Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!
Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
Open Community
Post to this Blog
« June 2005 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Announcements
Breaking News
Direct Testimonies
Main News
Mishandled
MJ's Side Segments
Open Letters
Prosecutor Press Release
Truth Or Fiction
Advertizements
Parr's Corner
You are not logged in. Log in
The Michael Jackson Followers News
Fri, Jun 17 2005
Jackson Detective "Scott Ross" Interviewed
Mood:  happy
Topic: Main News
Michael Jackson may very well be a free man today thanks to Scott Ross, a private investigator who many believe found information that led Jackson to beat the charges of molestation.

"My focus was very specific," Ross said. "It was to develop information on the accuser's mother."

And after Ross put the accuser's mother in his cross hairs, he found that, "Lying, cheating and stealing seemed to be a way of life for her."

Ross has a history turning the tables in high-profile cases. He was the guy who exposed the sordid past of Bonnie Lee Bakley in the Robert Blake case. Attorney Tom Mesereau had a blunt directive for Ross. "He said, 'You need to do to the accuser's mother what you did to Bonnie Lee Bakley,'" Ross revealed.

And to do that, Ross needed his own Deep Throat. But unlike Watergate, we don't have to wait years to learn his identify. "The accuser's father was fully aware of and knew that these allegations were not true," Ross said.

The father turned Ross on to celebrities like Chris Tucker. Ross got the reluctant actor to spill the beans. "Mr. Tucker, of all witnesses, was the first person to say to me, 'I don't really care that it's Michael Jackson. This is wrong. Someone is being falsely accused.'" Ross said.

Ross also became privy to other witnesses like Jay Leno. As it turns out, the defense had no idea Leno was even involved until the prosecution handed over an audio tape of an interview with Leno that sheriffs had secretly recorded.

"These people had to turn over the material to us, and that's how Jay Leno became a witness." Ross told us.

Actor Macaulay Culkin proved to be even better for Jackson. And Ross said that contrary to media reports, Culkin was an easy witness. "Macaulay Culkin was never not going to testify," Ross insisted. "It was never an issue."

But some witnesses weren't always available, like comedy shop owner Jamie Masada. So Ross showed up at Masada's press conference, cleverly blended in with the press corps, even asking questions, and then slapped him with a subpoena.

When the trial got underway, Ross was in a unique position to observe Michael Jackson. He said the King of Pop became the king of Post-It notes. "He would grab Post-Its, write something down, "Ross revealed. "I don't know if he's writing a song or thinking about music or putting himself in another place."

And as for those who consider Michael Jackson a "freak", Ross says they've got it all wrong. "I've been involved in hundreds of cases," Ross said. "He is one of three people who have thanked me. He doesn't sound like freak to me; he sounds like descent human being."

Source: Celebrity Justice

Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 7:44 PM JST
Updated: Fri, Jun 17 2005 7:53 PM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Jackson ?wants his stuff ? returned
Mood:  surprised
Topic: Main News
Lawyers ask court to return items seized in 2003 raid

Reuters
Updated: 7:49 p.m. ET June 16, 2005

SANTA MARIA, Calif. - Three days before they acquitted Michael Jackson, jurors asked to hear all testimony from the boy who accused the pop star of molestation, newly released documents showed Thursday.

A handwritten note from the jury foreman and Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville?s response that the request would be granted was one of six notes released at the request of the media.

On the day they returned their verdicts, jurors were briefly deadlocked on two lesser charges that accused Jackson of furnishing alcohol to a minor, the documents also showed.
?We cannot agree on the lesser counts of seven and eight,? said the note which was quickly superseded by another note saying, ?Please disregard our prior request with counts 7 and 8.?

A short time later, jurors acquitted Jackson of all 10 charges. The judge, who placed a tight lid of secrecy on evidence in the trial, said at a hearing earlier in the day that he intends to release virtually every sealed document and also ordered that authorities return the pop star?s passport.

Melville, who said he accomplished his goal of providing a fair trial to both sides, was still considering a request to release videos shown during the trial. He delayed the release of many items to give attorneys time to object to unsealing specific documents. He told lawyers to submit any requests to keep matters sealed by June 23. ?I have no intention to keep anything sealed except something that might involve privacy matters of a juror,? Melville said.

On Monday, Jackson, 46, was acquitted on all charges that alleged he molested a 13-year-old cancer survivor in 2003, plied the boy with wine and conspired to hold him and his family captive to get them to make a video rebutting a damaging television documentary.

Jackson, who surrendered his passport after his arrest in 2003, has not appeared in public since the verdict. His brother Jermaine said Wednesday on CNN that he was resting, and, on the issue of whether he might move away, said that ?we?ve always had a love for places outside the U.S.?

Material that was sealed included search warrants, sections of motions that were blacked out, questions asked by the jury during deliberations and transcripts of hearings in the judge?s chambers. Melville said the material was so voluminous it probably cannot be released for about a month.

The judge initially refused to allow the electronic media to copy videos shown during the trial after Jackson defense attorney Robert Sanger argued there was no legal right for the media to be allowed to sell evidence in the case by broadcasting it worldwide. Sanger said that the videos included pictures of Jackson?s home, which he said have privacy interests.

?There?s no right to sell those around the world. This is not a public-interest issue,? he said. Media lawyer Theodore Boutrous Jr. argued that certain videos, primarily the so-called rebuttal video, had been a focus of the trial and ?we think there?s a public interest in that.? Boutrous said the judge should release those videos that were central to the case.

The judge acknowledged that he had clashed with the media over First Amendment issues before and during the trial.

?The issues are very important issues,? Melville said. ?I had issues to protect, things that needed to be done to create a fair trial for both parties.?

On another issue, the judge agreed to return Jackson family memorabilia that had been seized from a New Jersey man who bought the items at an auction of a commercial storage locker?s contents. None of the items were used as evidence in the Jackson case.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
? 2005 MSNBC.com
URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8246356/


Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 7:29 PM JST
Updated: Fri, Jun 17 2005 8:10 PM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
CNN LARRY KING LIVE- Interview with Jermaime Jackson
Mood:  happy
Topic: Main News
Aired June 15, 2005 - 21:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


LARRY KING, HOST "LARRY KING LIVE": Tonight, exclusive, Michael Jackson's brother Jermaine Jackson, his first sit-down interview since Michael was found not guilty of child molestation. He's here for the hour. We'll take your calls -- exclusive -- Jermaine Jackson, next, on LARRY KING LIVE.
Just a quick program reminder. Tomorrow night, Reverend Billy Graham, doing his last crusade in New York. Billy Graham will be our special guest tomorrow night.

Joining us now from his home in Encino, California, is Jermaine Jackson. He was with us on the phone right after the verdict. He's now with us live from his house on screen. We'll be taking your calls.

Jermaine, first, what is the latest update on Michael? How's he doing? What did he do today?

JERMAINE JACKSON, MICHAEL'S BROTHER: Michael's recovering. Michael's recovering, but it's a time for rejoice for the family, and we're very, very happy. As you can see, I'm smiling, and we always knew he was 1,000 percent innocent.

KING: Is he at Neverland? Or -- there were reports that he was spending time in a hotel.

JACKSON: I can't tell you. I can't tell you that, Larry, but he's at peace and we're very happy.

KING: Any reason that the location to secret?

JACKSON: Well, he just -- look what they put him through for so long and it's time for him to just get back into himself and just let the light come into him, and the peace. That's what this moment is all about. It's time to rejoice.

KING: How is his health?

JACKSON: Well, his health, he's been sort of not eating. But he's strong. Michael's very -- he's probably one of the strongest people I know, because to see him each day, and to sit there and hear these things said about you and to just -- can't say anything, because people just attacking you, and at the same time, just -- the media, and the outpour of just misinformation and things like that. I mean -- but he's strong. He got dressed every morning. He came to court. He was there and he was there for the verdict. So, I give him -- he's a strong, strong person. KING: Jermaine, you say he -- you said he was not eating much during the trial. Is he at least getting fed well now?

