Talk:Trial of Michael Jackson

The use of the Joe Vogel Forbes op-ed article as a source

Several citations within this article use a January 2019 Forbes article entitled, "What You Should Know About the New Michael Jackson Documentary" (https://www.forbes.com/sites/joevogel/2019/01/29/what-you-should-know-about-the-new-michael-jackson-documentary/). It is treated as though it's a valid source, however it is an op-ed piece which has many unsourced claims (Eg. "Safechuck claimed that he only realized he was abused after seeing Robson on TV."). And the few sources within the document are fan-made blogs (Eg. https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/the-wade-robson-allegations-ebook-format-v2-0.pdf). I suggest this Forbes article is removed as a source. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Breaking News source

Partytemple, you need to use a better source than the Breaking News you used here. Also, keep in mind that being neutral on Wikipedia doesn't mean what being neutral means in common discourse. No need to WP:Ping me if you reply since this page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. —Partytemple (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

mentioning of 1993 settlement

The 1993 settlement was falsely portrayed in the article. It is important to note here that the settlement was for a civil claim of negligence. This settlement did not affect the ongoing criminal investigation. The evidence of the criminal investigation was presented to two grand juries, both of them decided there was not enough evidence to indict. The former formulation catered to a poplular believe Jackson bought silence which is misleading and also illegal. It biases the reader towards the new allegations.--ProblemBesucher (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProblemBesucher (talk • contribs) 16:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I see the error. It's a gross misrepresentation of the facts. I will edit this. Thanks for pointing this out. —Partytemple (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

It looks better now but the prosecution also didn't stop investigating after the boy declined to testify, Sneddon seemed rather determined. The evidence was presented to a grand jury, they said, not enough to indict, there was the testimony from other people heard. Prosecution continued, presented new evidence to another jury, again not enough to indict. so the prosecution did not stop after Chandler stopped speaking, other people spoke and evidence was presented, it just wasn't credible.according to this article from 1994 --ProblemBesucher (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)--ProblemBesucher (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

'said he had slept in bed with many children'

Jackson has said nothing of this sort. In the Bashir doc he says cleary that he does NOT sleep in the same bed but would leave his bed to others and sleep somewhere else. The 'if you love me' part that is always quoted is misquoted, in context he clearly says: If you love me, you will let me give you my bed while I sleep somewhere else. This was misrepresented in the press back then and is now, but it is not correct as one can verify watching the documentary. I tried to change it but it got reversed. This should be changed though, it's clearly not true.--ProblemBesucher (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi ProblemBesucher, I think your edits are fine, but we cannot forget this quotation from Michael Jackson in this source:

I have slept in the bed with many children. I sleep in the bed with all of them. When Macaulay Culkin was little, Keiran Culkin would sleep on this side, and Macaulay Culkin is on this side, his sister’s in there, we’d all just jam in the bed.

There is also Brett Barnes' 1993 quotation from this source: "I was on one side of the bed and he was on the other. It was a big bed." There is also Brett Barnes' 2005 cross-examination in this source:

Q. Did you travel with [Michael Jackson] when he was performing?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that - in South America, was he performing then?

A. Yes.

Q. And every night after the performance, you would go with him to his room; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you stayed in his bed that night?

A. Yep.

There is also Macaulay Culkin's 2005 cross-examination in this source:

Q. Mr. Culkin, the question was, did you ever share a bed with Mr. Jackson -

A. Yes.

Q. - the two of you by yourself, prior to going to Bermuda?

A. If I remember correctly, probably, yes.

Q. On approximately how many occasions did you and Mr. Jackson share a bed the entire night prior to going to Bermuda?

A. A handful of times.

There are other quotations, that's all I want to say. Regards, Hammelsmith (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I haven't read this witness statement before, thanks for that, it's interesting... The outrage sparking segment of the documentary that led to trial though is followed up by his clarification that he would sleep somewhere else. And when quoted the last part is often left out, which seems unfair. --ProblemBesucher (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi ProblemBesucher, Your edits are fine and perfectly acceptable for the purposes of this article. I think there is a Wiki policy disallowing use of court transcripts as a source. I encourage everyone's right to edit and give their input. Of course, we can also have discussions on the Talk page, and I am happy to provide any additional sources I can find for further consideration. Thank you for replying and for your contributions. Regards & Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

"Civil case" vs "criminal case"

Maybe this wasn't clear enough originally, so I fixed it. There were two "cases" happening during 1993 allegations. One is the lawsuit, or "civil case" because it regards civil law. The second is the criminal investigation, or "criminal case." The two don't conflict each other and ran parallel. When the lawsuit ended, the criminal investigation continued. A previous user pointed this out and wanted it distinguished. It doesn't mean child abuse is "civil." —Partytemple (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The Salas testimony

I was confused by the lines in the article describing the testimony from Jesús Salas, so I went over the court transcript from April 4th, 2005. I found that the current wording in this Wikipedia article based on the Salas testimony is very inaccurate in relation to the transcript in 4 ways (page references to the court transcript):

1. Salas couldn't tell if Jackson was drunk or if he was rather affected by prescription drugs (pp. 4676 & 4761-4765). (Generally, there are far more reports that Jackson had a prescription drug problem than an alcohol problem.)

