Video and transcription follow.

Fifty three years ago, a young black boy was born in a small town in Indiana. This was a different time, a time when the African-American civil rights movement tried to gain freedom from oppression by white Americans.

It was also a time when the next generation of post-war Americans were growing up, the sons of soldiers who had freed prisoners from the tyranny of prison camps like Auswitch and Buchenwald, a time when all of Europe was filled with a profound and abiding gratitude to the American people.

As Elie Wiesel, a survivor of the Jewish Holocaust said in a speech to an important gathering of White House dignitaries in 1999, “Gratitude is what defines the humanity of the human being.”

And gratitude is what we should now have today for that young American black boy. His name was Michael Jackson, someone I am privileged to call my friend, somebody who often stood alone to fend for the children in the world, for the destitute, for the victims of disease and injustice.

Michael was very troubled by the suffering he saw in the world and even more to the indifference to it. His first words to me when we met were, “Thank you so much for helping the people of Africa.”

There were no airs and graces, no pomp and circumstance and his only concern was for the lives of other people who lived on a different continent than the one in which either of us were born.

I had been to Africa and seen the devastation of the plague of HIV at first hand and when we discussed it, there was tears in his eyes and he said we had to do something together for the people of Africa.

He planned to hold a great concert in Rwanda and we would fly there together in his private plane and then down to see his great friend, Nelson Mandela. Sadly, these events were not to happen and the world lost one of its great humanitarians.

In that speech, Elie Wiesel had also some words to say about indifference. He said, “To be indifferent to the suffering in the world is what makes the human being inhuman.”

For the person who is indifferent, his or her neighbour is of no consequence. Their lives are meaningless as indifference reduces the other to an abstraction. Indifference always benefits the aggressor—never his victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she feels forgotten.

Michael Jackson felt that pain, not just for the hungry children, but for himself when the people of America remained indifferent to the injustice that was perpetrated upon him making him a virtual prisoner in his own land, causing him to flee to the Middle East and eventually find solitude in Ireland, my home.

What an irony that someone who cared so much about the rest of humanity was rejected by his own. It was a pain he felt deeply and one that on occasion he discussed with me, but mostly he did not want to talk about it and I never opened those painful memories…being like him, exiles beyond the norm.

Michael Jackson was never indifferent. He brought light where there was darkness, hope where there was despair; he never turned away from cruelty when he could give compassion.

We have just started a new century, a new millennium. The first ten years have been some of the most brutal the planet has ever encountered. The century started with terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. These actions dragged this great nation into conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. There have been wars in over twenty countries, which cast a dark shadow over humanity: So much violence, so much pain…

If there is one thing to do today, to preserve Michael Jackson’s memory, that is not be remain indifferent to the suffering we see all around us in the World.

There are times when I feel God has abandoned this world, the terrible earthquake in Haiti where bodies were cut from building by hacksaw, the funeral undertakers in Zambia where the coffin-makers work banging nails in wood late into the night, the streets of Northern Ireland where throats are cut for pronouncing a word on a beer bottle with the wrong accent.

I have lived in Baghdad, I have been a prisoner of Saddam Hussein, I carry the war wounds of Northern Ireland and I say to you here today that there is a God who looks down on all of this wrong and he brought us Michael Jackson to help to solve it.

Over seventy years ago a ship with a human cargo of one thousand Jews was turned away from the port of St. Louis back to Nazi Germany. The ship, which was already on the shores of the United States, was sent back and the people left to the fate of the dictator.

This happened in America, a country with the greatest democracy, the most generous of all new nations in modern history. It is happening again today, with the bombing and terrorizing of innocent children on foreign shores. Don’t let it happen, stand up for the things Michael stood for, to wipe out injustice, to combat disease and try and save the planet we live in.

What will the legacy of Michael Jackson? How will he be remembered by generations as yet unborn?