JACKSON: Well, he was eating sandwiches and things like that, but it's just very tough. It's just a tough time, and any human being, to go through that and to come out the way he did, they're very strong.

KING: But he's eating now?

JACKSON: Yes, he's eating.

KING: He did a -- there's a brief statement on his website. Naturally, people want to hear more. Do you expect Michael to do a major interview somewhere and to come out and do a press? What do you expect from him publicly?

JACKSON: I really don't know yet. I mean, the family is meeting. We're coming together and sort of just -- sort of trying to get all of this behind us, to move forward. And Michael has just been unbelievably strong through this whole ordeal, but he's -- I'm pretty sure he's just looking to rest. That's his most important -- to rest and get his mind back and just focus on just being a person. Nothing about doing this or doing that, but just resting. That's most important.

KING: You think he's wary of media now, a little wary of any kind of interviews after the Bashir thing? Do you think he'll hesitate to do anything? His lawyer last night appeared with us for an hour, and Tom said he'd recommend that he lay low for a while.

JACKSON: I recommend that, too, and that's what he's feeling as well but it's just very, very sad that the media and just certain people have hidden agendas. I mean, as you know, Larry, we've been beat up, we've been beat down, but still we stand, and we've stayed strong and it's because of the family unity that kept us strong through all of the adversities (ph) and the false accusations, and -- to accuse someone of something like this is just horrendous.

But at the same time, he has family and he has the love of his family and what kept him strong, and god, which is first, and the supporters from around the world. I always said, my brother is a 1,000 percent innocent.

KING: Do you -- Mesereau said it last night -- do you think that a lot of people in the media were unfair, were ganging up on Michael, convicted him before the trial started?

JACKSON: Absolutely. But even before the trial started, Larry, when you look at how many times, how many warrants they went into his property, how it was done, the bail, and just -- to take his passport, like he's a fugitive, like he's going to run. I mean, to treat a person like this, especially Michael Jackson, who's just the most wonderful person.

I mean, it saddens me deeply because it's 2005, but yet we haven't gone anywhere. I mean I call this, as you know, a modern-day lynching. And it was -- I really meant that, because people, they all just jumped on him.

And I have, an 18-page thing of this ongoing charities and things he's done around the world in every corner of the globe, helping people, giving, giving so much. The world needs to see this. They need to know who he really is. When you look at the song "Childhood," and you listen to that song, you listen to what he's saying. We're not ready. We have so far to go, and we're in the year 2005. That's what saddens me, because we should be proud. America should be proud to have someone like a Michael Jackson.

KING: But yet, you'll agree, Jermaine, it was difficult for people for people to comprehend...

JACKSON: Excuse me?

KING: ...a grown men who has boys who sleep in his bed, right? I mean, that's -- it's just unusual to understand that.

JACKSON: Larry, let me stop you right there. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Larry, let me stop you right there. Michael does not sleep in the bed with children. Also, Michael's quarters, at his ranch, is the size of a 2,000 or more square foot condo, OK? And at same time, Michael does not sleep in the bed with children.

So, that was the misunderstanding that everywhere put out there. And the fact he love and care about children so much -- listen to the song "Childhood" and you'll find out who Michael Jackson is, and he's been trying to tell the world this since day -- they don't want to hear that, OK? And it's really crazy, that even the prosecution and even the authorities, and I say the authorities up in Santa Maria would just jump on him and not even care if their witnesses or their accusers were credible. It's a shame...

KING: Well, Tom Mesereau said last night that he might recommend a case, a suit on your part, of malicious prosecution. Do you think the prosecutors didn't think they had a case? You think they were just obsessed with your brother?

JACKSON: They were obsessed because Tom Sneddon had a personal vendetta. He spent the taxpayers' money up there, which they should really do an investigation on him and the whole organization up there.

I'll say it again. This is what I feel. It should be a thorough evaluation of people who are in authority, because people to have a personal vendetta against anyone and especially someone of status, and then put it before the press and the press jumps on it and they blow it up all out of proportion, is that fair? I mean, is this constitutional? Is this the time and age that we're living in?

I will say this, though -- the jurors and whole Santa Maria County has been wonderful, because this is what makes a smile. This is what make us smile.

KING: Let me get a break and we'll come back and we'll be taking calls for Jermaine...

JACKSON: No one believes this. No one believed that.

KING: Hold it, Jermaine. We've gotta take a break. We'll take calls for Jermaine Jackson. He mentioned the song. As we go to break, here is Michael Jackson's "Childhood."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back with Jermaine Jackson. We'll be taking your calls in a while.

Let's -- I want to cover some areas that have being reported. Jermaine, there are reports that Michael may take part in Bob Geldof's Live 8 concert series. A British press is claiming he is keen to participate. It's planned to happen in advance of the G-8 summit out July 6. Do you know anything about that.

J. JACKSON: No, I don't. No, I don't.

KING: Speculation he might leave the United States? He doesn't feel comfortable here anymore.

J. JACKSON: Well, we've always had a love for other places outside the U.S. -- I don't know. But I do know that he needs to go and get some rest somewhere.

KING: You think he might want to leave the -- I mean, change residence?

J. JACKSON: I would. Yes, I'm pretty sure.

I mean Michael's an American. He's born African-American. He's born here. He's done so much for the world. So much for people. So much for America. And I say it again, we should be proud, the U.S. should be proud that he's been just a positive representation from America, for the world. And instead, they're the ones who's trying to put him under.

KING: So you wouldn't be surprised if he lives somewhere else?

J. JACKSON: I would be right with him, yes. I wouldn't be surprised.

KING: "The Hollywood Reporter" says that your family is pushing a reality television series. Any truth to that?

J. JACKSON: The family's pushing what?

KING: A reality television years.

J. JACKSON: I've have never heard anything like that, Larry. That's a surprise to me. That's something new.

KING: Do you hear a lot of strange reports? J. JACKSON: A lot goes on. And what's sad about it, when it gets to the media, they report and they inject their opinions instead of reporting the truth. It's just people talk. And then rumors spread that are not true. And things evolve into just a lot of horrendous lies. Lies, lies, lies.

KING: We spoke to your mom earlier, how is she doing? How's your mother doing?

J. JACKSON: Larry, I can't hear you, if you're talking.

KING: How's your mother doing?

J. JACKSON: My mother's doing wonderful. We are very, very happy. It's been a tremendous load off of her and the whole entire family. Like I said, we're rejoicing now. And she's been wonderful.

Because she's been in the courthouse everyday with her son. And she would have done it for any one of us. Because she knew in her heart she was a thousand percent innocent.

And at the same time, she was there. She's a mother who care for her child. And my father was there. And we were only allowed six seat, Larry. That's why we couldn't come in there, because we're a family of 11. And that's strength. That's unity. And the judge did not allow us us all to be in that courtroom at the same time. But we were there. So we took turns. And we all just sort of changed it up at times.

KING: Now, Tito happened to be in the courtroom. You were in the courthouse, but not in the courtroom. How did you hear the verdict? What was your first reaction?

J. JACKSON: OK, what had happened was, Janet and I went upstairs. And we were sort of pacing the floor. And we were just -- so we went -- so they put us in a room. A private room. And I hear all this -- I heard all of this screaming and fans cheering and screaming. So I walked over to the window. And I looked out of the window. And every time there was a scream, there was a dove released. I guess, they were releasing a dove for each count. And then I went back into the room, and all of a sudden, somebody ran upstairs and said, he was innocent on all ten counts. And we just screamed and jumped up.

It was just the most wonderful moment. God is real. We thank everyone around the world, especially the black community who has been there since day one. His fans who come from all around the world. And it's the positive energy and the prayers.