2. Salas saw children emerging from the wine cellar once, not "sometimes" (p. 4686).

3. He testified that the children mentioned in the article sometimes used to drive by car to the ranch themselves, being about "15, 16", so to just refer to them as "children" seems misleading and at least gave me a different impression (p. 4773).

4. He said that Jackson was with the kids in the "late night, early morning" of that day, but not that Jackson emerged from the wine cellar with the kids at 8 AM, which is what the article is currently stating (p. 4687).

Current reading in the article: "Jesús Salas, a former Neverland house manager at the Neverland Ranch, testified that he often saw Jackson drunk, and sometimes saw children emerging drunk from the wine cellar with Jackson. When the prosecution attempted to confirm Jackson had served wine to minors, Salas added that although he brought a bottle of wine to Jackson's bedroom, sodas were also ordered for the children." The source is The Guardian, stating: "But he [Salas] did testify that he had seen other children emerging drunk from Mr Jackson's wine cellar at 8am accompanied by the singer." Here, "accompanied by the singer" is obviously incorrect, while the Wikipedia editor made a further mistake writing "sometimes". (The Wikipedia article also, apparently by mistake, repeats the work "Neverland".(

Suggested reading: "Jesús Salas, a former house manager at the Neverland Ranch, testified that he often saw Jackson drunk or affected by prescription drugs, and on one occasion saw three boys aged around 15 to 16 emerging drunk from the wine cellar after having spent time with Jackson. When the prosecution attempted to confirm Jackson had served wine to minors, Salas added that although he brought a bottle of wine to Jackson's bedroom, sodas were also ordered for the children." Source: People of the State of California v. Michael Joseph Jackson, court transcripts, April 4th, 2005, pp. 4676, 4682, 4686–4687, 4761-4765 & 4773.

I tried to edit this, but the edit was removed twice, apparently based on considering the source as "primary". I tried to search around for secondary sources giving an accurate report of this, but it's hard for me to find, 14 years after the event reported. However, I couldn't find any Wikipedia guidelines advising against the use of court transcripts (to do so would seem counterintuitive to me, as the transcripts would normally be the most reliable source). On the contrary, this essay seems to argue for the use of court transcripts, and this explanatory supplement (see especially "Reports on events") seems to say that the news-reporting media, in our case The Guardian, is actually a primary source and so, at least, no better than a court transcript.

Based on this, my suggestion is to change the Salas paragraph as per the suggestion and with the source quoted above.

Sarandili (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with much of your assessment here. I have to admit, and I can only speak for myself, that I jumped the gun on that revert. I heedlessly read the edit and the source far too quickly. It is not what I assumed it was. I agree with your 4 points and I am not going to argue court testimony as it is a testimony. I too was able to cross-reference the accuracy and see where there was no bias added to the text. I am content with allowing your edit to stand. TruthGuardians (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time! I guess there was a reason based on past experience for the revert. As no one has objected, I'm trying to enter the edit again. Sarandili (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Introduction of Robeson’s change in claims

Hello everyone! I recently added a short sentence under the Robson portion of “Witnesses for the Defense” introducing his allegations in “Finding Neverland.” My intention was to briefly convey an important fact that, when absent, might lead readers to improper conclusions about Robson’s support of Jackson. Some readers might not be aware of Robson’s recanted testimony unless they scroll several hundred words down the page. I believe this is a reasonable edit but I wanted to run this up the proverbial “talk page flagpole” for posterity.

To avoid redundancy I also introduced a quote from a People magazine article about the documentary. I know People is green lit as reliable source (WP:RSPSS) but if editors have other recommendations for citations, or concerns about reliability I’d appreciate discussing them here. Feel free to add any additional sources if you like. ⁂ (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

That would be misleading. Robson did not recant his testimony in that film but long before that while demanding money from the Jackson estate in 2013. And the excuse that he testified to protect him was just one of his multiple excuses so why single that particular one out especially when he contradicted himself about why he supposedly lied in 2005 and some of his excuses are contradicted by other witnesses like Scott Ross , Brett Barnes or Taj Jackson? That section is about what happened at the trial and what defense witnesses said there. Not what they did before or after. castorbailey (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)