Let’s be grateful to God that he sent us such an angel to live amongst us for a while and let us not be indifferent to the wrongs we see around us. If Michael ever wanted us to do one thing that would make him happy as he looks down over us today it would be not to turn away from the victims of oppression and aggression and if in doubt about ever knowing what how to act, just think: “What would Michael do?”

—Dr. Patrick Treacy; June 22nd, 2011

MICHAEL JACKSON’S NAME ON DISPLAY AGAIN AT GARDNER SCHOOL AUDITORIUM
Elementary School’s Most Famous Alum Recognized for His Musical Legacy

October 15, 2010

Los Angeles — The silver, foot-high letters gleam once again, proclaiming The Michael Jackson Auditorium at Gardner Street Elementary School in Hollywood. It is the last public school attended by Jackson—then an 11-year-old sixth grader—who was the lead in a singing group with his brothers. Three months after school started, Motown released their debut album “Diana Ross Presents the Jackson 5.” And, the young entertainer was on his way to becoming an international star.

“It’s important for the District to value the artistic impact and humanitarian contribution that will be the lasting legacy of Michael Jackson,” said Los Angeles School Board member Steven Zimmer. “I’m happy that we will be recognizing and appreciating Michael’s LAUSD moment.”

The sign was originally unveiled at the then newly-refurbished auditorium in 1989. However, when the King of Pop was charged with child molestation, the sign was covered with layered board. For the record, the entertainer was never convicted. After his death last year fans began a campaign to have his name revealed.

At the direction of Los Angeles Unified School District Superintendent Ramon C. Cortines, the tribute was uncovered today.

“In recognition of Michael Jackson’s musical legacy and contribution to modern culture I have directed our maintenance and operations department to remove the layered board covering the tribute to Mr. Jackson at Gardner Street Elementary School in Hollywood,” said LAUSD Superintendent Ramon Cortines.

Los Angeles Unified School District Press Release

All photos © Hee Hee Shamone. Do not use without permission.

And a thank you letter from our host, Spike Lee:

Dear 40 Acres Family,

Yesterday 50,000 people strong, Asian, Latino, White and Black strong came to Nethermead Field-Prospect Park in The Republic of Brooklyn, New York to celebrate the 52nd birthday of Michael Joseph Jackson. It was a beautiful thing. People came from far and near to dance, sing and celebrate. The Mighty DJ Spinna was rockin’ the turntables all day long. We had a special performance by Spoken Word Artist Lemon, The Rev. Al Sharpton gave a moving Prayer for Michael and the lives that were lost from Hurricane Katrina and the breeching of The Levees. Ironically, yesterday not only was Michael’s birthday, but the 5th Anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. Later in the day the CROWD went BANANAS when SNOOP DOGG made a Surprise Guest Appearance and rocked it over MJ’s Butterflies then blessed us with GIN and JUICE and DROP IT LIKE IT’S HOT. I’m telling you people lost their minds. After that Warren G hit us with his Joint-REGULATE. We’re looking forward already for next year. I would like to end by thanking all the people at 40 Acres, SpikeDDB, Prospect Park, Parks Dept, NYPD, DJ SPINNA and all our great sponsors for their love and support to celebrate the life of Michael Joseph Jackson. And a special, special, special Thanks to our Volunteers who busted their Tails all day to make sure everybody had a great time.

Shamon,
Spike Lee

Michael Jackson: It’s Time For Outlets to Take Responsibility in Covering the Rock Star
By Charles Thomson
The Huffington Post, March 2, 2010

Last week Michael Jackson’s guitarist discredited widely reported allegations about the star’s behaviour on the road. So why is the media refusing to publish her comments? British writer Charles Thomson explores media bias against black music’s biggest star.

Aging glam-rocker Gene Simmons made international headlines last month when he claimed to know that Michael Jackson had molested children. In an interview with Classic Rock, Simmons alleged that Jackson was on tape ordering alcohol for children and that during the star’s 2005 trial a travel agent had testified to importing Brazilian boys for Jackson’s amusement. He also claimed that a musician friend had quit a Jackson tour after seeing ‘boys coming out of the hotel rooms.’