Michael's done a lot of good, Larry. A lot of good. And I wish the world could see, he's the No. 1 charitable supporter from any celebrity. It's in the world's Guinness Book Records. And people need to know this.

KING: Are you surprised then that Gallup --CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll says 48 percent of the people disagreed with the verdict, 27 percent were pleased. Is that one of the reasons you are thinking about living somewhere else?

J. LACKSON: Listen, listen. Larry, listen. This is my point. The media bashed my family and Michael all during this trial. They bashed him. They talked about him, even other legal people. And at the same time, they say, OK, let's go to the polls. Let's take a poll.

OK, we didn't want to talk. So you tell me if that's all they're hearing is negativity. And still the polls were favorable towards us. But you can't just talk about someone so much and say, let's go to the polls. That's the system in which we live. We know why they were doing that. And at the same time, we said, my brother's innocent. And he will come through all of this.

KING: Are you also angry at Court TV? Tom singled them out last night.

J. JACKSON: I don't even want to talk about them, because they're ignorant to even make statements like that. And I will not mention any names, because they don't deserve that.

But the fact that -- what happened to this country? What happened to just knowing the facts? Reporting the news, not injecting your own opinion, what happened to this? I mean, this is America. But what happened?

I mean, we're five kids that grew up in Gary, Indiana worked hard, worked hard. Had strong people behind us to launch our careers and the whole Motown thing in which set the foundation for all of the success you see. And we went on with our lives. And to be faced with something like this. We tried the system and justice was served.

KING: So you have come out of this bitter?

J. JACKSON: People out there, Larry, how many people out there tried the system and it doesn't work for them?

KING: Yes.

J. JACKSON: So, we're happy that Michael has been found not guilty, innocent. But at the same time, why did it have to come this far?

KING: Let me get a break, and come back. We'll take calls for Jermaine in a little while. He's with us for the full hour.

Billy Graham tomorrow night. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Jermaine Jackson's our guest.

Michael has paid millions to settle previous allegations. Tom Mesereau said last night, that was -- he had bad advice. Michael shouldn't have paid anything. Do you agree?

JACKSON: Yes, I agree, but during the time, Michael was on tour. Janet was on tour. My mother was very ill, and it just -- he felt that it wasn't the time to fight. But this time he fought, and we were victorious.

KING: The impact on his future behavior -- do you think he's going to change some of the things he does just for public image?

JACKSON: Larry, there -- OK, Michael is not a weird person. Michael is not -- I mean, this is just a bunch of talk, calling him Wacko Jacko, all of these crazy names. He doesn't do anything. Have you ever heard of him throwing televisions out of the hotel windows and setting fires and doing this and that? I mean, that behavior goes on in our industry as we know that. But I guess it's because they pick on him because he is the largest, largest entertainer in the world, and they will find something to say.

KING: But will...

JACKSON: I mean, there are things that he's going to change.

KING: Right, like...

JACKSON: Excuse me?

KING: Like...

JACKSON: Well, not to let people get so close to him, and we're going to make sure of that as well.

KING: Nor -- he's not going to let anybody take advantage of him?

JACKSON: Well, people come around you and they smile, but they have a hidden agenda and we're faced with that everyday. Everybody who's patting you on your back is not your friend. But at the same time, it's up to us to know who's who. I do know that -- all my brothers, we will make sure that these type of people stay far away. Far away.

KING: Is he -- you think he'll ever write a book?

JACKSON: I really don't know, Larry. I really don't know.

KING: In his song about being a victim, about -- his song "Billie Jean," he described himself a victim. Do you think he's a victim? Is that a correct term to apply to him?

JACKSON: Well, when you're in an industry and you're out in the public, you're victims of all types of things. And his music influences, people take context of his lyrics the wrong way, and things happen. I fear sometimes when I'm out, and now since Michael's been vindicated, we all just -- we all have to be careful. I mean, we -- we love the fact that the family held up and there was a family support, but still at the same time you never know when someone's plotting and planning.

KING: Would you describe your brother as child-like?

JACKSON: I would describe my brother as a person who was in search a childhood that he never had, but at the same time, he was around adults, and when you're around adults all the time, you hear -- who wants to hear about all of the ugly things that are going on in the world? I mean, Michael's a person who loves peace. He's a very humble person. I call him St. Michael because he's the most wonderful person I know, and I mean that. He's a wonderful, wonderful person.

KING: When you get that big, though, does anyone say no to him?

JACKSON: Of course.

KING: Because sometimes you can get so big, you have power. Does he have people around him who say no?

JACKSON: Yes. My mother tells him no. Randy tells him no. We tell him no. But at the same time, when you've had so much success, you feel that your way is a positive way, is the way to go about things, and I'm referring to just the day-to-day things that he does with his music and making decisions and creative decisions and things like that.

KING: Will he entertain again?

JACKSON: I think so, but that's on him. He's -- it's in his blood, and I think he's just resting. He's resting. He's always got time or an ear for a melody or a nice beat, but it's been so much negative -- just the whole environment has been totally negative, what they've done to him, but at the same time, he's strong. He's not going to let it beat him down. He's going to stand and move forward with his life.

KING: He must miss applause. He must miss a stage.

JACKSON: You're probably right, but he has a stage at home! He has a stage at home. We can give him -- we're giving him all the applause he needs.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: We'll take a break, and come back, go to phone calls. We'll go to phone calls for Jermaine Jackson.

Couple of program notes -- Billy Graham, tomorrow night. Shania twain on Friday. Saturday night, Bob Costas, host Vanessa Redgrave, and on Sunday night on LARRY KING LIVE, you will met my children, on Father's Day night.

We'll be right back with Jermaine Jackson and your phone calls right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: With Jermaine Jackson -- Columbus, Georgia -- as we go to calls. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Larry and Jermaine. Jermaine, you said just a few minutes ago that the jurors were wonderful. How do you feel about juror number one on numerous interviews saying that he truly believes that Michael has molested young boys and has the tendency to do so?

JACKSON: Well, that's just his opinion, but the bottom line is this: I know, Michael knows, god knows, in his heart that he's been a wonderful person. He's never done anything like that.

KING: Mobile, Alabama, hello.

CALLER: Hi, Larry, and thanks for your very fair and balanced show.

KING: Thank you.

CALLER: Hi, Jermaine. Will Michael consider filing...

JACKSON: How are you?

CALLER: Hi. Would Michael consider filing a multimillion dollar lawsuit against Tom Sneddon and entourage for the very unfair and horrific crime that they committed against him?

JACKSON: Well, I really don't know what he's going to do, but I would.

KING: Tom Mesereau said he would too. I other words, if it were up to you, you would take action?

JACKSON: Kick their butts, yep. They tried to bury him, Larry. They tried to bury him but they made him bigger.

KING: Santa Maria, California, hello.

CALLER: Hi, Mr. King, this is Diane.

I'm wondering, Jermaine, as a personal person who does know Mr. Sneddon and what he can do to families, I am wondering if Mr. Jackson, your brother, Michael, will be receiving or seeking counseling for the victimization he's received or endured at the hands of, quote, city hall, here in Santa Barbara County?

KING: I gather you're in the a fan of the prosecutor?

JACKSON: Well --

KING: Is Michael going to seek psychological help for just all that's happened to him?

JACKSON: I think Michael is going to rest and he's going to -- the psychological help Michael has is his family, and I would say it's just down home family love. But I do think there will be a time that the prosecutors and all of that will be dealt with. But right now, he's resting and we're rejoicing and my mother is very, very happy.

KING: What is his financial situation?

JACKSON: Well, I'll say this, Larry. Michael is no way, as they're saying, broke. When you have an incredible, incredible asset, instrument, like the catalog, and when you have other things. I mean, who's broke? I mean, look at major organizations, like AT&T and some of the major Fortune 500 companies out there. They tighten their belts at certain times. SO, this is a belt-tightening time. But Michael's no way broke, and he's still the number one superstar in the world, bigger than what he was before.

