1. Have there been other accusers?
In December 2003, former Sheriff Jim Thomas told the media that there was a second boy who accused Michael Jackson of sexual abuse in 1993. According to Thomas: "It was a boy [whose] mother was actually an employee of the [Jackson] family." Thomas alleged that the boy would not cooperate with authorities because he was too "embarrassed."
The boy in question is the son of Blanca Francia, Jackson's former maid. Authorities got in contact with Francia after she appeared on Hard Copy and told the tabloid show that she had witnessed Jackson act inappropriately with her son. She repeated these statements in a sworn deposition for the Chandlers' civil lawsuit but when questioned by authorities, Francia claimed that the boy had never accused Jackson of any wrongdoing. Under deposition by one of Jackson's attorneys, Francia also admitted that she had exaggerated during her Hard Copy interview.
Still, investigators insisted on interviewing Francia's son and even offered to send him to a therapist. According to an article from USA Today: "Investigators from the county sheriff's office recently arranged for the 13-year-old son of Jackson's former maid to see a therapist. The boy was first interviewed by police after his mother told them he had spent time alone with Jackson. According to his mother, the child has repeatedly denied being abused in any way by the pop music star." The article explains that the offer of a therapist was made because Francia "felt uncomfortable" with the way authorities had been harassing her son.
Francia later blackmailed Jackson by threatening to accuse him of molesting her son unless she received a financial settlement from the Jackson camp. Jackson's associates advised him to pay Francia off, fearing that the bad publicity from a second accusation would irreparably harm his record sales. After receiving $2 million, Francia did not file suit against Jackson.
Given the fact that Francia only made accusations against Jackson in exchange for financial compensation, one must question why Jim Thomas would be so quick to claim that her son was a "victim" of Jackson's. Perhaps he is trying to taint the jury pool? Thomas is, aferall, admittedly good friends with the District Attorney.
While we are on the subject of jury pool tainting, in April 2004, news broke that an 18-year-old man named Daniel Kapon had told the Santa Barbara Police Department he'd been molested by Jackson when he was 3 years old. He claimed that he had repressed the memories and as a result, only recently remembered being abused. The SBPD turned him away because they could not determine whether or not the man had even met Michael Jackson. For some reason, however, the SBPD did not file charges against Kapon. Consequently, he took his story to the Los Angeles Police Department who also concluded that his allegations were bogus.
It was later revealed that attorney Gloria Allred and psychiatrist Carole Lieberman were behind the man's accusations. For those unfamiliar with the names, Lieberman is the self-proclaimed "media" psychiatrist whose official website declares her "the first psychiatrist to have made formal child abuse complaints against Michael Jackson, beginning in November 2002" and Allred is the Jackson-obsessed attorney who keeps making public requests for the singer's children to be removed from his custody. Allred also breifly represented Jackson's first accuser Jordan Chandler in 1993 but was fired after she told the media that the Chandlers were interested in justice. Since then, Allred's relationship with Jackson has been contentious; in 2002, he publicly told her to "go to hell."
After Lieberman helped Kapon "remember" the abuse he allegedly suffered 15 years earlier, Allred signed on as his attorney. Their plans to go forward with the case were derailed, however, when the LAPD issued a statement saying they would not press charges. Although Jackson was cleared of any wrongdoing, the news of another accuser had already done significant damage to his image. "This appears to be a malicious attempt to undermine Mr. Jackson's right to a fair hearing on the charges presently pending," Jackson's lawyers said in a statement.
The only person who benefited from the ordeal was Daniel Kapon who sold his story to the British tabloid News of the World.
Back to Top
2. Was Jordan Chandler's description of Michael Jackson's genitalia accurate?
In 1994, sources told USA Today that "photos of Michael Jackson's genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct." Because this statement came from anonymous sources, some Jackson critics are quick to dismiss the article as erroneous and continue to insist that Jordan Chandler's description was accurate. There has never been any evidence to substantiate this claim; on the other hand, the fact that no charges were ever brought against Jackson indicates that the description did NOT match. A member of the grand jury in 1994 even told CNN that "no damaging evidence was heard."
