Redding Declined to Air Jackson Accuser

By Staff

NEW YORK, June 8, 2026, 12 a.m. — Talk show host and journalist Rob Redding today says Netflix’s “Michael Jackson: The Verdict” misrepresents the silence of Gavin Arvizo, the man who accused Michael Jackson of molesting him, and he is releasing a column detailing his own interactions with Arvizo.

Redding writes in the column that the documentary treats Arvizo’s silence as a mystery, but he says it is not mysterious to him because the two worked together and he saw firsthand how Arvizo handled questions about the case.

“Netflix’s ‘Michael Jackson: The Verdict’ keeps circling this odd silence from Gavin Arvizo,” Redding writes. “The new documentary tries to paint his silence as some big mystery, but it is not mysterious to me because I actually know Arvizo.”

Redding writes that he met Arvizo on March 10, 2013, at an Olive Garden in Fayetteville, Georgia, after recognizing him when Arvizo walked him to his table.

“I never forget a face, and the minute he walked me to my table I knew I had seen him before,” he writes. “He seemed tense when I said he looked familiar, and a few minutes later he came back and told me who he was.”

Redding writes that Arvizo later came to work at his company as an intern and signed a nondisclosure agreement as part of the onboarding process.

“I still have emails, the nondisclosure agreement he signed, and the résumé he submitted when he joined my company, and both documents confirm exactly what I am saying here,” he writes.

Redding writes that when he asked Arvizo directly whether he still stood by the allegations against Jackson, Arvizo said he did. Redding writes that he did not believe him then and believes him even less now after watching the documentary.

“He told me he did, but I did not buy it then and I believe him even less now after everything Netflix left out,” he writes.

Redding writes that he asked Arvizo whether he would be willing to discuss the allegations publicly if he were to host a talk show, and Arvizo refused.

“He refused without hesitation,” Redding writes.

Redding writes that his view of Arvizo’s silence comes from decades in talk radio, where he says audiences expect hosts to address defining events in their lives.

“I know the talk radio game inside and out and you cannot dodge the thing that defines you because callers will dissect your past and demand answers,” he writes. “If you tell them something is off limits, they will know you are hiding, and once the audience senses that, the trust is gone.”

Redding writes that other controversial figures who became talk show hosts, including Oliver North and G. Gordon Liddy, addressed their scandals openly.

“Look at Oliver North following the Iran-Contra and all the controversy surrounding it,” he writes. “He still faced the subject head on.”

“G. Gordon Liddy is an even stronger example,” he writes. “He talked openly about Watergate, prison, the break-in, and the Nixon era.”

Redding writes that if those figures could address their controversies, Arvizo could have addressed his.

“If Oliver North could talk about Iran-Contra, and if G. Gordon Liddy could talk about Watergate, then Arvizo could have talked about Michael Jackson,” he writes.

Redding writes that Arvizo later told him he was getting married and then stopped communicating. He writes that Arvizo is not under any legal restriction preventing him from speaking.

“Arvizo is not under a gag order, and he is not being silenced by anyone,” he writes. “He told me himself that he ignores the journalists who reach out to him.”

Redding writes that Arvizo’s silence raises questions about the strength of his claims and that he ultimately declined to put Arvizo on air because he would not address the allegations.

“If Jackson did what they say he did, why stay quiet now,” he writes. “I could not put a guy on air who would not even talk about the one thing that shaped his public life.”