KING: Does he -- what does he own, the music rights to what, the Beatles and what else?

JACKSON: Probably everybody's music now, Larry. But it's so much. There's not enough time that we can go into that. But he's been very wise and very smart. The bottom line he's a person. Let's forget about money. Let's forget about all those things. Michael's a human being and that's what's wrong with this country now. They judge people on how much money they have. What about his -- the person he is? The love of a person? And the love that you give to others? What happened to that? What do we look for -- if a person walks around and say, I have all of this money. Everybody flocks to him.

That's not what life's supposed to be about. I mean, judge him as to who he is. Listen to his lyrics. Look at what he's done. Look at what he's done around the world, every corner of the globe -- charities, millions and millions and millions of dollars, hundreds of millions, given to people of all walks of life. He didn't deserve what happened to him.

KING: Wright City, Missouri. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Jermaine. I'm so happy that Michael was found innocent. My question is, will Michael continue helping cancer patients like he did before? I know he did an awful lot with kids when cancer and I think it would be a shame if he had to stop.

KING: Good question.

JACKSON: I'm pretty sure he will, because one apple didn't spoil the whole bunch. It's like something that's so beautiful, and godly- like to help and give to others. That's what we've been taught. That's how we've been raised, and that's the blessing that god has giving us, to have such talent and such international appeal to give back to others. So I'm pretty sure he will, because that's what he was -- blessed with all of this talent and all of this success is to give back to others and give other people a much brighter life and that's what Neverland is all about. I mean it's about giving children who are terminally ill and on their last days, that are last bit of joy. Not to do what they said. It's a beautiful place. It's a wonderful, wonderful beautiful place, Neverland. KING: Jermaine, siblings have always disagreements. What about your brother don't you like? What aspect through your life with him bothers you?

JACKSON: He's too nice, and they say I'm like that, too, but I see myself a little different than Michael. But at the same time, he's my brother. This is how we were raised. But he's very strong in business. But that would be the thing. He's just too nice.

KING: So you're saying he's not weak, he's nice?

JACKSON: No, he's not weak at all, please believe me, because it took a strong man to show up at that court, Larry, every day to hear this rubberish (ph) and all of this stupid stuff said about you. And then -- this whole thing was just a sling his name...

KING: But...

JACKSON: ...through the mud, and I'll say this. Wait, wait, wait. This is really important. It's like there're conspirators out there who were behind this whole entire thing. It's almost like a magician. They throw this child molestation crap on you with the right hand, while the left hand is trying to do something else. So, this was the whole plan. But at the same time, we've always said Michael is a thousand percent innocent.

Now, the conspirators out there, yes, they are shaking in their boots, because they know we know. We knew from day one, and it's not going to work. They're not going to get away with this.

KING: Although not guilty doesn't mean innocent. You can't declare someone innocent. They declare him not guilty. But when you say too nice, you mean he's -- he gives to people too much? He's easily swayed?

JACKSON: No, he gives too much, and he wants to help everyone, and that's what his music's been about, that's what...

KING: He's a soft touch?

JACKSON: ...the building of Neverland. He's a soft touch, but he's strong when he needs to be, but this was a situation that he thought -- would -- that he could help, and it turned out to be they had a hidden agenda. They had a hidden agenda, and it's sad that Sneddon did not evaluate his accusers and his witnesses. They had no credibility, but to shame someone. That's why I said the authorities up there, they need to do a better evaluation of people, judges and D.A.'s, because you can't do this. This is not constitutional. This is not America.

KING: We'll be back with more of Jermaine Jackson right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TOM SNEDDON, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY: He was very down. He just didn't understand why people didn't believe him. A little cynical about the system. And I just encouraged him and told him what a hero he was and how courageous he was to come forward. And that he did the right thing and it was time for him to move on with his life and never look back, because he did the right thing. And how much we believed in him and supported him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: That was Tom Sneddon talking about the accuser.

Any comment on that, Jermaine?

JACKSON: I don't believe anything that comes out of his mouth, because I'll tell you why: It doesn't take a hundred times of going to somebody's property for something like this, which was a lie in the first place -- and if you look at the family, that there was no credibility even from the mother.

From all of the things she -- I feel that this was all planed. We know this was all planned. And for Sneddon to go into his property so many times, as I said before, I wasn't worried about what they were going to take out, I was worried about what they were going to put in there -- some book they keep bringing up.

KING: How's Michael's kids doing? In the -- this is a wacky world. Do -- are they kind of normal-life? Do they go to school?

JACKSON: Yes. They -- my kids play with them and they're fine. Michael's a wonderful father. He's changed diapers. He does it all and he's very, very keen on making sure his kids are disciplined. And Michael's no wacky entertainer, out there, that doesn't care about his kids and this and that. I mean he's a wonderful father. He's had a lot of...

KING: Are they...

JACKSON: ... Brothers to learn from.

KING: Are they sheltered when they go to school? Are they watched?

JACKSON: No. No. They have -- they have private school, but at the same time, he wants them to be able to interact with the -- with children so we bring ours over. And they get a chance to do things, but you hear a lot of things, Larry, and it's up to, I guess, the public to know what the truth is.

It's very hard. It's very hard.

KING: Were you happy with Debbie Rowe on the stand?

Tom, last night, said he was very pleased with her even though she was a prosecution witness. JACKSON: I was very pleased. I was in the Middle East during the time, but I was very pleased because they tried everything. I felt that the judge worked with the prosecution. They didn't allow us anything. I -- Michael wasn't even allowed to use the bathroom half- of-the-time. We weren't allowed to -- even to sit there. There were empty seats there and we couldn't sit there. And this is -- what is --they tried to strip us of every bit of truth and strength that we portrayed as a family.

KING: The judge, too?

JACKSON: But still we prevailed. We prevailed.

KING: You include the judge.

JACKSON: Yes. Yes.

I did, yes.

KING: New York City -- hello.

CALLER: Yes, hello.

Hi, Larry.

Hi, Jermaine.

KING: Hi.

CALLER: My question to Jermaine is: Is Michael going to take Donald Trump up on his offer of doing a headline show Vegas, when he's better?

JACKSON: Sweetie, I don't know anything about that, but Donald Trump has been a friend in the past and if that's what he wants to do, that's what he'll do.

KING: Donald Trump has done nothing but praise your brother, but he doesn't have the hotel in Vegas, yet.

So, it would be premature. But that's a possibility. He would work Vegas, wouldn't he? He was always big there.

JACKSON: Well, we started out in Vegas, as children. Well, we started at The Apollo, but we played Vegas and I'm -- he loves Las Vegas. So, you never know.

KING: Miami -- hello?

Caller: Hi, Jermaine. I have a question and a comment. I wanted to say that: I've loved Michael my whole life and have never doubted his innocence and what he said...

JACKSON: Thank you.

Caller: ... life runs sprints but the truth runs marathons, is true. I just wanted to know: How did you feel about the media coverage, especially Court TV and Nancy Grace, whom I thought was extremely unprofessional and --

KING: Well, I asked him about Court TV. He didn't want to name names, but you were very critical of the whole network, right?

JACKSON: Well, I'll just say this: My mother and father's attorney, Debra Opri, was banned from Court TV, but after she had really bashed, you know who -- which I don't even want to mention their names.

But the media has been very unfair because they have not reported the news, they've injected opinions. And that's not what a reporter is supposed to do. You're supposed to report.

KING: We'll take a break and be back with more of Jermaine Jackson, more of your phone calls.

Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: This is a very historic room here where we are right now. Because this is where the meeting took place for the Jackson Victory Tour: 1984 tour that broke all records of course.