What followed was a classic example of copy and paste journalism. Within hours the story had been duplicated by hundreds of blogs, forums and news websites from Australia to India to the USA. None of them had fact-checked the story before they re-hosted it. Jackson was never on tape ordering alcohol for children. There was never any testimony during his trial about young Brazilian boys. Both of these claims were easily disproven by trial transcripts.

As a relative Jackson expert, I was also unaware of any musician ever leaving one of the singer’s tours midway through. So when I sat down a fortnight ago for an interview with Jackson’s long serving tour guitarist Jennifer Batten, I ran the story by her.

She told me that no musician had ever quit a Jackson tour. Two musicians had been fired but both were let go before the show hit the road, so they couldn’t possibly have witnessed anything going on inside hotels.

When Sawf News published Batten’s rebuttal I observed an all too familiar phenomenon. Although the story appeared on Google News and was picked up fairly swiftly by the Examiner, nobody else seemed willing to touch it. Whilst Simmons’s speculative and ultimately baseless accusations had been reproduced the world over, Batten’s expert rebuttal was being suppressed.

I soon began receiving emails from Jackson’s fans telling me that they were sending the story to every celebrity news outlet they could think of, including several of those which published Simmons’s initial allegations.

But more than 48 hours later, typing an exact quote from Simmons’s rant into a search engine produced almost 350 webpages. The number of news outlets hosting Batten’s rebuttal? Three.

This was not the first time I’d had a Jackson story suppressed. After Evan Chandler’s suicide in November 2009 I was contacted by the Sun and asked to supply information about the 1993 allegations. I spent quite some time compiling my research, advising the newspaper of common myths and how to avoid them, being careful to source all of my facts from legal documents and audio/visual evidence.

When I read the finished article I was stunned to find that all of my information had been discarded and replaced with the very myths I had advised them to avoid. I alerted staff to the inaccuracies but my emails were not replied. The same inaccuracies appeared in every single article I read about the suicide.

The same bias manifested itself the following month when Jackson’s FBI file was released. Across more than 300 pages of information there was not one piece of incriminating evidence—but that’s not the way the media told it.

A videotape seized at customs in West Palm Beach and analysed for child pornography was repeatedly referred to as belonging to Jackson. In actuality, files stated merely that the tape was ‘connected’ to Jackson and that connection appeared simply to be that somebody had written his name on the sticky label.

In another document the FBI logged a telephone call from a tipster claiming that the bureau had investigated Jackson during the 1980s for molesting two Mexican boys. The files made no other mention of the supposed investigation and the claim was ascribed no validity—the call was merely noted. But the media persistently referred to the anonymous tipster’s unsupported allegations as the FBI’s own conclusions.

Jackson’s FBI file overwhelmingly supported his innocence but its contents were routinely manipulated to give the opposite impression.

Many are quick to scoff when Jackson’s fans speak of a media conspiracy to destroy the star’s reputation and I used to scoff with them. As a member of the industry I prefer not to think of it as sinister and conspiratorial, but I find it increasingly difficult to explain away the bias with which Jackson is treated.

I wonder whether the problem is pride. When the 1993 allegations broke, the vast majority of information available was released, either officially or unofficially, by the prosecution. Jackson, meanwhile, remained characteristically silent.

Perhaps because the prosecution’s version of events went almost completely unchallenged (although I imagine that drama and selling newspapers had something to do with it, too), the media primarily chose to portray Jackson as guilty.

But as the facts started to trickle out it became increasingly apparent that the case was full of holes. The allegations had been instigated not by the boy but by his father, who had demanded a scriptwriting deal from Jackson before he went to the police. He was on tape plotting to destroy Jackson’s career and dismissing his son’s wellbeing as ‘irrelevant’. Then the boy told cops that Jackson was circumcised, but a police body search concluded that he was not.

Although Jackson’s innocence looked increasingly likely, most news outlets had made their bed and to this day they seem unwilling to do anything but lie in it.