Back to Top
3. Should a 45-year-old man be allowed to have children sleep over at his house?
Michael Jackson has been widely criticized for his statements regarding children sharing his bedroom. It is not illegal for him to do this and it does not make him guilty of anything besides going against a societal norm.
Sexual abuse does not always occur at night or in a bed. If you argue that the sleepovers are wrong because they provide an opportunity for sexual abuse to occur, then I guess you could also argue that no adult should ever be alone with any child. Whether or not they're related is irrelevant because there's something called incest that people seem to have forgotten about.
So why are the sleepovers viewed as wrong? It's Jackson's personal belief that there's nothing inappropriate about falling asleep next to a child and there's no logical reason that proves otherwise. Perhaps he should keep children out of his bedroom to avoid any appearance of impropriety but, again, bad judgement does not make a person guilty.
With that said, I'd like to point out that if there was anything inappropriate going on during those sleepovers, why would Jackson draw attention to his behaviour by talking about the sleepovers so openly on national television? Also, if he really wanted to molest children, why wouldn't he do it somewhere that wouldn't look suspicious?
Finally, we do not know the context of the sleepovers, how often they occur, with whom, if there is supervision, etc. Any conclusions drawn about Jackson's behaviour are presumptuous and speculative at best. What we do know is that Michael Jackson has said that he never invites children into his bedroom; even his current accuser made it clear that he was the one who asked Jackson if he could stay with him one night. Keep in mind that the boy was a recovering cancer patient at the time; when you take this fact into consideration, his request to spend the night with an adult he trusted does not seem unusual.
Back to Top
4. Isn't it hard to believe that he's been falsely accused twice?
No. The second set of accusations only materialized after the first allegations made headline news again in February 2003. After the 1993 case, ten years passed without any accusations being made against Michael Jackson. Suddenly, the controversial Living with Michael Jackson documentary aired, the District Attorney released a press statement about the 1993 case, the civil lawyer from the 1993 case started doing the TV rounds, the boy's deposition from the 1993 case was leaked on the Internet, Maureen Orth's slanderous Vanity Fair article was published and finally, after all of that controversy, a second accuser came forward. And not just any accuser- the second alleged victim just happened to be the same boy who appeared on the documentary and caused all of the uproar in the first place.
Furthermore, the two allegations are not isolated from one another. The same District Attorney, the same civil lawyer and the same psychiatrist were all involved in both sets of accusations. I definitely see a pattern but it has nothing to do with Michael Jackson's alleged criminal behaviour.
Back to Top
5. Even if Jackson is innocent, why did he put himself in this position again?
Answer this question: if a man is falsely accused of rape, should he stay away from women for the rest of his life? And if he is falsely accused of rape again, is it his fault?
The only way Michael Jackson could have protected himself from being the victim of another false allegation is if he had completely cut off contact with children after 1993. Molestation can occur anywhere, not just at night and not just in a bed. He could have put an end to the sleepovers and still have been accused of abusing a child someplace else.
The sleepovers might give more credence to the allegations in the minds of the general public but their opinions should be irrelevant because they are not the ones responsible for investigating claims of child molestation. That job belongs to members of law enforcement and regardless of how “strange” Michael Jackson’s behaviour might appear to some, falling asleep next to a child is not a crime. People’s opinions on the sleepovers should not matter; the facts of this case should be the only determinants of Michael Jackson's innocence or guilt. If members of law enforcement are not doing their jobs properly, that is not Michael Jackson's fault. The justice system is supposed to protect the innocent, regardless of their lifestyle choices and supposed eccentricities.