We were sitting here on the couches and negotiating and talking and sort of getting our ideas together,creatively, of what we're going to do on stage live, real soon. So, we're very proud of this room.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Speaking of that, Jermaine, how about a Jackson family reunion tour?

JACKSON: That sounds good, Larry.

KING: I mean, you would do that, right?

JACKSON: Sounds very good.

KING: Do you think Michael would do it?

JACKSON: We're ready. We're ready.

KING: By the way, in all honesty...

JACKSON: Victory two.

KING: Are you -- Victory two -- Are you, Jermaine, a bitter winner?

JACKSON: A bitter winner in what sense? Can you...

KING: That you have won, you are happy, but at the same time, very bitter at the whole turn of events.

JACKSON: I'm not bitter. I'm just disappointed in the system. Michael didn't get off because of money, because of his popularity. He got off because he was innocent and they never presented a case. But at the same time, I'm bitter because he's done so much -- we've done so much. We represent this country and for them to act as we were some -- from somewhere else, I mean, it's just...

KING: So, there's some bitterness.

JACKSON: Yes.

JACKSON: Yes. Yes, but we move on. We have to be bigger than that. We have to be -- we have to move on, but it's hard to turn the other cheek.

KING: I'll bet.

JACKSON: They tried to bury us. They tried to bury us. You would be the same way, right?

KING: If I thought I was being buried, I would be mad, yes.

Big Rapids, Michigan, hello.

CALLER: Hi, Larry. Hi, Jermaine.

KING: Hi.

CALLER: I'm a huge fan of Michael's.

JACKSON: Hi.

CALLER: He saved me life as a child, and I would love to let him know that. My question is...

JACKSON: Oh, thank you.

CALLER: ...will there be a victory party for the fans?

JACKSON: Well, Randy -- Randy is arranging things now. He's done a wonderful job of pulling the team together for Michael. And I guess that's in the plans. I spoke to him just before I came on.

KING: So, there might be a party put together for the people who supported him?

JACKSON: Absolutely. They came so far, Larry. The fans sent -- they put out so much positive energy in the prayers. One time I was leaving the gates and they were standing and holding hands in the circle and just that positive light, positive energy, and that's what it was, and I thank everyone from around from the globe and here and far and near, because they know who Michael is, and if you get past the media and get to the fans and to the public, they know who he is.

KING: Poughkeepsie, New York, hello. CALLER: Hi, Jermaine. Hi, Larry.

KING: Hi.

JACKSON: I would like to know, how has Michael been feeling? And if he has any plans on going on tour or to record a new CD?

KING: Ah, we have asked about touring. How about recording?

JACKSON: Well, I really don't know. Right now he's resting. He's just -- he doesn't have to wake up at 4:00 in the morning anymore. He was there everyday, Larry. He was there. They thought he would flee. They thought he would run.

But he's -- he loves music. I'm pretty sure he's always going to sing, but right now, that's not important. What's important for him is just to get himself back and to -- just to be a human being, a person again.

KING: We'll be back with remaining moments with Jermaine Jackson. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Jermaine, it's been no secret the family has feuded in the past. There've been public feuds and problems with your dad and growing up. Has this, in a sense, brought the family closer together?

JACKSON: Well, this has brought us closer, but at the same time, we're a family. We're no different than any other family who has feuds and problems. What is life without problems? I mean -- but at the same time, we're united, and we have united front that is very, very strong, and its supported by god. My mother and father did a great job in instilling the morals and principles in us from the very beginning. We feel that with that, with that, that's all you need to go through life.

KING: Your father was -- your father was tough, though, was he not? Have you forgiven some of the -- the way you were treated as a kid?

JACKSON: I was treated fine. There's nothing to forgive. I mean, any black family or any black child or just person out there listening, we grew up like any other black family. You did something, you got your butt tore up, and it wasn't tore up, it was just, you got a spanking. And so, making this more than what it is -- they're looking for problems.

But I will say this. He kept us off of the streets. He kept us away from drugs. He kept us away from gangs and we were able -- like I said, we're five kids from Gary, Indiana, house the size of a two- car garage, but at the same time, we've been able to project a talent out there and have the support of strong people to entertain the world. So that's a blessing from god, and so -- at the same time, having good parents.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: But, Michael never really had what could be called a normal childhood.

JACKSON: No, because he started so early.

KING: Yes.

JACKSON: And, like I said, people would approach him. That's why he doesn't feel comfortable -- and I feel the same way -- being around adults and talk to you about this and that and business. Who wants to be reminded of just -- the world should be a better place, and that's been the challenge of man to try to make it a better place.

KING: Do you still keep -- you ever keep in close touch with the Osmond boys? The two of you were so big together at one time.

JACKSON: Yes, well, I've been talking to Merrill a while back but we'll been so busy with what has just happened and -- but we stay in touch. We'll get a call from him and I speak to Donny on and off. And I'm pretty -- I mean we're in the same circle, so we run across each other or someone who is with him, we tell them we are looking for him.

KING: So, what are you going to be doing, Jermaine, now that this is over?

JACKSON: I'm going to be, just, probably just working on some music, starting a label, and just staying strong, staying by my family, staying by my brothers. My brothers are -- we're strong. We're ready for whatever. If there's a tour, fine. If not, we're going to continue to be a family, a united family. We came through this.

KING: If Michael leaves the country, would you?

JACKSON: I'll be right there.

KING: You would?

JACKSON: Right there with him. We love -- we love the people in America. It's been the media and we have nothing bad to say. I mean there's some wonderful places here, but at the same time, there are wonderful places all around the world and we need to just travel and see more.

KING: Yes. Well, that would be understandable if you -- feelings are that way, you known all over the world -- I guess he'd be taken in -- a lot of places would warmly accept the Jacksons.

JACKSON: Thank you, Larry.

KING: Jermaine, thank you very much for giving us this hour. We appreciate it. Thank you for taking phone calls, and we appreciate you're spending the time with us.

JACKSON: Thank you.

KING: Jermaine Jackson from his home in Encino, California.



TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com

International Edition Languages --------- Arabic German Japanese Korean Turkish
CNN TV CNN International Headline News Transcripts Advertise With Us About Us

? 2005 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us. All external sites will open in a new browser.
CNN.com does not endorse external sites.
Denotes premium content.
Add RSS headlines.

Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 12:49 AM JST
Updated: Fri, Jun 17 2005 12:57 AM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Michael Jackson could face civil suit
Mood:  quizzical
Topic: Main News
Accuser, family expected to seek monetary damages in court

The Associated Press
Updated: 9:28 a.m. ET June 16, 2005

SANTA MARIA, Calif. - Part of Michael Jackson's winning legal strategy was convincing jurors that his accuser's family intended to get rich by suing the pop star for a cash bonanza. Whether that happens to Jackson may soon be clear.

When a celebrated criminal case ends without a conviction, it is often not the end of the defendant's legal troubles — O.J. Simpson, Kobe Bryant and Robert Blake are just a few celebrities who have been hit with civil suits.

Civil suits have their appeal: Victory can result in monetary damages and a sense of vindication, and such cases are easier to win because the burden of proof is lower. In Jackson's case, he already has a history of paying millions of dollars to make child molestation allegations go away.

During Jackson's criminal trial — which ended Monday with the pop star being cleared of molesting a 13-year-old boy — defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. told jurors that the accuser and his mother were "looking for a big payday" at the pop star's expense. The mother testified she did not plan a lawsuit and did not want "the devil's money." She could still change her mind. The accuser's family has not spoken publicly since the verdict. The lawyer who appears most likely to file any civil suit, Los Angeles attorney Larry Feldman, did not immediately return a call Wednesday.

Feldman represented a boy who received a multimillion-dollar settlement after making molestation accusations against Jackson in 1993. Feldman is also the attorney the accuser's family approached after their close relationship with Jackson ended.