Whatever the motivation, be it pride, profit or plain old racism, the bias against Jackson is undeniable. The suppression of Batten’s comments proves once more than when it comes to Jackson the media is interested not in fact or reason but negativity and sensationalism. Batten accompanied Jackson on all three of his world tours and was known for a decade as his ‘right hand woman’. But Simmons—who self-confessedly did not know Jackson—has been given over 100 times more media coverage for his inaccurate ranting than Batten has for her firsthand experience.

It is time for outlets to assume responsibility for their own content. Websites should not re-host other publishers’ stories unless they can be completely certain that the content is factual. Even if the media refuses to print the truth about Jackson, they should compromise by not printing the lies either. At least that way he can rest in peace.

Charles Thomson, The Huffington Post

From an interview with Wesley Snipes
Originally published at Collider.com
Jordan Tubiolo
March 2, 2010

Q: While we have you alone for a few moments, did you know that they are turning a Brooklyn subway station into a tribute to Michael Jackson for the “Bad” video?

WS: I heard about that, through the grapevine, yeah. That’s cool. That would be cool.

Q: What are your memories of shooting that video in the subway station?

WS: That was…yeah…the amazing thing was that I was only supposed to be on the film, or project, for about 3 days, and it turned out to be 3 and a half weeks, almost a month, really. And the thing I took from it most was watching Michael Jackson perform, at performance level, in his rehearsals. I said, “Wow, that’s the consummate artist right there.” And that’s the pinnacle of where I’d like to go, and the kind of skill I would like to have as an artist. That I can come in at my rehearsals and treat them like performances. I took that from him, and that’s what I’ve been trying to do consistently in my work.

Q: What do you think about Jay-Z commenting that “We Are The World” should have been left alone because an icon did it, and it should not have been recreated?

WS: Well, I understand the motivation behind it, but I don’t really have a critical comment about it. I am more critical about how Michael was treated, more than anything else. I think that he was an angel sent to us, and I think that we might have to reflect on how well we took care of him. People like to say, “Oh, people around him were bad and they didn’t do right by him.” But I think this is collective too. Because I don’t know the last time, and I can’t remember any other artist that attracted that much energy and projected that much power. That was that creative, and affected so many people, and was such a diplomat for America, and a champion for American culture, and African-American people worldwide. People wanted to move to America because of Michael Jackson. Industry changed, the music industry changed, because of Michael Jackson. That’s a gift to us, and, you know, I am concerned that the Good Lord may not send another one because we did not take good care of [Michael Jackson].

Michael Jackson Really is Gone
Originally published at EURweb
By Steven Ivory
February 23, 2010

When I was a kid, I used to do something that I occasionally do today: I’d cast my eyes on something—a table lamp, a hillside, a wristwatch, jar of food, a collection of clouds in the sky, an automobile—it could be anything, really—and just stare at it for several minutes.

If you gaze at something long enough, with minimal blinking and trance-like concentration, it begins to appear surreal, as if otherworldly.

That’s what happened the other day when my eyes fell upon a commemorative Michael Jackson magazine lying on the floor of my office with the cover line, MICHAEL JACKSON, 1958-2009. I stared at that line, trying, as the phrase goes, to wrap my brain around the concept. The more I stared at those words and dates, the more freakish they appeared.

Almost a year after his death, I wrestle with the reality that Michael Jackson is no longer here. There are days when I accept it. Other times, the idea of his death seems like a Twilight Zone episode I can’t escape.

Michael Jackson dead? Really? It still just doesn’t seem true.

It’s not like I can’t handle death. When I lost my mother suddenly at age fifteen, the pain and sense of loss seemed unbearable. But I also remember that as a child, when mama was alive and well, I’d ask myself, “What if mama ever died?”

It was one of those morbid, forbidden pubescent musings I’d privately dare consider, between wishing I owned an ice cream truck and imagining having the ability to fly. In retrospect, I believe thinking about mama’s death before it actually occurred in some way prepared me for the inconceivable. Because I’d thought about it, maybe her passing didn’t completely blindside my young emotions.