Back to Top
6. Although Evan Chandler only wanted money, isn't it possible that his son really was molested?
No. Remember, before carrying out his plan, Evan Chandler went to Michael Jackson first and asked for money. Chandler used a letter from a psychiatrist to try to blackmail Jackson and was turned away. Assuming Michael Jackson had actually molested Jordan Chandler, why didn't he take that opportunity to avoid getting caught? He could have paid up right then and avoided the entire ordeal. Instead, he refused to pay the Chandlers. If he was guilty, please explain to me why he did that.
It's undeniable that Evan Chandler only wanted money; knowing this, why didn't Michael Jackson just buy his silence in the beginning? Imagine how different things would have been for him. His career would not have been jeopardized, his image would not have been tarnished and, again, assuming he was indeed a pedophile, he could have carried on with his activities without people suspecting anything. The only logical reason to explain why he didn't pay off Evan Chandler is because he was innocent and naively assumed that justice would be on his side.
Also, keep in mind that pedophiles have hundreds of victims. Out of the thousands of children who have been to Neverland, you expect me to believe that Jackson only molests children whose parents are dishonest and greedy? Surely he would have other victims besides Jordan Chandler and the new accuser. Why haven't they come forward? Let me guess, he paid them all off? None of his victims have parents who are normal, honest people? None of them want justice for their sexually abused children? Bullshit.
Back to Top
7. Why put so much faith in the GQ article?
Why not? First of all, Mary A. Fischer (the author of the article) is not known for writing about celebrities. She is a well-respected investigative reporter who has had a successful 18-year career. Her article on Gulf War Syndrome won an award from Northwestern University and she has been nominated twice for the National Magazine Award. She has also been published in Rolling Stone, Life Magazine, Men's Journal and the New York Times. Why would this woman put her credibility on the line by writing an inaccurate article in Michael Jackson's defense?
Secondly, let's look at her sources:
- Geraldine Hughes, the legal secretary for Jordan Chandler's attorney.
- Michael Freeman, the lawyer who represented June Chandler in her custody case.
- Bert Fields, Jackson's first lawyer who resigned due to conflict within the legal team.
- Anthony Pellicano, Jackson's private investigator who also backed out of the case.
- Court records and legal documents.
- Several psychiatrists and medical experts.
- An audio tape of a conversation between Evan Chandler and Dave Schwartz.
- Mark Torbiner, the anesthesiologist who administered the sodium amytal to Jordan Chandler.
All of Mary Fischer's sources were involved with the case and some of the information she reported is indisputable as it is backed up by court documents, audio/video recordings, etc. Also, Bert Fields and Anthony Pellicano left Michael Jackson's legal team because they were unhappy with the new laywers who were brought in. They had no reason to remain loyal to Jackson when being interviewed for the article as they were no longer being employed by him.
In addition, when Evan Chandler sued Dave Schwartz and June Chandler for invasion of privacy in 1994, Mary Fischer was subpoenaed to produce information concerning her article. Evan Chandler and his attorneys were well aware of what Fischer wrote. If she had not referenced the information in her article, Evan Chandler would have had grounds for a lawsuit. Chandler, however, did not sue. This indicates that all of the information in Fischer's article was backed up by sources so the validity of the article boils down to the credibility of those who provided Fischer with information. Since all of the sources were actually involved in the case, did not have any apparent agenda in coming forward and all opted to reveal their identities (except for Geraldine Hughes, who later came forward with all of her information), there is no reason to assume that Ms. Fischer's article was untrue. But if you choose to continue living in denial, that's your perrogative...
Back to Top
8. How do you know Geraldine Hughes is telling the truth about the Chandlers?
If the information Geraldine Hughes has written about is untrue, why hasn't Barry Rothman (the attorney she worked for) taken legal action against her? He sued Michael Jackson for defamation of character (read about the court proceedings here) and didn't get any money. Why isn't he suing Geraldine Hughes? Surely her book is far more damaging to his legal practice than anything Michael Jackson has ever said. Perhaps Rothman has not sued Ms. Hughes because the ultimate defense against being accused of defamation of character is if you are telling the truth.
