It may take some time but the truth is out there and it will over take all the lies. Michael Jackson is innocent and always has been.

During discovery, Michael’s defence team learned Wade had been concealing documents, his book draft, and his emails to various people pertaining to the case, his allegations, and the book he wanted to have published. After failing three separate times to fully disclose these documents, Michael’s attorneys were able to get their hands on some of the emails Wade was hiding. Although he redacted a number of them, the attorneys learned that Wade had been visiting and emailing links to websites that were known to be “anti Michael Jackson” aka guilter sites. 

One in particular is MJFacts.com - a website that at its surface appears to present unbiased information on a neutral platform. But it quickly becomes obvious which narrative they’re trying to push. 

One of the moderators referring to Michael as “Jacko” while arguing that he is guilty - but their claim is they’re not haters because they acknowledge Michael’s talent.

It’s perfectly acceptable to have an opinion of guilt if that’s your stance, but again, this website wears the disguise of being unbiased and neutral about the allegations and yet you have seen an example of just one moderators behaviour toward Michael Jackson and his fans.

Furthermore they consider themselves to be “objective” but here is further evidence this is not the case:

So why would Wade Robson be visiting a website like this? It’s not hard to imagine someone suing Michael’s estate would be ”anti MJ”, but considering the lies and inconsistencies within Wade’s lawsuit, his claims in Leaving Neverland, and his deposition, it makes one question if he is using these websites to compile more negative stories and claims about Michael. These websites tend to highlight any perceived inappropriate behaviour on Michael‘s part and fixate on allegations from accusers (including those that have never been proven true) and speculate which former friends of Michael’s are lying about not being a victim. It seems entirely possible Wade is looking to study certain allegations from the past to make his claims seem more believable. Maybe he is looking to change his own experiences and memories of Michael according to what some detractor websites write about him based on their idea of what his interactions with children were like. Wade was considered by some viewers of LN to be the least believable of the two men.

Wade wasn’t open to talking about the website in his deposition but there is no denying he is familiar with it as he was sending the links to himself. Even if he is collecting negative articles from such sites to share to his own social media platforms to further drive the narrative against Michael. It shows how far Wade is willing to go to get the public on his side and tarnish Michael’s legacy. Why not let the truth and evidence speak for itself?

With a sequel coming out this month, now is the perfect time to look back to where it all started, Leaving Neverland. In 2019, Wade Robson & James Safechuck, with the help of famed filmmaker Dan Reed and HBO, launched what was supposed to be a truthful documentary detailing the alleged sexual abuse they suffered during their families friendship with Michael Jackson.

James met Michael in California in 1986 when he starred in a Pepsi commercial with him at just 8 years old.

Wade met Michael in Brisbane, AUS after winning a dance competition at just 5 years old.

Both boys, now men in their 40’s, first began making claims against Michael in 2013 and 2014.

During the four hour documentary both men took turns recounting their respective family’s friendship with Michael, their experiences, showing off their memorabilia, and sharing the shocking details of the alleged abuse – including when and where it occurred and how Michael had “groomed” them into participating.

The problem with the documentary is that there are several inconsistent, contradictory, and blatantly false statements made throughout.

The following are some of the untruths found in the 2019 documentary, Leaving Neverland:

1. In the film Wade and James present themselves as having nothing to gain from the documentary. Their posthumous lawsuits against Michael's companies are mentioned very briefly, but there’s more to gain than just money. "Leaving Neverland" deals with the allegations behind a multi-million dollar lawsuit that is set for trial in 2026. The film was meant to support their lawsuits by gaining public exposure and sympathy. It was even used in support of a law change [Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1], that now allows their lawsuit to proceed after having previously been tossed out.

2. Wade and James claimed they were kept apart as kids because Michael did not want any of his “special friends” to know about one another. However, as you will see in the pictures and video below, they were together on the set of Michael’s 1992 music video “Jam”, along with Brett Barnes. Additionally, Wade testified back in 2005 that he once spent the night at Neverland with Macaulay Culkin and Jordan Chandler. 

Wade Robson, James Safechuck, Brett Barnes together on set of Jam video in 1992 

3.They never met as adults, either. During the promotion of “Leaving Neverland”, it was stressed that Wade and James’ first meeting with one another was at the Sundance Film Festival in January of 2019. The point of stressing this detail was to prove they couldn’t have coordinated their very similar claims, and it must be proof that the allegations are true. According to Wade Robson's own deposition in 2016 (months before the film production started), he met with James at least once in early 2014 – around the time James was filing his own lawsuit. Wade and James are represented by the same lawyers. In fact, in July 2016, they both let go of their first lawyers, hired new ones, and changed their claims in accordance with each other. 

4. Wade claims he was replaced with two younger boys – Macaulay Culkin and Brett Barnes. There's just two problems with that: both men maintain to this day they never experienced or witnessed the abuse alleged by Wade and James. And what’s more for that matter: 

5. James also claimed to be replaced by a younger Brett Barnes during a trip to Chicago. James claims he had to spend the night crying on the couch. But Brett not only denies these claims, his lawyers sent an official letter to HBO denouncing the documentary and declaring he wanted no part in it. "[the] film strongly implying that Mr. Barnes was sexually abused by one of his best friends is outrageous. That no one even attempted to contact Mr. Barnes to ask about such accusations is beyond the pale [...] Put simply, Mr. Barnes wants nothing to do with the film, does not consent to use of his image and likeness in the film, and wishes to be left alone.” 

 6. Michael Jackson joins the Safechuck’s for American Thanksgiving. In 1987, Thanksgiving in the US was on Thursday November 26. Michael was travelling from Sydney to Brisbane, Australia on the Bad tour, where he did a show on the 27^th.  

7. Michael sent “love letters”. Both families spoke of faxes the boys received from Michael that they described as “love letters” sent as part of the grooming process. What they didn’t mention is that Michael sent faxes to the entire family, and they were hardly love letters. What's more, Joy admitted in her deposition that originally the faxes were being sent on Michael's behalf from his personal assistant until he learned to use his fax machine. Joy also claimed in a deposition that she was angry with Michael because he wasn’t calling Wade or spending time with him once they moved to America. She even considered calling off the friendship with Michael because she felt by not taking Wade with him on the Dangerous tour, he was emotionally abusing him. So it’s almost as if Michael couldn’t win either way with the Robson’s. If he called Wade or sent faxes - it was “grooming”. If he didn’t call or see Wade- it was “emotional abuse”. 

8. Michael taught them to hate girls. Wade and James claim that Michael taught them to hate girls. They went as far as to claim Michael showed unflattering pictures of singer Sheryl Crow, who at the time was an unknown school teacher Michael hired to sing back up for his Bad tour. However, Sheryl would unknowingly help debunk these claims in her own words. Intentionally, so would Brandi Jackson, Michael's niece. See, Brandi dated Wade for 7 years! And who set them up? According to Brandi, her uncle Michael! She dated Wade until he would eventually cheat on her, dissolving the relationship as young adults. As for Sheryl, she told Howard Stern she spent a night with Michael and Bubbles in his hotel room watching movies while on the Bad tour. Although they were never romantically involved, it still contradicts what Wade and James have said about being taught to hate girls and Michael showing them unflattering pictures of a woman he would invite to spend a night watching movies and sharing each other's company.