Lower standard of proof required

One key difference in a civil trial that would benefit the family is the lower standard of proof required. While all 12 jurors in the criminal case would have had to find Jackson guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt," in a civil case plaintiffs must simply prove their case "by a preponderance of the evidence." Also, only nine of the 12 must agree. For those and other reasons, Jackson will have to be well-prepared for another trial, said Carl Douglas, a lawyer who has represented Jackson in past civil matters and a member of the "Dream Team" that won Simpson's murder acquittal.

"He has to send a message to the world: `If you're going to come after Michael Jackson, you have to be ready for a war,'" he said. Another key difference in civil litigation is that the accuser's family could force Jackson to testify both in depositions and at a trial, said Daniel Petrocelli, the attorney who sued Simpson for the family of slaying victim Ronald Goldman.

Jackson exercised his right not to testify at his criminal trial. But in a civil case, "if he refused to take the stand, there would be a default entered," and Jackson would he held liable for damages, Petrocelli said.

At the same time, family members would face even more stinging attacks on their credibility than they did during the criminal trial, where Jackson's lawyers worked to bring out the mother's history of welfare fraud and other possible scams. "The defense was able to portray the mother as greedy, manipulative, grasping," said John Nockleby, director of the civil justice program at Loyola University Law School. "If she is the plaintiff, her credibility is sorely lacking." The family's motives in pursuing a lawsuit could be critical in the eyes of the jury.

"Money is not a good enough reason," Petrocelli said. "The jury will see right through that. In the O.J. Simpson case, it was about justice, and money was barely mentioned." If the accuser's mother sues, she will not have trouble finding a lawyer — the publicity alone would attract many eager candidates. "It's considered to be golden," Douglas said. "They will take a case with a big-time defendant just to get in the papers."

Any lawyer taking on a suit against Jackson would face enormous costs. The lawyer would have to study the entire file of the criminal case, which had over 600 pieces of evidence. Pretrial depositions would probably stretch over months, and a team of investigators would have to be hired. Those costs would have to be borne by the attorney in the hope of receiving court costs if the suit is won.

And the payoff in cases brought against celebrities is not necessarily a sure thing. A jury held Simpson liable for the slayings of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Goldman, and awarded $33.5 million to the families. But little was ever collected.In Jackson's case, prosecutors presented evidence that his once vast fortune is in peril.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
? 2005 MSNBC.com
URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8242221/


Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 12:30 AM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Thu, Jun 16 2005
Jermaine Jackson says Michael is ?at peace?
Mood:  happy
Topic: Main News
Also says his brother is ‘sort of not eating’

The Associated Press
Updated: 10:32 p.m. ET June 15, 2005

LOS ANGELES - Michael Jackson is “at peace” as he recovers from the ordeal of his molestation trial, his brother Jermaine said Wednesday.“Michael is recovering, but it’s a time (to) rejoice for the family,” Jermaine Jackson said on CNN’s “Larry King Live.” “He’s at peace and we’re very happy.”

He added that his brother was “sort of not eating.” Pressed on the issue, he said his brother “was eating sandwiches and things like that but it was just very tough.” Jermaine Jackson would not say where his brother has been staying since being acquitted Monday of molesting a 13-year-old boy, plying him with alcohol and holding his family captive to rebut a documentary in which Jackson admitted having non-sexual sleepovers with young boys.
He said he didn’t know if the pop star would want to do an interview.

“I’m pretty sure he’s just looking to rest. That’s what’s most important, to rest and get his mind back and focus on being a person — nothing about doing this or doing that but just resting,” he said.

When asked whether the entertainer might move somewhere else, Jermaine Jackson said, “We’ve always had a love for other places outside the U.S.” He added that his family was concerned for their safety.“I fear sometimes when I’m out. Now that Michael’s been vindicated, we all have to be careful. ... You never know what someone’s plotting and planning,” he said.

? 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
? 2005 MSNBC.com
URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8235996/

Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 2:01 PM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Jackson Accuser Having 'Difficult Time'
Mood:  don't ask
Topic: Prosecutor Press Release
By GREG RISLING, Associated Press Writer
Wed Jun 15, 9:06 AM ET

Michael Jackson's accuser is distressed and having "a difficult time" dealing with the not guilty verdict against the pop singer, the prosecutor in the molestation case said Wednesday. Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon told NBC's "Today" that he spoke to the accuser immediately after Jackson was acquitted on all counts Monday.

"He's very down. He's having a difficult time understanding why people didn't believe him," Sneddon said.
"He's gone through a lot in his life. He's survived cancer, a very serious bout of cancer," he said. "He didn't necessarily want to get involved in this case. ... It was very painful for him to tell people what had happened to him."
Sneddon and Senior Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen defended the decision to put the accuser's mother on the witness stand. Jurors have said she put them off by staring at them, snapping her fingers during testimony and winking at the jury foreman.

"She behaved as she behaves," Zonen said on CNN. "This is her. She does snap her fingers when she talks to you; she has unusual behavioral patterns. I was hopeful that the jury would be able to understand that she is who she is and simply accept her testimony accordingly." He said she was a vital witness because she had information no one else had.

Jackson himself hasn't been seen in public since returning home to his Neverland ranch immediately after the acquittal was announced. He looked exhausted as he shuffled slowly out of court, giving a tentative wave to fans.
"He has to spend some time healing," lead defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. said.

By late Tuesday night only 20 to 30 hardcore Jackson fans remained outside Neverland. Of the dozen or more television trucks that had once lined the walls outside Jackson's estate, only two remained. "People don't know who Michael Jackson is," said defense attorney Susan Yu. "I spent a lot of time with him. I've never seen anybody so vulnerable. This person is totally incapable of doing any of the things they said he did."

Both Mesereau and Yu said they haven't discussed Jackson's future with him, adding he needs to recover his strength before considering returning to work. During the trial, Jackson was taken to a hospital several times for an aching back.Despite the acquittal, at least three jurors said afterward they suspected the pop star has molested some boys, but not the one who accused him in court. Because of the public perceptions, Mesereau said Jackson will have to change his lifestyle
.
"He's going to have to not let people easily enter his life," Mesereau said. "He was very generous to people who didn't deserve it."As for letting children sleep in his bed, Jackson is "not going to do that because it makes him vulnerable to false charges," Mesereau said. The entertainer's concert and recording career had seemed to be sagging even before his arrest, and there has been much speculation as to whether he'll ever be able to regain the stature that saw him widely regarded as the "King of Pop" in the 1980s.

The accuser, once frail as he battled cancer, is now a high school football player who aspires to a career in law enforcement. His mother is married to an Army major with a good paycheck, and the family says abuse by the children's biological father is behind them. With the trial over, the tents outside the Santa Maria courthouse were being taken down. Also gone were the sheriff's deputies and police officers who stood sentry, as well as the barricades that limited courthouse access.

"The goal right now is to try to restore the place to the condition we found it in when we first arrived," said Peter Shaplen, media coordinator for the thousands of journalists. "It's a tough deal when you had 2,200 people here."
Carmen Jenkins, 46, said a surge in sales at her Coffee Diem store near the courthouse would help her buy a new BMW. The coffee shop, popular with journalists for its caffeine, food and wireless Internet connection, had only a few patrons the day after the verdict.
A chalkboard sign on the storefront Tuesday politely announced: "Dear Media, We will miss you very much. Thank you for everything."
___
Associated Press Special Correspondent Linda Deutsch contributed to this story.
___
On the Net:
Jackson site: http://www.mjjsource.com
Copyright ? 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright ? 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 1:54 PM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
CNN LARRY KING LIVE- Michael Jackson's Attorney Speaks Out About Trial
Mood:  happy
Topic: Main News


Aired June 14, 2005 - 21:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, a prime-time exclusive: Michael Jackson's defense lawyer, Thomas Mesereau, how he won yesterday's total victory in Jackson's child molestation trial. How Michael is really doing right now and more.