As late as a couple years ago, that kind of infrequent meditation of the unfathomable would prepare me for the unlikely death of Michael Jackson. Or so I thought. I used to wonder what it would be like if he went early—how he would go and what kind of reception the world would give his passing.

Ghoulishly, my friends and I would really go at it: if it ever happened, we asked, would Mike’s death and the public’s subsequent mourning outsize the world’s grief for, say, Elvis? Martin Luther King, Jr.? John Lennon? Lady Di?

It all depended, we concluded, on Michael’s impact and popularity as an entertainer at the time of his death vs. his assorted weirdness and damning court cases. Of course, now we know the truth—that for nearly a month after his death, Michael Jackson dominated the global media, if not the Earth’s collective consciousness.

Nevertheless, despite what he himself predicted would be a tragically early, sudden and clichéd death befitting cultural icons, I actually envisioned Michael Jackson living a long life. I imagined him existing in old age pretty much as he had in the years before his death, in relative seclusion.

I saw an elderly Michael publicly resembling his friend Elizabeth Taylor: proud, rickety and mostly good-natured, dressed up and made up, always looking, as his idol James Brown insisted a true star should, “like somebody people would pay money to see,” creating a paparazzi stir anytime he ventured out for something to eat or to shop.

So sure was I that Michael wasn’t going anywhere, I chose instead to contemplate what the ultimate passing of his mother would do to him. I know. I think too much. But just as his kids appeared to redefine the pop star’s life, I was sure losing his mother, whom he loved dearly, would have torn Michael to shreds. I wondered what kind of Michael would eventually emerge from such sorrow. Would he have been moved to create music again, or become even more reclusive?

The days I truly know Michael is gone are those that I tune into E.T. or TMZ or flip through a People magazine or glimpse an Enquirer cover and ask myself, “Who are these people?” Indeed, Michael’s departure left a raging lacuna in the strange and perverted culture of celebrity the size of the Milky Way. With one of most famous men of all time gone, even the biggest stars suddenly seem like B-listers.

Sure, toward the end of his life, before the “This Is It” rehearsals, we’d nearly become immune to the annual rumors of yet another comeback. Word that Michael was in the recording studio with any number of hit songwriters and producers certifiably unqualified for the task of directing Jackson, was downright depressing.

However, as long as he was alive, we could still engage in the nagging hope that he’d again do something great. Plus, it was entertaining to simply watch Michael be the magnitude of star he was. The last time I witnessed that phenomenon in person was last year at the lavish, invitation-only 50th birthday party of Ed Hardy designer Christian Audigier.

The ever audacious Audigier had taken over Los Angeles’ four-story Peterson Automotive Museum, transforming one floor into “Heaven,” and the floor below it into “Hell,” complete with clouds, scantily-clad roaming angels and devils, magicians, acrobats, two D.J.-powered dance floors, truckloads of gourmet cuisine and free-flowing alcohol. Fergie and Snoop Dogg performed short sets each, while the likes of Britney Spears looked on.

The whole thing resembled Fellini’s cinematic interpretation of a Salvador Dali painting, at the chaotic height of which I turned to a party guest and quipped sarcastically, “All that’s missing now is Michael Jackson.”

And as if on spooky cue, Audigier took the stage and announced to the drunken revelers, “Ladies and gentlemen, I’d now like to introduce you to my good friend, the King of Pop, Michael Jackson.”

A D.J. cranked up “Thriller,” and out from backstage, in a blue sequin shirt, black pants and shades, strolled none other than Jackson. Flanked by four beefy bodyguards in black, he casually walked the fashion runway stage out over the stunned audience, now going positively insane as they held up cell phones to visually capture the moment.

Jackson, who looked to be in a playful mood, glanced down into the mad crowd as if he wanted to risk shaking a couple of hands before briefly taking the mic with Audigier and declaring the giddy designer “King of Fashion.”