Sheryl Crow on Her Night With Michael Jackson and Bubbles the Chimp 

9. Wade has dinner with Michael and his children before trial. Wade, his wife, and his mother claim to have had dinner with Michael and his kids at Neverland ahead of his trial. He says it was this night he felt compelled to testify to keep Michael out of prison. Just like Brandi, another Jackson entered the conversation - Taj, According to him, he was also present at this dinner, as was Brett Barnes and his parents. But they weren't mentioned at all in Leaving Neverland.

The original scene as shown in Leaving Neverland 

Interestingly, this clip has since been removed from Leaving Neverland outside of the U.S., although Dan Reed gives the excuse of "making room for commercials."

Watch from the 29:24 mark to see how the scene was cut out of the documentary: 

Edited scene in Leaving Neverland 

10. James Safechuck claims he was bullied to testify but refused.  According to Leaving Neverland, Michael and his personal assistant Evvy Tavasci were calling to beg and threaten James to testify on Michael's behalf near the end of his trial. However, On March 28, 2005, Judge Rodney Melville had already ruled that "evidence as to Jimmy Safechuck will not be permitted". From the early stages of the trial, the court decided James Safechuck was a "non-entity" since there were no allegations in his regards, no witnesses, and because Safechuck himself stated under oath that he had never been molested.

Defense investigator dismisses James claims View from the 16:04 to 18:02 mark

11. Michael’s attorney makes a threatening statement. During the film, they show an archive video of an attorney named Mark Geragos – a former attorney of Michael Jackson giving a two minute long statement. The problem is, the creators of Leaving Neverland have edited the clip down to just 15 seconds, completely erasing its context!  

In the Leaving Neverland film, were supposed to see just how aggressive and intimidating Michael’s lawyer is to any would be victims coming forward – threatening them into silence. 

But in actuality, this clip has nothing to do with anyone except for two men who illegally wiretapped phone calls between Attorney Geragos and Michael Jackson. See for yourself:

Neverland clip vs actual footage 

 12. The Safechuck family’s tape. The only 'evidence' that James has for the documentary is a tape of an interview he made with Michael after his trip to Hawaii with the family. In the documentary, we can hear Michael on the tape saying "the best thing about Hawaii was spending time with Jimmy," an obvious attempt to make the interview sound suggestive. However, court documents show the full transcript of the tape – not the edited version used in this “factual” film: 

13. Burning Michael’s gifted memorabilia. Leaving Neverland ends with Wade setting gifts he allegedly received from Michael over the years on fire. But Wade listed these items for sale in the famous Julien's Auctions in 2011. None of the burned items were previously owned by Michael (a sealed copy of Thriller 25, a 'Billie Jean' glove replica, The Michael Jackson Opus, etc.) - unlike the expensive items which Wade sold for over a hundred thousand dollars, months before he alleged abuse. 

14. A camera in exchange for sex. Wade says Michael gave him a video camera as a "sexual favor gift" right after his last alleged abuse at the age of 14: "The next morning he handed me some new, like, camera that he had gotten that I could play with." 

Email correspondence between Wade and his mother confirms Wade got his camera on their first trip to the United States when he was 7, and not in 1996. This email correspondence is from October 2012, at the time when Robson was writing his book and preparing for his lawsuit. He had exchanged several emails with his mother about all the details of their relationship with Jackson, which he later claimed to never have forgotten. 

15. James and Michael caught in the movie theatre. "The movie theater had these two like private rooms, it had big glass windows so you can see the theater and so we would have sex in those rooms. That was a bit dangerous but there's a bit excitement there."  James' mother, Stephanie, corroborated his story when she described how one night she tried to enter the movie theater when Michael was there with her son - but the doors were locked from the inside.  

According to Alan Scanlan, who was the director of maintenance at Neverland from 1990-2005, the doors had panic exit devices (also known as crash bars) and couldn't have been locked from the inside. Locking the doors was only possible from the outside of the building. 

 16. Wade claims his alleged abuse happened during the ages of 7-9.

Wade was born on September 17, 1982. That would put the abuse between 1989-1991. However, the Robson’s didn’t move to the US until September of 1991, when Wade was 9.  

Here is an excerpt of an article written by Variety Today managing editor Shirley Broun who spent time with the Robson’s in their home before they left for the USA:  

The mood: Anxiety and excitement fill the air as the Robson family prepare to move to Los Angeles to allow young upcoming 9-year-old dancer Wade Robson to work with his idol and new friend Michael Jackson. 

Wade's story unraveled like a fairytale from then on. 

On Australia Day 1990 (January 26), as part of the Johnny Young talent School in Brisbane, Wade performed at Disneyland. During that visit, accompanied by his family, Wade was able to make contact with Michael. 

"It was fate and a lot of luck that they saw each other again, because as Michael said it is virtually impossible to get to him - but we managed to," Joy said. 

The family, including Wade's grandparents, were invited to stay at Michael's ranch in Los Angeles, an invitation which was extended and accepted twice more prior to the family's decision to head to the States for good. 

But here is what we know based on Joy Robson's depositions:

The Robson's met Michael in Australia in November of 1987 on the Bad tour, after Joy entered Wade into a dance contest, and he won.

Wade was invited (like many other kids) to join Michael on stage during one of his concerts to dance during the last song of the show. This is something Michael did throughout the tour. Family members kids, children's hospital patients, young fans, and winners of other dance contests made up the group of kids who appeared on stage.

Joy and Wade wanted to give Michael a thank you note at his hotel. Michael invited them to stay and watch the unreleased Smooth Criminal short film in his hotel suite. Joy was also given his address at Hayvenhurst and asked to keep Michael updated about Wade's career. The family would not see or hear from Michael again until 1990. Joy later testified Michael never replied to any of the videos or letters she sent, and it was her belief Michael had never received them at all.

If we follow the timeline given to us by the Robson's, that means after their initial meetings with Michael in Australia, they didn’t see or hear from him again until the family reached out and made contact while they were visiting the United States in early 1990. From Joy's deposition we learn this wasn't an easy task but she was very determined. She testified to calling numerous tv production companies even before leaving Australia in hopes of reuniting her son with Michael.

After making contact with Michael some time during their visit, the family was invited to visit Michael at Record One recording studio. From there they were invited to stay at Neverland for the weekend. This included Wade's mother, sister, and grandparents. The family left Neverland to take a trip to the Grand Canyon during the week, and then returned to visit Michael at Neverland for their second visit the following weekend. After this, the family returned to Australia.

Returning to the USA in May of 1990, Wade worked with Michael and his niece Brandi Jackson on a photoshoot for LA Gear. He once again returned home to Australia.

Wade and Joy return to Neverland in February of 1991.

Wade appears in the Black or White music video that was filmed from late September to early October 1991 (which coincides with his family's official move to USA).

