately to be part of a bonded family unit. But what also transpired was the etchings of a man who could be easily manipulated and used in the pursuit of money. The Arvizo’s accusations demonstrated just how ridiculous claims again Jackson could be and how easily they could be given a platform by the mainstream media, whose obsession with Jackson hasn’t waived before, then or since. The trial forced very private parts of Jackson’s life into the mainstream (such as his straight, adult, female porn collection) that further strengthened the case against the prosecution’s claims and against the narrative of the recent movie, and in the long run, that’s a good thing.



But, it has been used in a negative manner, in the example of the current accusations which were formed from research and not from memories. Information hidden from Robson’s own lawyers revealed that he had researched the accusations against Jackson and even went as far as to email himself links to anti Jackson websites. In addition, the accusations follow the narrative of disgusting padeophilia fantasy piece ‘Michael Jackson Was My Lover’, a book that’s been fully discredited and debunked. It’s because of these points and ones such as Robson’s communications with his own mother that both Robson and Safechuck’s allegations show clear signs of being constructed from research. You’ll notice how there are zero similarities between their accusations and that of Arvizo, Because Arvizo lost in his attempts to extort Jackson and so his claims or testimonies would be of no use if a success was to be gained.



As Jackson walked out of the courtroom, the world saw a man ravished by the last few months; broken, emaciated and deeply distressed. This was not something that could be falsified and not the actions of a guilty man who’d gained a lucky escape. This was the appearance of an innocent man who had been certified not guilty, in a court of law, by a jury of his peers.



The verdict remains one of importance when dealing with accusations against Jackson and is far too easily side-swiped by those who are so hell-bent on wanting Jackson to be guilty, irrespective of fact. Because what it demonstrates is that not only was Michael Jackson not guilty of abusing, kidnapping or giving alcohol to Gavin Arvizo, he is not guilty of the accusations of grooming, manipulation, predatory behaviour and any other text book accusations the Me Too movement attempted to feebly sticky tape onto Jackson.



Jackson maintained his innocence through-out his entire life and spoke very openly about what it felt like to be accused of such heinous crimes. The verdict was the truth he knew; he wasn’t guilty and regardless of all the noise, on 13th June 2005, that was proved.

Pez Jax

Follow Pez on twitter @Pezjax