Thomas Mesereau for the hour with your phone calls, a prime time exclusive next on LARRY KING LIVE.

He comes to us from Santa Maria, California, his great victory there yesterday, a shutout victory.

By the way, Tom, on your skills on cross-examination, Loyola law professor Lauri Levenson said she's the best she's ever seen. Is that an art or a science?

THOMAS MESEREAU, MICHAEL JACKSON'S LAWYER: It's really an art, Larry. And I'm very flattered by the comment. I don't know if it's well deserved, but it is an art. It's something that you're always learning about, you never completely master. And you have to always be open-minded about how to do it.

KING: How did you get this case?

MESEREAU: I had known Randy Jackson for many years. Initially, when the search of Neverland took place, I did get a call about flying to Las Vegas to meet Michael Jackson. I could not do it then. I was tied up in the Robert Blake case, getting ready for trial and, eventually, I had a falling out with Mr. Blake.

And about three months after that, I got another call to fly to Florida and meet Michael, and one thing led to another.

KING: Is -- is it common in criminal cases for lawyers to be switched, like Blake drops you, you go somewhere else?

MESEREAU: I don't know if it's common, but you know, the criminal defense business is a very tense, high stakes business, and clients do get very upset at times. They're very vulnerable emotionally, and changes do happen from time to time.

KING: Did you work with Jackson's preceding lawyers?

MESEREAU: A little bit. Mark Geragos was very gracious and very professional at all times. I've known him for a long time. He's a very, very decent and very, very skilled lawyer. And he was very helpful in the transition. KING: You said that you were not surprised by the verdict, meaning you were confident. But most lawyers say never predict a jury. Never be confident. Explain.

MESEREAU: I was confident. I thought that we had really destroyed their case very effectively on cross examination, and I thought we had called a lot of very effective witnesses in our case. And I thought when you put that whole package together, they were going to have trouble.

KING: How do you psychologically prepare a client for something like -- like for example, do you make him aware that he might be in jail that night? Do you discuss that at all, or do you only go the positive routes?

MESEREAU: It depends on the client, Larry. You have to be candid with your client. You have to explain the possibilities and the options without sounding defeatist. And at no time did I ever take a defeatist attitude with Michael Jackson, because I always thought we'd win this case.

KING: What kind of client was he?

MESEREAU: He's a wonderful client. He's one of the easiest clients to deal with that I've ever experienced. He's very kind. He's very gentle. He's very cooperative. He's a very, very honorable, decent person. And I thoroughly enjoyed representing him, and I consider him a friend.

KING: Was there any thought of him taking the stand?

MESEREAU: Yes, there was. When I gave my opening statement, I intended to put him on the stand, and he intended to testify. As the case developed, it became very clear to me that he didn't have to.

We had cross-examined very effectively. We had shown the jury a videotape of a two hour and 45-minute interview with Michael Jackson, where he explained his life and his philosophy of music and living and his experiences growing up. And when we put all that together, we decided there was nothing really to be achieved by it.

KING: Was there ever a point, Tom, where you were, during this, down?

MESEREAU: You know, Larry, it's interesting. All trials have ups and downs. And all trials have surprises.

But in this case, I felt that we were very aggressive from the opening bell, in our opening statement, in our cross examination of their initial witnesses. And our plan was to be extremely aggressive and put them on the defensive as quickly as possible. And I think we achieved that.

So, we had a lot of good days in this trial, particularly in their case, and particularly in our case. And I was always confident.

KING: There were some who were saying the prosecution was obsessed with Michael Jackson. Do you share that view?

MESEREAU: Yes, I do. I share it completely. I think they were not objective about this case. They were not objective about their witnesses. They were not objective about the theories they tried to prove, which were unprovable, because they were false. And I think their obsession really hurt them.

KING: You think it goes back to the settlement years back?

MESEREAU: I don't know where it began, Larry. It would appear around that time there developed an obsession about Michael Jackson in this prosecuting agency, but, clearly they were not being objective when they put this case together.

KING: Now, why, Tom? I mean, they had people come to them. They had a lady come to them, the son telling them stories. They had other people who were witnesses. Why did they make a mistake in going ahead with this?

MESEREAU: Well, first of all, they never thoroughly investigated the accusers and the accuser's family, in my opinion. And if you look at the early interviews with the accusers, you'll see the police basically accepting their story before they even investigated who they are.

It was really us that found all the problems with these witnesses, what their history, with their backgrounds. The prosecution almost turned a blind eye to what was really going on. And I think even in the middle of the trial, they were trying to deny reality, and it caught up with them.

KING: How big a factor was Macaulay Culkin?

MESEREAU: He was a big factor. He was a wonderful witness for Michael Jackson. And I will always have tremendous respect for Macaulay Culkin. He's on top of the world. He didn't have to go to bat for his friend. And he did it anyway.

And there never was any doubt that he was going to come and testify. He always said, "I want to be there. I want to help Michael Jackson, and I want to tell the truth." He was a big factor, and he was a man of really strong character.

KING: Do you like to talk to jurors after trial, win or lose?

MESEREAU: I do. I haven't had the opportunity to do it here, but, yes, I do. You always learn things from jurors. And I've never had the privilege to be a juror myself. So -- and I've always liked to have the opportunity, but I never did. I always get bumped off when I get called for jury duty.

KING: I would imagine. We had one of the -- we had the foremen on last night. We also had one of the jurors who said he believed that Michael Jackson was or is a pedophile. It's just that this prosecution didn't prove this case. How do you react to a statement like that? MESEREAU: Well, I think he's wrong. Michael Jackson is not a pedophile. He's never been a pedophile. The prosecution has spent years trying to put together a story which they hoped they could prove and failed to prove. Michael Jackson is not a pedophile. He's never molested a child, nor would he ever even conceive of doing such a thing.

KING: So these were concocted stories?

MESEREAU: Well, certainly, they were concocted by the main accusers, and certainly, the prosecution tried to create the impression that other people were molested. And they all came in and said they weren't.

KING: The amazing thing, though, is when you have a guy who's certainly different from the norm, an older -- a man who sleeps with boys, to get a jury, as my friend Edward Bennett Williams used to say, what you have with a jury is to get the jury to put themselves in your client's shoes. If the jury can put themselves in your client's shoes, you win.

How does someone put themselves in Michael Jackson's shoes?

MESEREAU: Well, first of all, Larry, this notion that he sleeps with boys was a concoction by the prosecution. What he said very openly was that he allows families into his room.

Now, his room is the size of a duplex. It's two levels. He's had mothers sleep there, fathers sleep there, sisters sleep there, brothers sleep there. The prosecution concocted this little saying about sleeping with boys, because they thought it would turn off the jury, and they failed.

But yes, we did have to explain who Michael Jackson was to the jury, that he's a very creative spirit, a very gentle soul, a brilliant musician, a brilliant choreographer, and a very sensitive person who's very concerned about the world and the problems in the world. And he has a very childlike spirit and essence to him, and he attracts children all over the world.

We did have to explain who he was. But this is a country which prides itself on diversity, on the freedom to be who you are. And we never diverted our attention from who Michael was. We never tried to make him look like anything but himself. He never tried to dress differently for the courtroom. Our whole intention is to show who Michael is and be proud of it and embrace it.

KING: We'll be right back with more of Thomas Mesereau, Michael Jackson's very successful defense attorney. We'll have more questions. We'll take your calls, as well. He's with us for the full program. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THOMAS SNEDDON, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY D.A.: When a victim comes in, the victim tells you they've been victimized, and you believe that and you believe that the evidence supports that, you don't look at their pedigree. We look at what we think is what's right. You do the right things for the right reasons. If it doesn't work out, that's why we have a jury system. But we did the right thing for the right reasons.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Thomas Mesereau is our special guest.