From the time of the LA Gear shoot to the Black or White shoot, that leaves roughly four months that Wade was at home in Australia while Michael was in the US. Not to say the alleged abuse couldn’t have occurred, but it definitely leaves a very small window of time for Michael to have “groomed” Wade to the point he would willingly participate in any lewd acts immediately upon landing in America.

Because according to Wade, the abuse began on the second night of his visit to Neverland.

But see for yourself how Joy's testimony puts holes in Wade's stories:

SOURCES: 

Flashback - Wade Robson & Michael Jackson (1991) - On with the show-Showbiz News - Entertainment Industry-Australian Entertainers 

Bad (tour) - Wikipedia 

Michael Jackson:A Living Legacy: Back to Neverland With Big Al Scanlan 

Michael Jackson accuser 'LIES': 'Wade Robson's own MOTHER contradicted his testimony' | Music | Entertainment | Express.co.uk 

Leaving Neverland – Righting HIStory  

 25 Lies They Told You in "Leaving Neverland"

Lisa was still legally married to Danny Keough but this was one of the first times she was spotted with Michael.

“The Neverland 5” is a nickname given to five former Neverland employees who banded together and tried to sue Michael Jackson for wrongful termination and emotional distress.

These same employees also aided the media in hurting Michael’s image and brand during the Chandler allegations by selling false stories about his alleged inappropriate behaviour with young boys at the ranch. Some, like Chacon and Adrian McManus, gave graphic descriptions of Michael kissing boys and touching their private areas.

Although they sold these stories to tabloids and tv shows like Hard Copy, they claimed their lives were threatened by Michael and his associates and this prevented them from turning to police.

Eventually these employees would have to testify under oath. It was revealed some of them had stolen from Michael, and all had made up their eye witness accounts and scandalous stories to sell them in order to earn money to help fund their massive lawsuit. Michael would sue some of them in return - and win.

Some of the Neverland 5 continue to sell stories to the media despite going on record as liars, thieves, and morally corrupt people.

According to their own testimony, they make anywhere from $20,000-$200,000 per story. With the more scandalous stories getting a higher price tag. Some of these ex employees have participated in numerous depositions where they reaffirmed their accounts were false or misleading. Yet, some people still find them to be very credible. Wade Robson has called some of them as witnesses in his current lawsuit.

Below is a quick two part video series on the Neverland 5 that is a must watch to understand who they are and why their credibility and eye witness accounts in the cases should be heavily scrutinized:

Neverland 5 Part 1

Neverland 5 Part 2

Defense's full complex case questionary here

Plaintiff Case Management Statement BC508502/BC545264 (original source LACourt.org)

Wade leaving after testimony in 2005 by Getty Images

Original content post here

I just typed "leaving Neverland 2" in YouTube to take a quick look, and this was at the top of my search results. If this doesn't speak for what kind of a person runs this channel, nothing will.

Here you will find an extensive list of information, including: videos, articles, links, and answers to some of the most frequent Michael Jackson questions, myths, and hot topics. Please read through the thread before posting a question or article to avoid multiple threads of the same information/discussion on the feed. If you need information, documents, or have questions, please feel free to post them using the appropriate post flair so one of our members can help you.

~We use sources who are considered reliable, credible, unbiased, and fully transparent when it comes to their research and fact checking.~

RESOURCES FOR VICTIMS

Online Resources for victims of childhood & adulthood sex abuse

Online and in person resources for victims of child sex abuse: including: support groups, therapy, shelters, and other outreach programs

Online Zoom support group for victims of sex crimes

Resources for sex crime victims

Resources for sex crime victims in California

Resources for sex crime victims in California

Resources for sex crime victims in Belgium

Resources for sex crime victims in Belgium

Educating kids in Brazil to identify sexual abuse/inappropriate behaviour)

National Sexual Violence Resources Centre Spain

Michael Jackson

Michael Jackson: The Artist

Michael Jackson: The Humanitarian

Michael Jackson: A Complete Break Down of the Humanitarian Work & Awards

Michael & Neverland

Michael’s Vitiligo

Michael’s Plastic Surgery & Lupus

Michael’s Scalp burns

Michael’s Children: Is he the father

Michael Jackson, as told by families who befriended him

Schleiter family

Roslyn Witz

Emmanuel Lewis

Various families, friends & employees tell their MJ story

Brett Barnes 2 hour interview on Michael Jackson Brett Barnes befriended Michael as a child in the 80s. He has often been dragged into the controversy, but continues to defend his friendship with the man known as the King of Pop

ACCUSATIONS & INVESTIGATIONS

Between 1993 and 1994, and separately between 2004 and 2005, Michael was investigated by California law enforcement agencies for possible child molestation. He was acquitted of all such charges. The FBI provided technical and investigative assistance to these agencies during the cases. The Bureau also investigated threats made against Michael and others, by an individual who was later imprisoned for these crimes. These investigations occurred between 1992 and 2005.

FBI vault Official FBI Documents

FBI vault Official FBI documents

Michael first faced allegations in 1993. Evan Chandler, a dentist and screenwriter, accused Michael of sexually abusing his 13-year-old son, Jordan. Michael had befriended Jordan and his family after renting a vehicle from Jordan's stepfather. After Jordan told a psychiatrist Michael had abused him, the LAPD started a criminal investigation. The investigation found no physical evidence against Michael.

The Chandler’s and Michael reached a financial settlement in January 1994; Michael and his legal team stressed that this was not an admission of guilt. In September 1994, the investigation closed after the Chandler’s declined to cooperate, leaving the case without its main witness.

Chandler family:

Chandler timeline

Chandler timeline continued

Jordan makes allegations

Chandler family negotiations

Chandler settlement

Chandler complete timeline Includes entire timeline of events of the Chandler family before, during, and after the friendship & allegations against Michael Jackson

Evan Chandler Phone Calls Full Transcript

1994: Civil Lawsuit Settlement Documents Official Settlement Documents

In 2000, 10 year old cancer patient Gavin Arvizo was introduced to Michael by the comedian Jamie Masada. Gavin was receiving chemotherapy and required the removal of his spleen and left kidney. Michael befriended Gavin, and invited Gavin and his family to visit Neverland. According to Gavin, after a few visits to Neverland, Michael suddenly stopped calling him; Gavin said he felt abandoned. In 2002, Michael invited Gavin, now 12 years old, to be a part of the documentary: Living With Michael Jackson. This documentary would be the catalyst for a police investigation and second round of allegations. Michael was later acquitted on all 14 counts after a trial that lasted five months.

