Reality Check: How Would Michael Jackson Defend Himself Against New Allegations?

April 15, 2020

A common criticism directed at Wade Robson and James Safechuck is that they only made their allegations against Michael Jackson after his death, supposedly denying him the opportunity to defend himself. Supporters frequently argue that, had Jackson been alive today, he would have forcefully challenged these “false” claims in court.

Yet when Jackson was accused by Jordan Chandler in 1993 and Gavin Arvizo in 2003, his public responses followed a familiar pattern. He issued near-identical statements asserting his innocence, insisting: “These are lies” and “I would never harm a child.” These declarations offer a clear indication of how he would likely have responded to the current allegations—by reiterating the same unwavering claims of innocence he had always made.

It is also important to recognise that Jackson’s ability to present his side of the story gave him a considerable advantage in shaping public perception. His immense visibility—bolstered by a devoted global fanbase—meant his narrative dominated the public arena. By contrast, the children involved were legally protected minors, unable to speak publicly or defend themselves in the same way. This imbalance ensured that the public overwhelmingly heard Jackson’s version of events, repeated at award shows, in interviews, and across every major media appearance, while the voices of his accusers remained largely unheard.

Now, the tables have turned. Wade and James’s voices are now prominent in the media, yet despite this visibility, some continue to criticise the platform they have been given or attempt to undermine them through coordinated misinformation campaigns.

Even if Michael Jackson were still alive today, it is reasonable to argue that he would offer little in the way of a substantive defence against the allegations of sexual abuse. As the video above illustrates, he would likely rely on televised statements, passionately asserting his innocence. However, the prospect of him voluntarily entering a courtroom and subjecting himself to the scrutiny of cross-examination appears rather unlikely.

Jackson’s historical defences, while emotionally charged, often lacked legal strength and failed to dismantle the allegations in any meaningful way. With that in mind, it is worth examining some of these past defences to understand why they were widely regarded as weak—and why, even today, we might expect a similarly inadequate response.

Jackson's Defence in 93/94

If you believe former Michael Jackson lawyers Brian Oxman and Scott Ross, an insurance company supposedly forced through a payment of up to $25 million to the Chandler family, effectively preventing Jackson from fighting the case. The reality, however, is rather different.

In 1994, Michael Jackson and his legal team reached a settlement with the Chandlers just one week before he was due to give a deposition. By agreeing to settle at that moment, Jackson effectively sidestepped the subpoena that required him to testify in the civil trial. As reported by the Los Angeles Times:

In the same year, Michael Jackson faced a lawsuit brought by five former Neverland employees who alleged wrongful termination, claiming they were dismissed for “knowing too much” about his relationships with the minors he befriended. When responding to this lawsuit, Jackson invoked the Fifth Amendment and chose not to testify.

Later in 1996, during the ongoing lawsuit, Michael Jackson eventually agreed to give a deposition. However, he declined to answer several questions about his relationships with the children involved. His attorney instructed him not to respond, arguing that Jackson would not discuss those matters because he supposedly had no knowledge of them. The opposing attorney then skilfully highlighted the flaw in this reasoning: this was the first time Jackson had been asked these specific questions, making it illogical for him to claim ignorance without knowing what the questions would be (see 4:29 in the video). As a result, Jackson and his attorney avoided addressing inquiries relating to Jordan Chandler, Brett Barnes, and Macaulay Culkin.

Notably, during the same deposition, Jackson did answer questions on unrelated topics, including rumours about skin bleaching and other personal matters. This selective willingness to respond only reinforced concerns about the subjects he refused to discuss.

From the above examples, it is clear that Jackson repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment and consistently declined to give depositions or answer questions about his relationships with the children involved. 

The 2005 Trial

At the 2005 trial, Michael Jackson had the opportunity to take the stand and face cross‑examination, just as the Arvizo boys did under Tom Mesereau. Instead of testifying, Jackson sidestepped the issue entirely. His legal team presented a pre‑recorded video to the jury in which he asserted his innocence — a strategic choice, given that a video cannot be interrogated or challenged in the way a witness can.

Mesereau later argued that he chose not to put Jackson on the stand because the prosecution had failed to present a compelling case. According to him, there was simply no need to expose Jackson to cross‑examination when the defence believed the state had not met its burden of proof.

Jackson’s spokeswoman, Raymone Bain, described the decision not to testify as a collective choice made by both Jackson and his legal team. “At this stage in the trial, his attorneys felt it was unnecessary,” she told CNN.

The videos shown in court were not police interviews; rather, they consisted of discarded outtakes and unused segments from Bashir’s documentary. The first of these tapes was played on 11 May 2005. Journalist Michael Linder of the KNX Radio network remarked on the footage:

For a more detailed examination of Jackson’s recorded statements, please refer to the links below.

• Jackson 'testifies' on tape again, former lawyer claims conspiracy
• Jackson a free man

To provide some context, in 2005, Michael Jackson had spent hundreds—if not over a thousand—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 is astonishing that no one in that courtroom was permitted to ask basic yet essential questions of a man who displayed such questionable behaviour.

In stark contrast, Jackson had no difficulty testifying in court on other matters, as demonstrated in 2002 when he defended himself against breach of contract and fraud allegations brought by promoter Marcel Avram. During that testimony, he contradicted himself and presented inconsistencies with a deposition from the previous June, but that is another issue entirely. He was able to speak freely about various legal disputes—one attorney, Brian Oxman, noted that Jackson had given around 500 depositions—yet when it came to allegations of sexual abuse, he notably avoided the stand and any direct questioning by authorities.

Many argue that accusing Jackson is unfair because he is no longer alive, but this reasoning is flawed; deceased individuals are judged every day. Most of Jimmy Savile's victims spoke out only after his death. It is crucial to recognise that while Jackson may be gone, the pain he caused remains with those he harmed, who have every right to voice their feelings and share their experiences. Child sexual abuse often results in lifelong psychological consequences, including depression, stress, and trauma, which do not disappear with the abuser’s death. Suggesting that individuals cannot be judged posthumously implies that harmful actions lose their significance, effectively dismissing the ongoing suffering of victims. In reality, survivors often feel more able to speak out once their abuser is no longer present or has passed away.

In conclusion, Wade and James have not gained anything from accusing Jackson years after his death. As previously noted, this decision has placed them at a considerable disadvantage. When their cases eventually proceed to trial, both sides will have the opportunity to present their evidence and counter‑evidence in a fair legal setting, ensuring that the proceedings adhere to the principles of justice.