The defenders’ case

Square One, a 2019 documentary by Danny Wu, argues that the 1993 allegation began as a money dispute. It relies on the recorded phone call in which Evan Chandler talked about destroying Jackson, on the demand for a film deal that preceded the allegation, and on reports that the boy was given a sedative during a dental procedure shortly before he first made the allegation. [1]

Those facts are real and are part of the defense case. The prosecutors who closed the case in 1994 did not accept the extortion theory and said they found the boy credible. [2] Jackson said he was innocent and the victim of a shakedown. [3][4]

The film is an argument, made by a supporter, and it presents the defense side the way Leaving Neverland presents the accusers’. Both are worth watching; neither replaces the other.

The estate’s position has been the same since 2019: every accuser is lying, every one wants money, and Jackson can no longer defend himself. It calls Leaving Neverland a one-sided film and points out that both men filed lawsuits seeking large sums before they made the documentary. [1]

The defenders’ strongest documented points are Robson’s 2005 testimony that nothing happened [2], the station timeline in Safechuck’s account [3], the jury’s acquittal in 2005 [4], and the many people who spent time with Jackson as children and say nothing happened to them. In the Cascio case the estate also accuses the family of trying to extort it. [5]

The weakest part of the defense is its claim to certainty. That accusers wanted money does not prove they were lying; people who were abused also sue. A changed account can be a lie or a delayed disclosure. The estate’s case is a strong argument that the allegations are unproven. It is not proof that they are false.