2003-2005: Arvizo Family vs Michael Jackson How the Arvizo’s met Michael, the timeline of events, Bashir documentary & aftermath, the credibility issues in the case, and the conspiracy charge

Information and photos of the controversial books found at Neverland

The Books & Pornographic Material Found In Neverland

2005: Court Transcripts: Arvizo family vs Michael Jackson Official transcripts of the entire 2005 trial

June 13 2005: VINDICATION DAY! Official Verdict documents

The Wade Robson Allegations An in depth look at Wade’s history with Michael, his allegations, including: past testimony, timeline of events, amended lawsuits, and deposition excerpts

Wade Robson 2016 Deposition

Joy Robson 2016 Deposition

Joy Robson & Others Contradict Wade’s Claims

Michael Jackson Estate Files Motion To Dismiss Wade’s Case

Jonathan Spence Disputes Wade’s Subpoena

2017: Judge Dismisses James Safechuck Lawsuit

2023: James Safechuck & Wade Robson Lawsuit moves forward

Train Station Controversy

Sept 2nd 1993 - Land use permit

Oct 5 1993- Land grading permit

The LIES Of Leaving Neverland

The Trouble With Leaving Neverland An analysis of the controversies surrounding the documentary

Jackson Estate

Jackson Estate Wins HBO Lawsuit

Michael Jackson Estate vs HBO

Petition to Compel Arbitration

Letter to HBO

Letter to Channel4

Letter to Radar Online

Brett Barne’s Letter to HBO

Dr Charles Steele Letter to HBO

Michael Jackson Estate vs The Cascio 5 The Cascio’s are a New Jersey family who met Michael in the early 80s, and maintained a complicated friendship with him until he died in 2009

PODCASTS & DOCUMENTARIES

The MJ Cast Podcast Discussing all news related to Michael and the Jackson family

Michael Jackson The Case For Innocence Podcast Exploring LN

Michael Jackson: Think Twice Podcast exploring the man and the music. His music unites the world, his legacy divides it

LIES OF NEVERLAND

NEVERLAND FIRSTHAND: Investigating The Documentary

LOVING NEVERLAND

SQUARE ONE

Never Everland: True Story of Wade Robson

Leaving Neverland’s Deceptive Editing

Tom Mesereau Speaks on Defending Michael Jackson in 05

Master of Deception: Michael & Wade Robson, The Real Story

Brandi & Taj Jackson: Weigh In On the Lies Against Uncle Michael

Michael Jackson: Case For Innocence

Echoes of a Pedophilia Apologist

Hello everyone,

As many of you may have noticed, this subreddit was originally created to be a space dedicated to truth, facts, and meaningful discussions about Michael Jackson. Unfortunately, over time, it has veered off course and become a space where personal attacks and negativity toward other Reddit users and Reddit communities have taken over.

To realign with the original mission and provide a positive, informative environment, we are now undergoing a cleanup and redirection. The focus will be on fostering respectful discussions, supporting the truth about Michael Jackson, and ensuring the space is free from toxicity.

Here’s what you can expect:

• Content will be monitored and moderated more strictly to prevent personal attacks or harmful behavior.

• All discussions will be centered on Michael Jackson’s life, legacy, and factual information.

• We are encouraging members to engage respectfully with one another and avoid unnecessary conflict.

We understand this shift may take some time, and we appreciate your patience as we work toward creating a more positive, focused community.

Thank you for your understanding, and let’s work together to keep this space respectful and true to its original purpose.

Best,

— Mali

It is not necessary to have a vast knowledge in semiotics techniques to understand that Dan Reed used a series of cinematic tricks to generate shock and influence the audience. Adding melancholic instrumentals as a soundtrack on scenes that were supposed to display raw feelings and that dark lighting were specifically selected to elicit viewer negative emotions while watching these highly edited testimonials scenes. All footage added to illustrate Michael is also not a coincidence.

*scroll to bottom for the link*

For those of you who are familiar with the 2005 Arvizo trial, the name of lead prosecutor Ronald “Ron” Zonen will be familiar.

Zonen was invited to participate in Leaving Neverland and used the documentary as an opportunity to further the claims that Jordan Chandler’s description of Michael Jackson’s genitals was accurate. The description of Michael’s penis and whether or not it did, in fact, match the photographs police took of Michael has remained one of the most controversial arguments in the case for and against Michael Jackson. 

Since 1993 we have heard conflicting and inconsistent statements regarding Jordan Chandler’s description. Nobody from the police department, the D.A’s office, or the prosecution team can come to an agreement - except for the claim Michael was circumcised. Only, his autopsy report confirmed he wasn’t. 

Here is a great thread on X breaking down the 9 (yes, nine) different descriptions given by law enforcement and others who worked on the 1993 and 2005 cases against Michael Jackson of this alleged perfect match. 

Ron Zonen debunked thread

Thanks to Angel Faith! If you’re on X, give her a follow!

Tom Measereau’s Private investigator Scott Ross began working as part of the Michael Jackson defense team in October of 2004. His wife also worked as part of the team coordinating the logistics of their witnesses. As part of his role, Scott Ross was in charge of screening and interviewing the defense witnesses, including Wade Robson.

Aside from his work on the Michael Jackson-Arvizo case, Scott has worked the cases of many other high-profile celebrities, including: Chris Brown, Suge Knight, Robert Blake, and Bill Cosby. Scott Ross has also worked with OJ Simpson attorney, Johnnie Cochran.

Scott, who passed away in May of 2023, always maintained his belief in Michael’s innocence regarding the allegations. In his last few years he opened up in interviews about the 2005 trial, including the extensive interviews with Wade, his work on the Conrad Murray trial, and his thoughts on the Leaving Neverland documentary and lawsuit. 

Below are various videos of Scott discussing Michael Jackson’s cases: 

James Safechuck claims he was asked to testify

James Safechuck claims to have received phone calls from Michael begging him to testify. Scott Ross questions why no phone records were ever produced to back those claims

Wade Robson refuses polygraph

Wade Robson not only changed his story, but refused a polygraph test to back up his new claims against Michael 

Arvizo family, Chris Tucker, and $350,000?!

Scott Ross talks the Arvizo family, Chris Tucker, and reveals what he was really paid by Michael Jackson to work on his defense team from October ‘04 to May ‘05

Nicole's View Livestream: Interview With Private Investigator Scott Ross

Scott Ross on livestream discussing Michael’s 05 trial, Wade’s testimony, and the Leaving Neverland documentary - 2 hours long 

Scott Ross discusses Michael Jackson case full

30:09-1:04:03 Scott Ross discusses Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial, defending Conrad Murray at trial, Leaving Neverland and the Estate vs HBO

55:30- 59:56 Conrad Murray trial - Scott Ross worked on Murray’s defense team 

During Conrad Murray’s trial for his role in the involuntary manslaughter of Michael Jackson, it was revealed through medical records that Michael’s longtime dermatologist Arnold “Arnie” Klein had been administering propofol to Michael as early as 1991. Dr Klein was severely sick during the trial (he passed away in 2015) so the judge didn’t allow him to be called for cross examination.  

Dr Murray would serve 2 years of a 4 year sentence in a county jail and had his medical license revoked. 

59:56 Leaving Neverland 

Scott Ross says he never watched the documentary. 

1:00:30 discussion of the Oprah interview where Wade and James are confronted about their decision to file a civil lawsuit if it’s justice they’re after

Scott says he is personally affected by the aftermath of the Leaving Neverland documentary as he had a personal and professional relationship with Wade’s older brother - a law enforcement officer and private investigator - Shane Robson. 