Jackson might have been there for all of 15 minutes. He didn’t sing, dance or initiate a single rhythmic gesture, knowing it could have caused a riot. Plus, that would have cost extra: according to an associate of the designer, for his brief appearance Audigier paid MJ $250,000.

If Jackson never did anything else with the rest of his life, I’d have been amused watching him create traffic jams.

Instead, I’m trying to gaze at MICHAEL JACKSON, 1958–2009 from an angle that makes sense.

Steven Ivory’s book, Fool In Love (Touchstone/Simon & Schuster) is available through Amazon. Respond to him at steverivory@aol.com.

→ Download the complete FBI files from FBI.gov ←

Michael Jackson: The Shocking Truth in the FBI Files
By Deborah Ffrench
Sawf News, January 13, 2010

The one question I hear no one asking in the press or blogland in general is why was Michael Jackson taking an extreme drug? What made a relatively fit man known for abstention from the early part of his career until the mid-1990s, end his days in a made-to-measure trauma room?

A star by the age of 10, catapulted into super-stardom after the success of his first two solo albums, his dominance in the music industry coincided with the multimedia explosion of the late 1980s. One of the first of the new breed of artists to fully explore the potential of synergistic promotion of product as a vehicle to reach new audiences, by 1991 Michael Jackson, the brand, had penetrated the consciousness of the entire developed and most of the undeveloped world.

With such unprecedented accessibility came also unprecedented pressure. Pressure to maintain and exceed his own standards, constant deconstruction by the press, and emotional isolation as the gilded chains of a life lived under the microscope bound ever tighter. There is no room here to list the enormous contribution he made to the lives of children all over the globe. His efforts are a matter of public record and the information regarding them is easily obtainable on the web.

Suffice it to say, Michael saw children not as “people-in-waiting”, but as bonafide, sentient personalities whose process and concerns were worthy of respect and protection. Using his fame and wealth to radically benefit the lives of such young people was something Michael believed to be his ultimate purpose here, and it is in this light that we can perhaps understand the catastrophic, internal damage the public cauterization that came from 1993 onwards must have done to him.

Something rotten has been decaying at the the heart of our media for some time now, but it took the death of one of its favorite page-fillers to expose the reality of what the cumulative effect of deliberate mental and emotional attack on a person actually looks like. It must surely now be apparent that the existing regulatory checks and balances within the media are totally inadequate—and further, that those monitoring capabilities are unable to prevent the now standard “take aim” and “destroy” default position the media now typically seems to operate from in relation to the subjects it “goes after”.

Michael’s early death was not a given. Only the most imperceptive would deny that the anesthetic that killed him was, in reality, just a formality. What killed Michael Jackson was the sustained agony of being put through a baseless, protracted trial in full view of the world’s lens—knowing if found guilty, he would be removed from his children’s lives. And even after his acquittal, facing relentless vilification by a media that chose to simply disregard a verdict they found economically inconvenient.

British journalist Charles Thomson’s clear analysis of the recently released FBI files [can be viewed at his blog]. Thomson’s point-by-point breakdown of the files reveals not only the inability of both the FBI and the LAPD to provide any evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Jackson in an investigation that spanned over a decade, but also the continuing inference by the media of exactly the opposite of this.

It is important to note that there is a profound difference between the FBI stating that X and Y were alleged, and the FBI saying they investigated X and Y—and found X and Y to be proven. Thomson’s review of the files is thus required reading for any who wish to separate the facts from the soundbites which have largely dominated the media reporting on them.

Because the truth is, after the most thorough investigation the American taxpayer’s money could buy, one of the world’s foremost intelligence gathering agencies and the LAPD came up with precisely—nothing. Instead we were served a collage of cut-out articles from a UK tabloid, the dubious recollections of an unverifiable woman on a train, and two ex-employees who only came forward after the 1993 allegations broke and who, coincidentally, were also hawking a tell-all book to anyone who would listen.

