UNITED KINGDOM — Channel 4’s Michael Jackson: The Trial is a four-part documentary examining the 2005 criminal case that ended in acquittal on all 14 counts. It promises “startling new revelations and unseen material.” Channel 4 learned from Leaving Neverland’s backlash over wall-to-wall accusers with zero defence. The solution? Include just enough defence testimony to claim “balance” whilst structurally ensuring it can never land with any weight. Episode one attempts to pull in Jackson supporters by revealing footage Jackson’s team recorded during the Martin Bashir interviews.

 The “take two” material shows Bashir being warm and reassuring to Jackson’s face — praising his parenting, calling his bond with children beautiful — whilst the broadcast version painted him as a predator. Jackson supporters have spent two decades pointing to this footage as proof that Bashir stitched him up. Channel 4 finally acknowledges it. Clever tactical play: give Jackson’s defenders something they’ve been screaming about for years, make them think Channel 4’s actually going to be fair this time. Then spend the next three episodes burying them.

RELATED: Keeper of the Vault: Remembering Michael Jackson’s ‘Dangerous’ Collaborator Bryan Loren

Rehashing Familiar Narratives Without New Insight

Photo: Shutterstock

The documentary’s neutrality is performance. The balance is theatre. What looks like even-handed inquiry is a weighted scale where defence testimony becomes background noise against the prosecution’s overwhelming emotional assault. The documentary is guilty of precisely what it accuses Jackson’s defenders of: cherry-picking witnesses and testimony to support a predetermined conclusion. Worse, it’s not rigorous enough to reveal their true character. Adrian McManus was Jackson’s former maid who testified for the prosecution. The documentary presents her as a credible witness to Jackson’s allegedly inappropriate behaviour. What it doesn’t mention: she and her husband defrauded her own nephew and niece — children — by stealing over £30,500 from their estate.

Vincent Amen actually worked for Frank Cascio for a month. His testimony about discovering “naturist magazines” gets presented as damning when it was only of legal-age women, and he’s made numerous contradictory claims. What doesn’t appear: Amen is married to Rina Oh, who appeared in Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich and has been identified by other survivors as one of Epstein’s recruiters — claims she vehemently denies.

The Absence of Historical and Legal Balance

The documentary seemingly gives Jackson a voice through the Rabbi Shmuley tapes. Bollocks. These were spiritual counselling sessions recorded during a vulnerable period, then carved up to make normal statements sound sinister. When Jackson says children want to touch and hug him, that’s observable reality for any major celebrity. Channel 4 frames it as a confession. The tapes don’t provide balance and are carefully positioned so that by the time you hear Jackson speak, you’ve already decided he’s guilty. The documentary presents Gavin Arvizo’s police interviews as evidence of a traumatised child bravely recounting abuse. Ray Hultman, the one juror who initially voted guilty before switching to not guilty, found Gavin compelling in these recordings (it also should be noted that Hultman was also seeking a book deal around this same time frame).

What Channel 4 created is information asymmetry so vast that even mentioning the defence feels like special pleading. Guardian, Telegraph, and Times reviews all use identical prosecutorial language — “alarming,” “disturbing,” “revulsed.” None mention the fraud. None mention the tampering. None mention witnesses convicted of stealing from children. In the final episode, Jackson’s former employee and defender, Christian Robinson, asks the person interviewing him: “Do you think he’s innocent, after everything you’ve seen?” But what you’ve “seen” has been curated to maximise suspicion whilst systematically excluding evidence that explains the not guilty verdict.

Jackson was acquitted on all 14 counts. The jury heard everything Channel 4 presents, with all the context they strip away. Janet Arvizo’s fraud convictions. Adrian McManus stealing from children. The timeline contradictions. All were subjected to rigorous cross-examination. They found Jackson not guilty on every single charge. Channel 4 wants you to believe twelve jurors missed what their producers spotted in an edit suite. The alternative — that the documentary systematically omits exculpatory evidence to manufacture a guilty narrative that couldn’t survive in court — is too uncomfortable. Easier to treat the acquittal as a justice failure than examine whether the accusations were exactly what the defence said: a grift by a family with documented fraud patterns, coached testimony that contradicted itself, and financial motives.

The Difference Between Investigation and Sensationalism

The documentary’s assault works through volume rather than accuracy. It overwhelms rather than informs. What you’re left with isn’t an evidence-based documentary but emotional manipulation disguised as an investigation, and it only succeeds if you don’t know what Channel 4 omitted. This is why court transcripts matter. This is why documenting fraud patterns matters. Channel 4 needs to understand: Leaving Neverland was lightning in a bottle. It landed in 2019 when #MeToo momentum made “believe all victims” an unchallengeable doctrine, and questioning anything got you labelled complicit. That cultural window slammed shut. The public’s now watching actual living predators walk around without a care in the world. 

Final Verdict: A Missed Opportunity for Nuance

The timing of this documentary — two months before Antoine Fuqua’s biopic threatens a more nuanced portrait — reeks of pre-emptive damage control, rushed out to poison the well before audiences see Jackson as anything other than the monster Channel 4 needs him to be.

They’ve chosen to spend resources constructing elaborate hit-pieces on someone who can’t defend himself and who twelve jurors already cleared. Meanwhile, the Epstein client list exists. Genuine victims — without mountains of timeline contradictions, fraud convictions, and financial incentives — are still fighting for accountability. Living predators are still operating. But sure, Channel 4. Another documentary about Michael Jackson. That’ll show everyone you’re serious about holding the powerful accountable.

Final Rating: 1 out of 5 Stars

Four hours of prosecutorial bias disguised as balanced investigation. The jury heard what Channel 4 omitted.

Author Bio

As a freelance journalist, Ryan Smith’s work is driven by a commitment to restoring what has long been absent from institutions meant to uphold truth and accountability: honesty and transparency.

Photo: Shutterstock

Alongside his analysis works on the life, career, trials and tribulations of Michael Jackson, whose unfair treatment over the years paved the way for the path he is on, Smith also dissects and examines popular culture, such as books, movies and video games, always aiming to shed light on what’s beneath the surface.