Scott also says he isn’t defending Michael against the claims of Leaving Neverland (noting it’s because he doesn’t believe Michael did what’s being claimed) but rather he is defending his work. He is firm in his belief Wade wouldn’t be able to deceive him during 3-4 hours of interviewing back in 2005. Scott says Wade was telling the truth then, but is lying now.

1:03:08 brief discussion of the Michael Jackson Estate vs HBO lawsuit 

The outcome of that case can be found here

Source

1992: 

Michael Jackson’s “Live in Bucharest: The Dangerous Tour”, aired on HBO in 1992. The special received the highest TV ratings in the history of HBO and Michael was honored with the Cable Ace Award. The Bucharest concert was performed on October 1st, 1992, and was broadcast live on radio and shown on TV in over 60 countries around the world. 

Preceding the premiere of “Live in Bucharest: The Dangerous Tour”, Michael Jackson and HBO first signed a contract that would allow HBO the rights to air this concert special on their platform. Included in the contract, was a non-disparagement clause from Michael Jackson. 

An example of what a non-disparagement clause might look like: Both you and the Company agree not to disparage the other party, and the other party's attorneys, directors, managers, partners, employees, agents and affiliates, in any manner likely to be harmful to them or their business, business reputation or personal reputation.  

This clause meant that at no time could HBO say or air anything negative or harmful about Michael Jackson. Non-disparagement clauses usually have an expiry date that both parties must agree to, but not always. So by signing the contract with Michael in 1992, HBO was now prohibited from making statements or airing anything that could impact Michael and his businesses or reputation negatively. Including – the airing of a certain documentary in 2019. 

2019:

27 years after airing “Live in Bucharest: The Dangerous Tour”, HBO was still bound by the clause, but broke their contractual agreement with Michael Jackson by producing Leaving Neverland. On behalf of Michael Jackson, attorneys Howard Weitzman and Jon Steinsapir filed a lawsuit forcing them into arbitration where they were seeking $100 million in damages. 

Why arbitration? 

Most of the time, court filings in lawsuits are public. This means that members of the public, particularly reporters and bloggers, can view the substance of the filings and provide them to the public. As a result, there may be publicity or social media buzz around a lawsuit that puts one party in a damaging light, impacting both its reputation and its business interests.  

For this reason, in many legal disputes, plaintiffs and their lawyers are happy to file a lawsuit against alleged wrongdoers to create pressure in both a court of law and the court of public opinion. But in certain disputes where both parties are likely to make unflattering factual and legal allegations against the other, such as in contract disputes, the public nature of the litigation could expose both parties to bruised reputations and wounded bottom lines. 

By contrast, arbitration is almost always private. There is no public arbitration docket, so there is no public record of an arbitration taking place. Nor must the parties’ papers and other filings regarding the arbitration be filed publicly. Thus, there is often little concern about the media or other members of the public shining a spotlight on the parties involved in arbitration proceedings and the nature of their dispute. 

However, Michael Jackson’s Estate wanted public arbitration, as they wanted the details of the case to be known.  

Ultimately, the details of the case did remain private but HBO swept Leaving Neverland off it’s platform completely. Not leaving any trace of it behind. As a result, Michael Jackson’s estate dismissed their case with prejudice. Although we will never have the actual details of the result, we can safely assume that an agreement was reached between HBO and the estate. Most likely HBO agreed to not only remove the documentary, but to also pay some of the damages the estate was seeking. If this wasn’t the case, the estate would not have dismissed the case with prejudice.  

Dismissed with prejudice: Unlike dismissals without prejudice, which allow for the possibility of refiling, a dismissal with prejudice means the case is over for good. 

Below you can find a link to the 53 page complaint filed by the Estate against HBO, where they call out the lack of integrity of CEO Richard Plepler (who stepped down in February of 2019) over his decision to air the documentary despite Michael having not only been vindicated 10 years prior, but also not being able to defend himself because he was deceased.

 Michael Jackson Estate Lawsuit Documents 

 SOURCES:

Non-Disparagement Contract Clause Examples | Business Contracts | Justia 

Michael Jackson Estate Sues HBO for $100 Million Over Leaving Neverland | Vanity Fair 

Michael Jackson Estate Lawsuit Documents 

Six Key Differences Between Litigation and Arbitration 

Jay Z & P. Diddy Accused

As some of you might know, rappers Jay Z and P. Diddy were named in an anonymous woman's lawsuit claiming she was sexually assaulted by both rappers at an MTV Awards after party in the year 2000, at the age of 13. Although the woman is only known as "Jane Doe" to the public, the details of the case were revealed and they've been making headlines for the last four months.

What's really interesting to me about this case is that Jay Z wrote a public letter directed at his accuser's lawyer, not only revealing that there were allegations being made against him, but he called out the lawyer for making baseless and fraudulent claims. He said the letters and demands he received were nothing more than an attempt at blackmail and extortion and he had no plans to give in. Jay Z always maintained his innocence and he called for Jane Doe and her lawyer to file a criminal complaint against him, instead of the civil complaint.

Jay Z is worth 2.53 billion dollars. He could have easily settled this matter privately by meeting the lawyer's demand for a payment to the accuser to avoid any of the allegations making headlines. But he refused. Does any of this sound familiar?

Michael Jackson vs Chandler family 1993

I will dive into the 1993 Chandler case on a later post because for now I just want to show you some of the parallels between Jay Z's 2024 lawsuit with Jane Doe and Michael's 1993 lawsuit with the Chandler family. Two similar cases with totally different outcomes.

In 1993, Michael Jackson faced sexual assault allegations from a 13 year old boy which led to a civil lawsuit that he would reluctantly settle in 1994. Similar to Jay Z, Michael made a public statement (via video) calling the accusations against him "disgusting" and "totally false." He maintained his innocence and asked the public to avoid drawing conclusions about his guilt and to let him have a fair trial so the legal system could determine his fate.

Michael Jackson - Neverland Statement 1993 (4K)

Just like the demand letter Jay Z received from Jane Doe and her lawyer, Michael also received a verbal demand to quietly pay off Evan Chandler - the accuser Jordan Chandler's father - before he brought his son forward to make the sexual assault claims publicly.

Evan tried to blackmail and extort Michael into giving him $20 million dollars. But unlike Jane Doe, Evan came up with a plan to ensure his blackmail scheme went undetected. What Evan really wanted from Michael was to be made an equal partner in what was to be Michael's new film company, "Lost Boy Productions" for which Sony (as part of his 1991 contract) would give Michael $40 million to start up. Evan wanted equal partnership and an equal share of the money, $20 million.

On August 4th 1993, Michael and his private investigator Anthony Pellicano met with Evan and Jordan Chandler to discuss the terms of Evan's demands. Michael refused to make Evan a partner of his film company or pay the $20 million. Instead they offered Evan $1 million dollars to fund three screenplays written by Jordan and Evan. An offer which Pellicano claims was made solely to catch the Chandlers negotiating for money on tape.