Long before Dr. Murray ever wrote his first “feel-good’ prescription, a lie of epic proportions would set in motion a cataclysmic series of events that would bring Michael to the state of profound depletion we saw in 2005. Evan Chandler, a known brutalist, and Janet Arviso, a proven welfare cheat and compensation-chaser, manipulated the American criminal system and a willing media to bury Michael under the worst label society has determined exists. No proof was required, the suggestion was enough. And the world watched on the edge of their seats, as the obvious perjury of the witnesses was overlooked in the stampede to crucify a man previously so celebrated.

The inevitably, frenzied media coverage of Dr Murray’s impending trial which will replay the details of Michael’s dying moments for months to come, has now already begun its crescendo. It is more than a little disturbing to observe how quickly those same people who actively colluded in the degradation and erosion of Michael’s spirit and dignity for over 15 years, have regrouped to focus on Dr. Murray as the “fall guy” for the part he may have played in Jackson’s death. Murray’s culpability cannot be denied, but he was far from alone in his opportunism.

Where were the voices now wailing about “wasted resources” and the “rights” of taxpayers when Tom Sneddon authorized the use of millions of dollars of federal money to pursue Michael in his deeply personal and blinkered “takedown” of the, then-biggest pop star on the planet?

Michael Jackson didn’t bankrupt the City of Angels; they fell all by themselves. For a country that can shine so bright when it chooses to, what America did to this man stands as one of the most shameful examples of engineered cruelty and unmitigated persecution to be witnessed in modern times.

Originally published at Sawf News

→ Download the complete FBI files from FBI.gov ←

FBI Files Support Jackson’s Innocence; Media Reports Otherwise
By Charles Thomson
January 2, 2010

I should begin by saying that the release of Michael Jackson’s FBI file was not motivated by any desire to damage his legacy or smear his name. Many of Jackson’s fans are understandably distrustful of the establishment which repeatedly pursued the star on trumped up charges, but the release of Jackson’s FBI file is no conspiracy. Jackson’s file was requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and I was one of those who requested it.

The FOIA allows members of the public to request classified or unattainable information held by any public body. The act is designed to uphold democracy by allowing citizens to scrutinize anything from local government budget reports to dossiers on UFO sightings. Requests can only be turned down for a handful of reasons, including privacy issues and national security.

When I requested Michael Jackson’s FBI file, I wasn’t even sure he had one. If he did, I had no idea what I would find in it. In Sammy Davis Jr’s I found nothing but countless investigations into death threats sent to the singer. In James Brown’s, however, I found an explosive re-telling of his infamous 1988 “car chase”, which showed the authorities in a very poor light and contained numerous accusations of police brutality.

The FBI released roughly 300 pages on Jackson, constituting less than half of his overall file. The reason behind the withholding of the other half is yet to be made public, but it most likely consists of information on Jackson’s dealings with still living figures of interest to the bureau—civil rights activists like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and the various Middle Eastern businessmen and royals Michael Jackson befriended.

The released half of Jackson’s FBI file supports the star’s innocence entirely. Perhaps most notably, a lengthy report shows that when Jackson’s Neverland Ranch was raided in 2003, the FBI went over every computer seized from the property with a fine tooth comb looking for any incriminating files or internet activity. Jackson’s file contained individual summaries of the FBI’s findings for each of the 16 computers. Scrawled in capital letters across each of those 16 reports— “NOTHING”.

But not many media outlets included that nugget. In fact, numerous outlets—including the Daily Mail—inaccurately reported that the file did not include the bureau’s findings.

On a more general level, the files reveal that it was not only the Los Angeles Police force which pursued Jackson for more than a decade and failed to produce one iota of information to connect the star to any crime—it was the FBI too. That Jackson’s life was dissected and his behavior was investigated for more than 10 years by two major law enforcement agencies and not one piece of evidence was ever produced to indicate his guilt speaks volumes.

On the whole, the media didn’t quite tell it that way, though.

The FBI file included numerous allegations reported to the bureau which, of course, the media at large bogusly reported as the bureau’s own findings. So here is a breakdown of what the media told you existed in Jackson’s FBI file, and what the file actually contained.