One might ask if Geraldine Hughes is telling the truth, why hasn't Rothman sued her for violating attorney/client priviliges. In response to this question, Ms. Hughes cited the following California evidentiary code:
§956 Exception: Crime or fraud
There is no privilege under this article if the services of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit a crime or a fraud.
Ms. Hughes' defense is that Rothman was hired to commit extortion so obviously she has evidence to back up her claims. This evidence could protect her in either a slander lawsuit or a violation of attorney/client priviliges lawsuit. Why else would she risk getting sued? To help Michael Jackson? I think we've all seen that writing salacious stories about him makes for a much more profitable career.
Furthermore, it's not like Ms. Hughes came out and said "Evan Chandler told me he made the whole thing up." To prove her contention that the Chandlers were guilty of extortion, Hughes uses the details surrounding the custody battle (backed up by court documents), the motions that were filed in relation to the civil lawsuit (backed up by court documents) and Evan Chandler's own words (backed up by an audio tape). She did witness some suspicious behaviours but these were not the basis of her arguments. Instead, her own personal observations merely served to corroborate the overwhelming amount of documented evidence that proves Jackson was the victim of an elaborate extortion plot.
Back to Top
9. What about all of those employees who came forward during the 1993 investigation?
In 1993, many of Michael Jackson's former employees ran to the media with their stories of alleged inappropriate behaviour on Jackson's part. These employees included Jackson's maid Blanca Francia, several security guards, and Orietta Murdoch, one of Jackson's administrative assistants. Under deposition, all of the employees admitted they were paid to fabricate stories about Jackson. As a result of their televised accusations, however, they were subpoenaed to appear in front of the grand jury in 1994. The fact that no charges were brought indicates that the employees did not reveal anything incriminating about Jackson during their testimonies.
Some of the employees later filed a wrongful termination suit against Jackson claiming that they were fired because they refused to tell Jackson what they said in front of the grand jury. Jackson denied their allegations and even counter sued, alleging that the employees had stolen items from his home and sold them to tabloids. The jury sided with Jackson saying there wasn't any evidence to substantiate the employees' claims. Jackson was awarded $60,000 from each employee.
Another opportunist from the 1993 case is Robert Wegner, Jackson's former head of security. Wegner wrote a book called "My Three Years Working for Michael Jackson" where he alleged that Jackson frequently invited boys into his bedroom. Wegner claims he released the book because he wanted to "protect children"; you would think calling the police would be a more logical alternative but that seems to be the last place people go when accusing Michael Jackson of wrongdoing.
When asked why he did not testify to his claims in front of the grand jury in 1994, Wegner replied: "I got injured... and they convinced LAPD that I could not come to the grand jury hearing... if I had testified there, there wouldn't have been a book." Right.
Back to Top
10. How do you know the taped conversation between Evan Chandler and Dave Schwartz is real?
The tape does, in fact, exist because Evan Chandler sued Dave Schwartz for invasion of privacy in 1994. Chandler complained that Schwartz recorded their conversation and gave the tape to a third party who in turn broadcast the tape on national television. Sorry to break your heart, but the tape is real. That is indeed Evan Chandler making his twisted motives crystal clear. That's him saying, "if I go through with this, I win big-time. There's no way I lose. I've checked that inside out. I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose [custody of the son] and Michael's career will be over." He also says his son's best interests are "irrelevant" to him and threatens that it will be a "massacre if I don't get what I want." Indeed.
Back to Top
11. Did Evan Chandler try to sue Michael after 1993?
Yes. Evan Chandler tried to sue Michael Jackson in 1996, claiming that Jackson violated the terms of their civil settlement by denying that he ever sexually abused the boy. In his lawsuit, Chandler cited Jackson's 1995 album HIStory as well as an interview that Jackson did with Diane Sawyer. In addition to the $60 million he demanded, Chandler also wanted a court order to allow him to produce and distribute his own album called EVANstory. From the lawsuit:
As an additional direct and proximate result of Defendant Jackson's and
others' material breach of the agreement as herein alleged, and because of the
need to repair the reputation of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff seeks the equitable remedy of an order to allow him to publish and cause to be distributed to the public for sale a certain musical composition entitled "EVANstory." This album will include such songs as: "D.A. Reprised"; "You Have No Defense (For My
Love)"; "Duck Butter Blues"; "Truth"; and other songs.
