Understanding the 2005 "Not Guilty" Verdict

March 25, 2025

If you question Michael Jackson’s innocence online, it’s almost guaranteed someone will respond by saying he went through a long and thorough trial and was found not guilty on all counts—proof, they claim, of his complete innocence. This line is repeated often, almost like a mantra, especially by hard-core defenders.

For example, just before the release of the documentary Leaving Neverland, the Jackson Estate issued a statement declaring:

Yet it is important to emphasise that a verdict of “not guilty” is not equivalent to a declaration of innocence. In 2005, Jackson was acquitted of charges relating to Gavin Arvizo because the evidence failed to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt. That outcome does not erase concerns about his behaviour, nor does it silence other allegations made against him.

Every trial centres on specific charges, with a defendant and a plaintiff. In this case, Jackson was the defendant and Gavin Arvizo the plaintiff. The proceedings focused solely on the accusations brought by Gavin and his family, not on any other claims.

Evidence of earlier allegations—such as those involving Jordan Chandler in 1993 and Jason Francia in the mid-1990s—was permitted in the 2005 trial to provide context about Jackson’s conduct with children. However, this evidence was either restricted or ruled inadmissible when it came to the final verdict. Under California law, judges must weigh whether such evidence is more useful than prejudicial. This principle ensures that a defendant is judged only on the charges at hand, rather than being unfairly influenced by past accusations.

Jurors admitted feeling uneasy about Jackson’s close relationships with children, and some suspected troubling behaviour in his past. Nevertheless, the judge’s instructions made clear that they could not take earlier allegations into account when deciding the 2005 case.

From the document:

Jurors were required to base their verdict solely on the evidence relating to Gavin Arvizo. They could not allow their personal views or suspicions about earlier allegations to influence their decision.

This is further confirmed in another interview conducted after the trial.

Paul Rodriguez Further added:

Another Juror, Raymond Hultman, clarified this in the 2005 documentary Why Michael Jackson Won.

Being found “not guilty” in court does not automatically mean a person is innocent of similar crimes committed against others. It is not unusual for someone to be acquitted in one case but later convicted of the same offence in another.

For instance, Argentine musician Cristian Aldana was cleared in two child sexual abuse cases but later found guilty in four others. Likewise, Gary Glitter was acquitted of allegations involving a girl in the 1970s, yet in 2015 he was imprisoned for committing the same crime against another victim.

In Michael Jackson’s situation, the allegations made by Jordan, Wade, James, and Jason are separate from those brought by Gavin Arvizo. These should be treated as distinct cases and not confused or merged together.

Is It Accurate to Assert That Michael Jackson Is Innocent of Sexually Abusing Gavin Arvizo?

No, not at all. In the American judicial system, a verdict of not guilty does not mean the person has been proven completely innocent. 

In court, the defence is not required to “prove innocence.” Instead, the responsibility lies with the prosecution to prove guilt. In criminal trials, the jury must weigh both sides carefully and decide whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

A verdict of not guilty does not mean the jury unanimously believed the defendant could not possibly have committed the crime. Rather, it means the jury considered the evidence and concluded it was insufficient to convict.

In Michael Jackson’s trial, the jury was deeply divided, which created significant tension. Some jurors believed he was guilty, others believed he was innocent, and some chose not to make their views public. In the end, they all voted not guilty to avoid a hung jury—a situation where no unanimous decision can be reached.

So, can it be argued that nothing was proven? Legally, yes. The trial took place, and the jury delivered its verdict according to the high standard of proof required in criminal law. Factually, however, the matter is less clear. Expecting absolute proof in a sexual abuse case is unrealistic. Jackson’s lawyer, Thomas Mesereau, handled the trial more effectively than prosecutor Tom Sneddon, and the family’s poor reputation weakened their case. Yet this does not rule out the possibility that abuse occurred.

Sexual abuse trials are notoriously difficult to win. They often lack physical evidence, victims may struggle to give consistent accounts, and jurors—who are not experts in the subject—must make decisions in an area that is complex and emotionally charged.

And:

And:

Was It a Squeakyclean Trial?

I doubt there are many trials where every witness, whether for the prosecution or the defence, tells the whole truth. The 2005 trial was no exception.

One of the most striking examples was Wade Robson, hailed at the time as the defence’s “star” witness. In court, Wade denied any wrongdoing by Jackson. Yet years later, in 2013, he revealed that he had in fact been abused more than a hundred times as a child, a secret he kept hidden due to years of grooming and manipulation.

Wade’s testimony was not the only misleading account. His mother, Joy, and sister, Chantelle, also spoke in Jackson’s favour, unaware of the dark truth Wade was concealing.

His statements had wider consequences too. Some witnesses were unfairly discredited because of Wade’s denial. For example, Blanca Francia, a former housemaid, testified that she believed she had seen Wade showering with Jackson. During the trial, Wade flatly denied ever having used the shower with him, only to admit during his 2013 disclosure that this was in fact a lie.

There were also witnesses who shifted their positions entirely. At least two individuals who had initially intended to testify against Jackson ended up praising him instead. Ron Zonen, one of the lead prosecutors, highlighted this in the 2020 documentary The Real Michael Jackson. He suggested that Jackson may have influenced these witnesses, pointing to his ex-wife Debbie Rowe and possibly his former manager, Bob Jones.

Watch the clip below.

Thomas Mesereau also drew criticism for his tactics. At one point, he misled Gavin Arvizo’s brother, Star, to identify a copy of Barely Legal magazine as the same one Jackson had shown him and Gavin. In reality, the magazine Mesereau produced had been published at a later date, making Star appear dishonest. It is worth noting that issues of Barely Legal look very similar to one another, which made the trick easier to pull off.

Another example involved prosecution witness Kiki Fournier, a former housemaid. She was asked about the boys she had seen visiting Neverland Ranch, including James Safechuck. Mesereau then pressed her on whether she knew Safechuck had married at Neverland. Fournier replied that she didn’t even know he was married. The problem is that Safechuck never married at Neverland at all. By raising the question, Mesereau created the impression for the jury that Safechuck had maintained a close, positive relationship with Jackson into adulthood—something that was simply untrue.

Jackson himself also became part of the courtroom drama. On 10 March, he arrived an hour late, dressed in pyjamas, looking frail and in pain. This appearance coincided with key testimony from Gavin Arvizo and his family. Mesereau initially explained the delay by claiming Jackson was in hospital with a severe back injury after tripping while getting dressed. Yet only weeks later, Jackson gave a different account, saying he had slipped in the shower and badly bruised his lung, which required treatment.

Sounds convincing enough—until you look closer. In the 2017 documentary TIME Presents: Celebrities on Trial, Mesereau repeated his original claim that Jackson had fallen and hurt his back, directly contradicting the later “shower incident” story.

Watch the clip below.

So why couldn’t Jackson and Mesereau keep their story straight?

It appears clear that Jackson staged an injury to make himself look frail and vulnerable. This was not the first time he had tried such tactics—remember, he had previously accused officers of dislocating his shoulder during his 2003 arrest, a claim that proved false. By arriving late in court dressed in pyjamas, he drew intense media and public attention, a move that likely disrupted the Arvizo family’s testimony.

Whether these actions significantly influenced the jury’s final verdict is something we will never know. What is certain, however, is that they played a role in shaping the atmosphere of the trial.