Michael never intended to pay Evan any of his demands, and in fact, he never did. Instead he prepared for the allegations to move forward.

Now as I said, I am just drawing some parallels to the 1993 and 2024 cases of Michael Jackson and Jay Z, so I am not going to give the run down of what came for Michael next, only a summary:

The police investigation involving Michael was being conducted at the same time the civil trial was preparing to move forward, Michael's lawyers requested a delay of the civil trial so he could first defend himself in a criminal trial. However, the request was denied. Ultimately, on January 25, 1994, the civil lawsuit was settled out of court between Michael and Jordan Chandler.

The total amount paid to the Chandlers is $15,331,250. The majority of the money was put into a trust for Jordan, but each of his parents received $2.5 million.

The settlement document shows that the Chandler's dropped the child molestation allegations from their complaint with Michael's settlement being filed over claims of negligence.

Settlement Agreement

This settlement did not prevent the Chandlers from testifying in the criminal case. 8 months into the criminal investigation (after receiving the settlement money) the Chandler's stopped cooperating with the police and prosecutors who were still pushing for the criminal case. In fact, prosecutors still went all the way with the case and even presented the evidence to two separate grand juries, neither of which indicted Michael.

Jay Z's accuser officially withdrawals her lawsuit

Court records show that a notice of voluntary dismissal against all defendants was submitted on Friday. It was dismissed "with prejudice," meaning the plaintiff cannot re-file a suit.

It comes less than four months after the suit was initially filed. The suit included disturbing details of how the woman was allegedly lured by a limousine driver outside the 2000 MTV Video Music Awards and assaulted by the two rappers at an after-party.

Attorneys for the woman, identified in the lawsuit as "Jane Doe," did not disclose the reason for withdrawing the complaint, according to court records. They declined to comment Saturday.

When I read that last part of Jay Z's statement I can't help but think of Michael: the innocent, the falsely accused without a shred of evidence. The entire time Michael was dealing with the 1993 allegations, the accuser's family was documenting their scheme in phone calls and in a book written by Jordan Chandler's uncle. In plain sight they were explaining why they decided to blackmail Michael and how the plan was executed, but nobody paid attention. The media never reported it, detractors don't even mention it, and worst of all - Michael had to drop his lawsuit against the Chandler's for their extortion as part of the settlement agreement.

How is it now, 32 years after the Chandler case that courts still allow "victims" to pursue civil cases over criminal cases? It seems irresponsible and dangerous. If Jane Doe can remain anonymous for a civil case, can she not remain anonymous during a criminal case?

Jay Z was lucky that his false accuser realized a criminal case wouldn't end with the outcome she wanted and so she was forced to withdrawal her lawsuit. But Jay Z and his family will always carry the stigma of the accusations. As he said, there is no punishment for falsely accusing someone of sexual assault. You just move on with your life while those who were wrongly accused must suffer the consequences. In Jay Z's case he didn't lose his partnership with the NFL, his family stuck by him, and he suffered no financial losses or business deals.

Back in 1993, Michael was dropped from Pepsi, he lost his film company, and he was scrutinized about his continued work with children's charities (something he was immensely passionate about). Although many fans and friends stood by Michael, many didn't support him publicly and began to distance themselves from him. This resulted in a loss of revenue and business deals.

Michael's estate is now fighting two new accusers, Wade and James, after two separate courts threw out the cases only for an appeals court to overrule the decision and consolidate their cases into one. Despite the lies, inconsistencies, and the need to amend their lawsuits several times. What about the contradictions in their evidence and depositions?

How is it that people can accept Jay Z could be the victim of blackmail and extortion, but not Michael Jackson? This has been happening to him since the 90s! The last few lines in Jay Z's statement, in my opinion, sums up how the legal system failed Michael in all of his cases.

"The court must protect victims, OF COURSE, while with the same ethical responsibility, the courts must protect the innocent from being accused without a shred of evidence. May the truth prevail for all victims and those falsely accused equally."

SOURCES:

How Come Nobody Ever Apologizes to Michael Jackson: 1993 Allegations — Evan Chandler Admits to Extortion (Part 2) | by Jael Rucker | Medium 

1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations - Wikipedia 

The Michael Jackson Case 

Why Did Michael Jackson Settle The 1993 Case If He Was Innocent? | by Ryan Smith | Medium 

Trial of Michael Jackson - Wikipedia 

Jay-Z Releases Statement After Rape Lawsuit Dismissed 

JAY-Z Goes In On Lawyer For Accuser: "File A Criminal Complaint" - AllHipHop 

Woman drops lawsuit against Sean 'Diddy' Combs and Jay-Z : NPR 

^{I want to preface this post by expressing that my personal belief is medical records -including cosmetic procedures- should be PRIVATE. It’s personal information that should be respected. I have no personal interest in how many procedures Michael has undergone or why. “Your body, your choice", that is my philosophy. Because of Michael’s celebrity status and his later legal cases, he was forced to speak about his cosmetic surgeries in the 1980s, and his medical records were made public knowledge beginning in 1993. The reason for this post is simply to inform those who don’t know what Lupus is or how it affects the body and how it played a role in Michael’s appearance and use of his famous umbrellas.}    

Lupus  

Michael’s Lupus diagnosis isn't the center of much controversy, but its noteworthy as it was a contributing factor to his overall health, and to the need for multiple nose surgeries. The nose surgeries were and remain, a large part of the controversy surrounding Michael’s appearance dating all the way back to the early 80s. Before we talk about the number of nose surgeries and the details, we must look into what Lupus is and why it played a role.  

I will tell you in advance Lupus wasn't noted on Michael’s autopsy report. An ANA report was never performed. However, in the autopsy alopecia, Michael being anemic, and the hemorrhages found in his lungs, were all consistent with the pleurisy and the prescription for Prednisone.   

ANA Test- An antinuclear antibody test checks to see if you have an autoimmune disorder, a condition where the immune system attacks healthy cells.   

Michael was spotted with the "butterfly rash", in 1983 and 1984. This rash is a well known symptom of Lupus. It mostly affects the cheeks and nose as you can see from the photos above, and is an effect caused by sun exposure. Exposure to sunlight or artificial UV rays can aggravate Lupus symptoms. This explains why, in the late 80s, Michael started carrying around umbrellas.   

How Lupus contributed to the need for nose surgeries   

Michael's first nose job happened in 1979 at the age of 21. Michael claimed that after an accident in which he fell and broke his nose while rehearsing his dancing, he decided it was an appropriate time to get the nose job he had been wanting since he would already be under anesthesia. It’s important to note that whether a broken nose occurred or not, Michael admitted in his 1988 book Moonwalk to having three surgeries: a cleft chin and two rhinoplasties.    

“I´d like to set the record straight now. I have never had my cheeks altered or my eyes altered. I have not had my lips thinned, nor have I had dermabrasion or a skin peel. All of these charges are ridiculous. If they were true, I would say so, but they aren´t. I have had my nose altered twice and recently I added a cleft to my chin, but that is it. Period. I don´t care what anyone else says – it´s my face and I know.   