That's right. Instead of getting justice for his son who was allegedly molested, Evan Chandler wanted to sing songs about it. The lawsuit was thrown out of court.
Back to Top
12. Who is Diane Dimond and how is she involved in this case?
Diane Dimond is the former host of Hard Copy who has apparently declared herself the expert on the Michael Jackson case. She's obviously very close to the District Attorney Tom Sneddon but is far from accurate in her reporting. Here's a little history lesson on Diane Dimond:
- In 1993, Dimond did a segment with two of Jackson's former bodyguards. They claimed they were fired because they knew too much about Jackson's alleged relationships with young boys. Dimond swore that the bodyguards were not paid for their story. A contract later revealed that they were given $100,000 to appear on her show. When taken to court, both bodyguards admitted that they had made the whole thing up.
- That same year, Jackson's former maid Blanca Francia appeared on Hard Copy claiming she'd seen Jackson naked with young boys. A copy of Francia's testimony reveals that Hard Copy paid her $20,000 to make this story up. Again, under oath, the disgruntled ex-employee admitted she had lied.
- A man named Victor Gutierrez appeared on Hard Copy claiming he'd seen a tape of Michael Jackson sexually abusing his nephews. Dimond later repeated his comments on a Los Angeles TV station. When it was proven that Gutierrez made the entire thing up, Jackson filed a lawsuit against him and Hard Copy. Although Dimond was dismissed from the lawsuit because of "journalistic integrity" (which should not even be used in the same sentence with the name "Diane Dimond"), Gutierrez was forced to pay Jackson $2.7 million in damages.
- When Jackson's former sister-in-law was tragically murdered, Dimond implied that Jackson might have had something to do with it.
- In 1995, Dimond found a random street kid from Toronto who told her that Michael Jackson had sexually abused him. Diane escorted the boy to the police station where investigators questioned him for hours. Dimond was ready to report the story on Hard Copy but the boy confessed that he had made it all up. Since Dimond had already signed on to the story, she was forced to report it. She tried to make it seem as if she was also a victim of the boy's lie but it's obvious that she was the one who sought him out. Why would a kid go to her of all people and make accusations against Michael Jackson?
- In June 2003, Dimond appeared on television and said: "When I saw the part of the documentary with that little cancer boy sitting next to Michael Jackson holding his hand I thought 'this is the proof that it's still going on.'"
- Dimond admitted that she knew about the new allegations in advance. Why was the DA leaking information to a tabloid journalist? She was also at Neverland when the police conducted their search of the grounds.
- In November, Dimond reported that police found love letters addressed to Jackson's accuser at Neverland. It was later revealed that no such letters existed. Perhaps the DA realized it was an illogical story (why would Jackson store incriminating evidence at his house, especially when he suspected in February that this family would accuse him?) and that's why he denied it.
- When a man who won a collection of Jackson memorabilia started doing the rounds on various TV shows, Diane Dimond got in contact with him. While visiting him, Dimond found a pair of 20-year-old, dirty underwear (which could have belonged to any member of the Jackson family). She phoned Tom Sneddon and told him to take DNA samples from the item. She then proceeded to pick up the underwear and parade them around on television.
- Dimond, after getting a copy of a confidential document revealing the details of Jackson's 1993 civil settlement, leaked the contents of the document to the press. She also falsely stated that Jackson admitted to wrongdoing in the agreement.
Do not be fooled by Diane's sudden emergence as a credible journalist. The only reason why the District Attorney is giving her confidential information (among other possible reasons) is because they both have a grudge against Michael Jackson stemming from the 1993 allegations.