MYTH: Michael Jackson was investigated for possession of child pornography.

FACT: The FBI file includes analysis conducted on a videotape “connected to Jackson” in order to ascertain whether or not it included child pornography. Some media outlets erroneously claimed that the tape had been seized from Neverland. In fact, the tape was seized by customs at West Palm Bach and there is no indication that it ever belonged to Jackson. The file states only that the tape was “connected with Jackson” and the connection appears solely to be that the program recorded onto the cassette had Jackson’s name in the title.

The FBI file does not contain any indication that the tape included child pornography at all and certainly does not contain any indication that the tape was ever in the possession of Michael Jackson.

But that’s not a particularly media-friendly story; a videotape that didn’t belong to Michael Jackson was analyzed and didn’t have child porn on it. So the media told their own story instead, working on the assumption that nobody would read the files to verify the facts for themselves.

MYTH: The FBI file reveals that Jackson was investigated in 1985 for molesting two Mexican boys.

FACT: An FBI officer recorded an allegation that the bureau had previously investigated Jackson in 1985 for the molestation of two Mexican boys. This allegation was made by an unnamed writer who said the story had been told to him during research for a book. However, the FBI files contain no information whatsoever about any 1985 investigation into Michael Jackson.

Countless media outlets reported this story as the FBI’s own finding when in fact it was merely a baseless allegation made to the bureau by an anonymous source. The FBI found no merit to the allegation:

…but the majority of media outlets failed to mention this important fact. A simple oversight, I’m sure…

MYTH: The FBI found a couple in the Philippines who witnessed acts of molestation at Neverland.

FACT: This couple—Mark and Faye Quindoy—had worked at Jackson’s Neverland Ranch between 1989 and 1991, but left in a dispute over pay. Between 1991 and 1993 neither ever made any complaint that Jackson behaved inappropriately around any child. However, after the 1993 allegations broke, the Quindoys began selling interviews about Jackson’s alleged improper behavior.

The pair’s claims were suspect from the outset. They had left Neverland in 1991 in a pay dispute but were now telling tabloids that the reason behind their departure was that they were appalled by Jackson’s behavior around children—a provable fiction. Besides, if they had been so shocked and appalled by Jackson’s behavior, why had they not contacted the authorities?

Mark Quindoy’s story changed repeatedly; the more money he was paid for his story, the more appalling the alleged molestation became. The prosecutors in the 1993 Jackson case sent two officers to Manila to interview the couple, but the officers concluded that “their testimony was worthless and the credibility of their claims was highly questionable”.

MYTH: The FBI found that Jackson had engaged in phone sex with a British boy.

FACT: This story comes courtesy of The Sun.

The FBI file briefly references a newspaper story in which a man called Terry George claimed that Jackson, aged 19, had engaged in phone sex with him when he was just 13.

The Sun was rather proud that this story was referenced in the FBI file because it was the Sun which published it in the first place. As such, the newspaper was quick to toot its own horn with an “FBI investigates Jackson over Sun‘s investigation” type fanfare.

In fact, the FBI did not investigate the claim and to date no evidence has been produced to support Terry George’s story.

In its story about the FBI file, the Sun repeatedly referred to the phone call between Jackson and Terry George as a matter of fact, even though no evidence has ever been produced to prove that the conversation ever took place.

George is a man of dubious character to say the least, currently owning a string of smutty phone sex companies. His story doesn’t seem to add up, either. Despite Jackson’s supposed inappropriate behavior, George’s website carries a photograph of himself with the star more than five years after the phone call allegedly happened. The two still look like firm friends.

In subsequent interviews George has described how he lost touch with Jackson and resorted to behavior which could be described as stalking—calling the Jackson all the time, hanging around outside his hotels, trying to bluff his way past Jackson’s security. More than anything, George’s interview with the Sun seemed like an act of jealous revenge by an embittered former acquaintance. Either way, the FBI found no merit to George’s claim.

Originally published at CharlesThomson.blogspot.com

Visit Spike Lee at 40acres.com.