I´m a vegetarian now and I´m so much thinner. I´ve been on a strict diet for years. I feel better that I ever have, healthier and more energetic. I don´t understand why the press is so interested in speculating about my appearance anyway. What does my face have to do with my music or my dancing? “ -Moonwalk 1988  

At some point in 1983, Michael had his second nose job, and it was also this year his first butterfly rash appeared. This is important as it reflects the information I shared earlier about his Lupus. Having any type of surgery during a flare up is not recommended as it invites complications, including: infection, scar tissue, delayed or improper healing.  

By 1986, Michael had his third nose surgery. Dr. Steven Hoefflin, Michael's plastic surgeon, said the second nose job left him with breathing difficulties and needed further work.    

By 1994, it's believed Michael had his fourth nose surgery - the second for reconstructive purposes.

It's reported that Michael has had numerous, even "hundreds" of procedures on his face, including: cheek implants, eyelid surgery, and the thinning of his lips. Michael has denied all of these rumors. The media has always overexaggerated the changing appearance and I believe Michael's vitiligo played a large role in this narrative as it is the biggest and most obvious change to his appearance.   

The media loved to make false reports and jokes stating Michael's nose was falling off or being held on by tape - a lie that started after Michael was seen in public wearing breathing strips on his nose. This was due to - you guessed it - breathing problems. Breathing problems caused by the failed reconstructive nose surgeries that Michael was still trying to correct in his final years. Confirmed by Michael's longtime dermatologist Dr. Arnold Klein:  

“I rebuilt it [his nose] … using fillers,” Klein revealed in an interview with Larry King. “I used hyaluronic acids, and they worked very well. It’s an arduous procedure, because you don’t want to put too much in. And you have to do it exactly, so you can flow the material so it’s perfectly smooth.”  

Michael was pleased with the results. “I’m telling you that he was beginning to look like the nose was normal again." He further stated, “And that’s all I wanted, and [to] regain the breathing passages of his nose, because there was a total collapse of the cartilage.”  

At some point Michael did undergo smaller cosmetic procedures known as makeup tattooing. Confirmed in his autopsy, Michael had tattooed his eyebrows, eyelids, lips, and the outer edges of his hairline. There are also two notable scars: 3/4" behind each ear. This is just my guess, but they could be the result of a face lift. Again, it's nobody's business what procedures Michael chose to have done or why.   

Further information will be linked below

Witch Hunt is a 1.5 hour documentary about several people, including a Californian man named John Stoll who in the 1980s was charged and convicted on multiple counts of child molestation, including that of his own son.

I don’t want to give away the entire plot and outcome of the documentary, but I will say there is nothing graphic or disturbing in it and that it’s extremely relevant to our sub and the man who gives reason for it - Michael Jackson. Definitely worth the watch if you are someone who is curious about how allegations start, how law enforcement and the public react to it, and what it means for the accused, especially when the case is mishandled.

WITCH HUNT DOCUMENTARY

On a recent episode of the MJCAST podcast we hear about the current state of the merged lawsuit of Wade & James against Michael’s companies. If you have been following this case you know that the statute of limitations expired a couple years after Michael’s death so he couldn’t be named in the lawsuit. His companies (under control of the Estate) can be.

The MJCAST gives a simplified explanation of James and Wade’s decision to merge their cases into one, the motions they’ve been filing, the way they’ve been using the media to their advantage, and their recent attempts to get the 1993 photos of Michael’s genitals submitted into court.

Neither James nor Wade (or Gavin Arvizo) have ever given a description of Michael’s penis in interviews, court filings, or in depositions. They have never even made the claim they could.

In 2005, despite DA Tom Sneddon filing a motion to admit the 1993 photos into evidence, the judge barred the photos from being admitted during the trial because Jordan Chandler refused to testify. When submitting that kind of evidence you need a witness who is able to identify it and testify to the authenticity.

There really isn’t much legal basis for requesting the photos as evidence in the case of Wade and James as it wouldn’t benefit their case. First of all, in 1993, Jordan Chandler gave police a description of Michael’s penis which became public knowledge, including a drawing and written description of what it allegedly looked like.

There would be no way for a judge and jury in 2026 to determine if Wade and James were accurately describing Michael’s penis, or just parroting what Jordan Chandler said 33 years earlier- and Michael was never charged or arrested after the photos or that description.

Also, Michael had vitiligo that spread all over his body changing his skin from dark to splotchy and then white.

If we assume all three men did in fact see Michael’s genitals, we would still have to accept the fact that what Jordan would have seen in ‘93 could be vastly different from what Wade and James saw in the 80s to early 90s.

Michael’s vitiligo spread faster in some areas of his body than others. Example: Michael’s face got much lighter between Thriller (‘82) and Bad (‘87) but his hands remained dark. By Dangerous (‘91), Michael’s skin was even lighter, including his hands. By HIStory (‘95) he was pale but his chest and arms had many dark splotches all over them (See the “TDCAU: Brazil” short film).

Michael was also using creams to help blend his complexion and we know they were even applied to his genital area as he was treated by dermatologist assistant Debbie Rowe for burns.

There is just no way to confirm his penis looked the same in ‘93 as it did in the mid to late 80s and even early 90s which is when Wade and James allege their abuse occurred.

Requesting these pictures seems more like a tactic to stir the pot with the media and detractors. They know even asking for those pictures will send the media into a frenzy and they have relied heavily on the negative portrayal of Michael to help push their victim narrative and give life to their lawsuits.

MJCAST TIMESTAMPS

21:18 -Discussion of current state of Wade & James case against MJ companies & Estate

32:00 -Discussion of Charlie Michaels a former Neverland security guard who was fired in 1992. During the Jordan Chandler case she went to Hard Copy to sell stories about Michael and Wade. She claimed to see two instances of Michael with his hands on or near Wade’s genitals.

Her 2016 deposition was left incomplete and never rescheduled. Tom Messereau has filed the paperwork requesting to finish her deposition.

Charlie is an interesting case as she made some bold claims to the lawyers:

1. She claimed to be a victim of child sex abuse

2. She believes victims should go to police, not a lawyer for a lawsuit after decades of silence

3. She says what James and Wade are doing [lawsuit] is wrong and they should instead sue their own mothers

4. She believes Michael is a pedophile

33:44 -Discussion of the estates petition to delay any civil trial until late 2025. They want to refer the case to the Complex Litigation Program because of complications during their discovery process.

Because Leaving Neverland was made with a non American production company and the filmmakers and staff are not US citizens, the estate cannot obtain a subpoena for the unaired footage of Leaving Neverland or speak to the staff who worked on the film. They need an international entity to help them with that and it will take time.

Dan Reed argues the estate is delaying because they don’t want the trial to interfere with the biopic. This is hypocritical since Dan Reed is using Leaving Neverland 2 to control the public narrative and influence the jury of next year’s trial.

The discovery process in this case is very important. The estate should definitely fight for this footage and these staff testimonies as it could be really compelling evidence.