Back to Top
13. Don't you think Michael Jackson seems weird based on what he said in that documentary?
Living with Michael Jackson is precisely what started this whole mess. Martin Bashir wanted to make a documentary that would raise eyebrows, cause controversy and get people talking and that is exactly what he did. The documentary put great emphasis on Michael Jackson's relationship with children, particularly with the boy who is now making accusations. After Living with Michael Jackson aired, people were already implying that Jackson had abused the boy on the documentary. Not only that, but the allegations from 1993 resurfaced and were being discussed all over again. It was only a matter of time before a new allegation surfaced.
If you watched The Michael Jackson Interview: The Footage You Were Never Meant to See, Michael Jackson was painted in a much more positive light. It just goes to show that the person who compiles the footage, writes the commentary, and conducts the voiceovers has the most influence on how the documentary turns out. It has nothing to do with the actual subject and much to do with the agenda of the person producing the documentary. Both programs showed footage from the exact same interview but one painted Jackson out to be completely irresponsible with children while the other portrayed him as a loving, devoted father. Which one shows the real Michael Jackson? There are very few people who can answer this question for certain. People need to understand that watching a heavily edited 2 hour documentary on Michael Jackson does not give anyone insight into who he is as a person. Do you have any idea what Michael Jackson is like when there are no cameras on him? Probably not.
Back to Top
14. Hasn't it occurred to you that maybe the new accuser was too scared to come forward when he was initially asked about the abuse?
So after having every opportunity in the world to come forward, this boy finally confessed his dark and painful secret to Larry Feldman, the civil lawyer who just happened to represent Michael Jackson's first accuser in 1993? And he must have told Larry Feldman because Feldman was the one who sent him to see a psychiatrist. How was Feldman able to get a confession out of him when several social workers were unable to? I guess it's official- Larry Feldman is now the saviour of abused children everywhere.
Back to Top
15. How is the current case an extortion attempt if the mother is not filing a civil lawsuit?
Everybody has been saying that because the family has not filed a civil suit, they do not want money. Of course nobody mentions the fact that if the family did file a civil lawsuit, nothing would be done with it until after the criminal trial was resolved. The law was changed after 1993 so that if there was a civil trial and a criminal trial dealing with the same allegation, the civil proceedings would remain inactive until after the criminal proceedings. It would make no sense for the family to file a civil lawsuit now. They were obviously considering it at one point seeing as how they went to Larry Feldman (the civil lawyer from the 1993 case) first. There is nothing stopping the family from filing a civil suit later. They could also make a vast amount of money from TV appearances, books, interviews, etc.
In addition to that, if Jackson is convicted, the family can seek restitution, which is money provided to the victims of physical or sexual assault, rape, incest, and other forms of abuse.
Back to Top
16. Is there any truth to Maureen Orth's recent article about the Michael Jackson case?
Vanity Fair magazine recently acknowledged that the bulk of information from Maureen Orth's article on Michael Jackson came from former Jackson chief financial officer Myung-Ho Lee. Lee told Orth that Jackson had once given a Japanese boy alcohol in a soda can to get him drunk. Orth used this story to show a pattern of behaviour on Jackson's part, as he is accused of giving his alleged victim wine in a soda can.
Shortly after the article was written, however, the boy Orth had written about came forward. In an interview with NBC's Mike Taibbi, Richard Matsuura said the allegations in Orth's article were "completely false" and that Jackson had never acted inappropriately around him. The boy's father also said the information in the Vanity Fair magazine article was untrue.
Orth admitted that she had never actually spoken with Matsuura but said she stood by her source. Myung-Ho Lee, who provided Orth with most of her information, also stood by his story, which begs the question: how much of Orth's report was actually true? If Orth did not bother to follow up on Lee's story about the Japanese boy, what else did she fail to look into?
The February 2004 article was not Orth's first forray into "investigative reporting." In 2003, she wrote a similar article about Jackson where she reported that the singer had participated in a ritual blood bath to put a voodoo spell on Steven Spielberg. According to Orth's "source," Jackson had hundreds of cows ritually sacrificed for this little venture. So far, no witch doctors have come forward to deny the story but if the source of this information is as credible as Myung-Ho Lee, one has to wonder about the validity of Orth's claims. Besides, last time I checked, Steven Spielberg was alive and well.
So why do members of the media frequently invite Maureen Orth onto their shows, hail her as a Jackson "expert" and continue to provide a platform for her stupidity? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that she is married to Tim Russert, the senior vice president of NBC News.
Back to Top
17. Does Michael Jackson fit the profile of a pedophile
No. According to Michael Borak, a forensic psychiatrist who has evaluated many pedophiles, Michael Jackson's eccentric behavior is "not typical of most offenders. Most offenders are 'normal' people who could be your neighbors, not freaky or weird." In response to people who think Jackson's image is typical of pedophiles, another psychiatrist, Dr. Ralph Underwager, who has treated pedophiles and victims of incest since 1953 says, "There's no such thing as a classic pedophile. They made a completely foolish and illogical error." He says Jackson is an easy target because "misconceptions like these have been allowed to parade as fact in an era of hysteria."
One undisputable fact about pedophiles is that they have hundreds of victims. Why does Michael Jackson only have two accusers? Why were both allegations made under such questionable circumstances (one boy was under the influence of a psychiatric drug and the other only came forward after getting involved with the same civil lawyer from the first case)? You can speculate about Jackson's supposed resemblance to all of the pedophiles you know (or perhaps you don't actually know any pedophiles and you're just buying into media hype) but the facts surrounding the case remain the same.
Back to Top
18. Michael Jackson has lied about things in the past. How do you know he's telling the truth now?
Flawed logic is a force to be reckoned with but let me try to explain this. If Michael Jackson has lied in the past, it has only been about trivial things that should not be of any concern to normal, rational people. Who cares about how much plastic surgery he's had? Who cares about his sex life? Who cares about how his children were conceived? This is nobody's business but Michael Jackson's and none of us have any right to know the answers to these questions. If he wants to give people false information about his personal life, he has every right to do so. Whether he's even lied about certain things is debatable but it really makes no difference because none of that changes the facts surrounding the case.
Back to Top
19. Michael doesn't seem to have normal relationships with women. Doesn't this make him seem kind of suspicious?
It's funny how in the absence of any tangible evidence, people will resort to making useless observations about Michael Jackson's personal relationships. The fact of the matter is, you don't know Michael Jackson any better than I do. I could sit here and list everything he's ever said and done that is indicative of his heterosexuality but it would be pointless because I don't know him. Neither do you so how can you possibly say that he doesn't have normal relationships with women? Perhaps he likes to keep his private life private. Perhaps he's seen from his last two marriages that any woman who gets involved with him will be subjected to the most severe media scrutiny imaginable. Perhaps he doesn't want strangers discussing his personal life. Whatever the case may be, using what you (don't) know about Michael's personal life to try to convict him is grasping at straws.
Back to Top
20. If there is so much evidence pointing to Michael Jackson's innocence, why has this case come so far?
The case has only come this far because of Tom Sneddon’s vendetta against Michael Jackson. First of all, Sneddon charged Jackson under a penal code that does not require any corroborating evidence. All he needs for a conviction is the accuser’s testimony.
Secondly, by taking his case to a grand jury, Sneddon avoided a preliminary hearing. During a preliminary hearing, the defense would have had an opportunity to cross-examine the accuser and ask the judge to have the case thrown out.
Finally, it has been alleged that Sneddon did not conduct the grand jury proceedings appropriately and failed to show exculpatory evidence properly.
By charging Jackson under a penal code that requires no evidence, taking away Jackson’s right to a preliminary hearing and conducting the grand jury proceedings in a biased, unfair manner, Sneddon has ensured that his case will go to trial.
Back to Top