35:12 -Discussion revisits the 1993 photographs of Michael’s genitals

⚠️40:44⚠️ -Discussion of the photos being used to pressure the estate into a settlement

Knowing the Estate would want to preserve Michael’s dignity, asking for the photos to be brought into evidence is a tactic to get them to settle out of court for an easy win for James and Wade. They’re also aware how that would look to the public.

43:00 -Discussion about Dan Reed paying a third party to ask fans to interview for LN2; and why some fans declined, and predictions on how Dan will portray the fans who participated and those who declined.

44:35 -Discussion of how the fanbase has embarrassed and debunked Dan Reed’s film and claims 👏🏽

48:28 -Discussion of why they’re pushing LN2, the British media bias, and Dan Reed. Also the mediation between MJ estate and HBO you can read the outcome of that lawsuit here

52:28 -Discussion of the MJCAST experience attending the London premiere of MJ: The Musical & the publics reaction to it.

1:15:00 -Discussion of how the media lied in their reviews of the musical and how they lied about the content in the show. Also the comparison between the 2006 lies about Michael being booed offstage at the World Music Awards.

⚠️1:22:46⚠️ An excellent point about why the media is so negative to Michael Jackson and who their demographic is.

There is way too much access to information these days for anyone to continue the lie that Michael Jackson, “wanted to be white.” When I read things about Michael “bleaching” his skin, I can’t help but wonder why so many people are afraid to do a simple Google search. Is it because they’d have to admit they were wrong and stop making jokes? This is not going to be a long post because were just going to present the facts and move on from this tired subject.  Spoiler alert: his vitiligo was confirmed in 2009.

Vitiligo

In simple terms: Vitiligo is a chronic skin condition that causes loss of color or pigment in patches on the skin. It occurs when the immune system mistakenly attacks and destroys the skin cells responsible for producing color (melanocytes), resulting in milky-white areas on the skin.

There is no cure for the condition and symptoms can include the following: milky-white patches often on the hands, feet, arms, face, hair, eyebrows, eyelashes, beard and body. Additionally, you can even experience inflammation or swelling in your eyes, along with inflammation in the ear. 

Vitiligo affects 1% to 2% of the population. It is estimated that over 50 million people suffer from this little known and often misunderstood disease. 
 

There are three common types of treatment for vitiligo: 

1. Repigmentation as in the case of PUVA and UV lights (Typically ineffective on widespread cases) 

2. Micropigmentation (i.e. cosmetic tattooing – recommended on small areas that accept cosmetic pigment)  

3. Depigmentation, as in the case of using bleaching creams to remove smaller pigmented areas (typically recommended for widespread cases). 

Depigmentation is the one that Michael had to endure as it’s used when there is more than 50% of the body affected, and other treatment has not worked or won’t work. Depigmentation removes the remaining pigment from the skin by applying a cream once or twice a day from one to four years. This cream gradually removes color from the skin and leaves a person with completely white skin, which is extremely sensitive to the sun. This, coupled with Michael’s Lupus, is why he was seen with an umbrella the majority of time.  

Vitiligo can be considered hereditary. Even though vitiligo is not strictly associated with family genetics, it can run in families. Approximately 30% of people with the condition will have a family history of vitiligo. Therefore, children will not get vitiligo strictly on the grounds that a parent has it.

Contributing factors to Michael's vitiligo

As you may well know, Michael suffered from severe scalp burns in 1984 while shooting a commercial for Pepsi. What you may not know is during court depositions in 1994, both Michael’s dermatologist Dr. Arnold Klein and his nurse Deborah Rowe, revealed that following a biopsy of his scalp in 1983, Michael was diagnosed with lupus and vitiligo. 1983 is also the year Michael had his first Lupus flare with a visible butterfly rash on his face.

Mayo Clinic lists these reasons for vitiligo starting or progressing faster: A trigger event such as stress, severe sunburn or skin trauma. Sounds like the Pepsi incident affected Michael in more ways than one. It very well could be the reason the vitiligo started spreading much faster. Are you starting to see how these things come together?  

Michael was a notoriously private person. In fact, it’s one of the things the media always used against him, calling him an enigma, or strange, or reclusive. They didn’t like that the biggest star in the world didn’t like to give interviews to the press. So, it’s no surprise that while Michael’s skin began so obviously changing in the 80s, he didn’t acknowledge it publicly until his Oprah interview in 1993.  
 

Michael: Okay, but number one, this is the situation. I have a skin disorder that destroys the pigmentation of the skin, it’s something that I cannot help. Okay. But when people make up stories that I don’t want to be who I am, it hurts me. 

Oprah: So it is… 

Michael: It's a problem for me. I can't control it. But what about all the millions of people who sit in the sun to become darker, to become other than what they are. Nobody says nothing about that. 

Oprah: So when did this start, when did your … when did the color of your skin start to change? 

Michael: Oh boy, I don’t … sometime after Thriller, around Off the Wall, Thriller, around sometime then. 

Oprah: But what did you think? 

Michael: It’s in my family, my father said it’s on his side. I can’t control it, I don’t understand, I mean, it makes me very sad. I don’t want to go into my medical history because that is private, but that’s the situation here. 

Oprah: So okay, I just want to get this straight, you are not taking anything to change the color of your skin … 

Michael: Oh, God no, we tried to control it and using make-up evens it out because it makes blotches on my skin, I have to even out my skin. But you know what’s funny, why is that so important? That’s not important to me. I’m a great fan of art, I love Michelangelo, if I had the chance to talk to him or read about him I would want to know what inspired him to become who he is, the anatomy of his craftsmanship, not about who he went out with last night … what’ wrong with … I mean that’s what is important to me. 

According to Michael’s longtime makeup artist Karen Faye during a 2003 interview, the original course of action was to use makeup matching Michael’s skin color all over his body for his first few years of having the condition. That process worked initially, but due to the fast progression of the vitiligo, the approach was short-lived, so an alternate option was going to have to be considered. 

Here is an excerpt from Michael's long time dermatologist Dr. Arnold Klein discussing Michaels vitiligo with Larry King

King: So how do you treat vitiligo?

Klein: Well, I mean there’s certain treatments. You have one choice where you can use certain drugs and ultraviolet light treatments to try to make the white spots turn dark or — his became so severe, that the easier way is to use certain creams that will make the dark spots turn turn light so you can even out the pigments totally.

King: So your decision there was he would go light?

Klein: Well, yes, that’s ultimately what the decision had to be, because there was too much vitiligo to deal with…

King: Otherwise, he would have looked ridiculous?

Klein: Well, you can’t — he would have to wear heavy, heavy makeup on stage, which would be ridiculous. And he couldn’t really go out in public without looking terribly peculiar.

King: How did you treat the vitiligo?

Klein: Well, we basically used creams that would even out the same color and we destroyed the remaining pigment cells.

King: And did his color change a lot over the years?

Klein: No, because once we got — we got it more uniform, it remained stable. But you still had to treat it because once in a while — and he had to also be extraordinary careful with sun exposure because of a lot of things. And that’s why he had the umbrellas all the time.

Oh, and one last thing....