What's it like in your gut? Now, you can be as confident as you wish, but when they walk in, before those words are uttered, what goes through you?

MESEREAU: You know, Larry, it's a very tense, uncomfortable moment. You never really get used to it. Your heart skips a few beats. And it's something that I never look forward to, in a sense, because it's never easy.

KING: Did you, at all, clutch Jackson's arm or he your arm?

MESEREAU: Yes. When the verdicts were being read, I did grab Michael's hand. And he seemed to appreciate it. I wanted to show him my support. And I also wanted to send the message, "We are winning this case."

KING: What did he say to you when all 10 counts were read?

MESEREAU: He said the word, "Thank you, thank you, thank you." His first reaction was gratitude. Gratitude to God, gratitude to his defense team. Gratitude to his family and friends. That's really all he said.

KING: And that's the joy of a criminal defense lawyer, right?

MESEREAU: You bet.

KING: What happened -- he posted bail, did he not? Is that returned immediately? How is his -- what, did he take a lien on the house? How is that done?

MESEREAU: Well, that was done early in the case. It was done, actually, before I was -- appeared on the case as council of record. And bail was posted by a bail bondsman. It was secured by property.

KING: And is that then torn up immediately?

MESEREAU: Yes, yes. When he was acquitted, the provision was made for bail to be revoked, and he moves on and he's free.

KING: When your friend, Mark Geragos, who was on this program last week, he was highly critical of pundits, television pundits, 24 hour news, round-the-clock people knocking, making forecasts. He was even giving thought that maybe the British system of not allowing coverage of trials is better. What are your thoughts about pundits? MESEREAU: By the way, I used the word "revoked." Bail was exonerated, not revoked.

KING: Good.

MESEREAU: I share Mark Geragos' comments. I think that we have developed an industry of would-be experts who are not professional, who are not experienced, who are very amateurish about their comments about what's going on in courtrooms and who are willing to give opinions when they're not even there. And I think it has become the theater of the absurd, and I think it reached its lowest level in this case.

KING: What was it like for you to -- you weren't under an order not to watch it. What was it like to watch it?

MESEREAU: Well, I didn't watch it that often, Larry. I was too busy working on the case.

KING: But you knew it was going on?

MESEREAU: I knew a lot of it was going on. When I would take a break in my apartment while I was preparing, I would turn on the TV set. And a lot of it was appalling: the factual inaccuracies, the obvious bias among people like Court TV, who I felt was really an arm of the prosecution through this case. It was very amateurish and very unprofessional and very disturbing.

KING: Would you say it is -- it is hard or impossible to predict an outcome of a trial you didn't attend?

MESEREAU: It's very hard, because you don't know the chemistry of the courtroom. You're not watching the interaction between the witnesses and the jury and the judge and both sides. There's just so much that you miss if you're not there.

And plus, how do you compress, you know, six to eight hours of testimony into a sound bite? You can't possibly be accurate.

KING: What about the British system? Once an arrest is made, no coverage?

MESEREAU: Well, there's certainly a lot to be said for that. I frankly like freedom of the press. But it's reaching an absurd state when it comes to trials in America.

We are obsessed with celebrity trials. It's become an industry of pundits who really are trying to be movie stars and not real legal experts. And it's just -- it just reached the bottom of the barrel in this case.

Fortunately, the jury was not affected. They did the right thing.

KING: The prosecutor, Mr. Sneddon, said that there is celebrity justice, like in California. Blake is an example. This is an example, O.J. How do you react?

MESEREAU: That's sour grapes on his part.

I'll tell you what celebrity injustice was in this case. It was sending 70 sheriffs to raid Michael Jackson's home in a search. It was putting more experts, more sheriffs and more investigators on this case than they do with serial killers. That's what I call celebrity injustice.

So in a sense, he's correct; he just is looking at it the wrong way.

KING: Does...

MESEREAU: Michael Jackson was treated differently because he was a celebrity.

KING: Does, though, a celebrity have an edge in that we can assume going in most of the people like them?

MESEREAU: I don't consider that necessarily an edge. I think that jurors tend to be very mindful that they're not supposed to treat celebrities differently, and they might even go -- bend over backwards to make sure they don't do that.

So, there's a lot of injustice that's directed at celebrities. They're bigger targets for prosecutors. They're bigger targets for sheriffs and police officers. They're bigger targets for people who want fame and fortune.

KING: What do you make of -- what's your assessment of the performance of the prosecution in the courtroom?

MESEREAU: They were extremely aggressive and extremely prepared and very determined. I think their biggest problem was they were not objective about their case. They believed things they wanted to believe. They tried to prove theories that were absurd. And they tried to demonize Michael Jackson in a way which looked absolutely ridiculous when you really took a close look at the evidence. And they went way over the edge, and it hurt them.

KING: Weren't you very concerned, though, when that tape was allowed in at the end?

MESEREAU: I was concerned. I didn't think there was a legal basis for it. But after looking at it a second time and realizing how many conflicting statements this accuser had made in that interview and how that interview showed the police officer was willing to accept his story before he even investigated the case, the more I looked at it, the more I thought it would probably help us. And based on some of the juror's comments, it did help us.

KING: Emotionally, is it hard to press when you cross-examine an accuser, a young accuser, a mother?

MESEREAU: Well, you have to gauge your cross-examination to the witness. You don't want to look like a bully. You don't want to look like you're -- you're really taking advantage of your position.

However, you have to adjust, depending on the personality in front of you. Some young kids are -- have a level of maturity that's extremely high. And as Chris Tucker said about the accuser, he was very cunning and very smart. We had to take all of that into account and factor our cross-examination accordingly.

And I think you also want a cross-examination -- you want to cross-examine at different speeds with different tones, and you want to do whatever you think will be effective for that particular witness.

KING: We'll be right back with more of Thomas Mesereau. We'll be including your phone calls.

Tomorrow night, Jermaine and Tito Jackson, Michael's brothers, will be our special guests. And Thursday night, a very special hour with a very special man, Reverend Billy Graham.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SNEDDON: We believed in the child. We believed in the case and we believed that there was sufficient corroboration for what the children said occurred.

And so, whether it be Michael Jackson, or John Smith, or whoever it may be, this is the kind of case that a sheriff investigates. The sheriff believed in this case, and their detectives believed in this case, and we believed in this case. And like I said, I'm not going to apologize for what we do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: I guess, Tom Mesereau, the jury didn't agree?

MESEREAU: They certainly didn't.

Michael Jackson was acquitted of every felony count and every misdemeanor count.

It was a clean sweep.

KING: Did you expect any -- did you have any worries about some of the misdemeanor counts?

MESEREAU: I really didn't, because to convict him of any of the misdemeanor counts, you had to believe the accuser beyond a reasonable doubt.

And that was not going to happen, in my opinion.

KING: So, even as small a thing as serving liquor without any intention for sex was turned down as well by the jury?

MESEREAU: They were completely turned down by the jury. They did not believe these accusers. They did not believe any of these -- this family's testimony on any significant level.

KING: Would you like cameras in the courtroom?

MESEREAU: You know, I have mixed feelings about it. I'm glad there were not cameras in this particular courtroom.

I think it would have created more of a circus-type environment than existed outside the courtroom, already. I like the idea of the public seeing what goes on in courts, because we're supposed to conduct public trials.

But I think given the media's repeated attempts to make a circus- liken environment out of criminal trials, I'm beginning to change my opinion of that, and maybe they don't belong in courtrooms.

KING: Do you like gag orders?

MESEREAU: I don't particularly like them. I think in this case, it worked very well. I think the temptation among lawyers and prosecutors to become movie stars, and essentially promote themselves on camera is something that's got to be avoided, if we're going to have justice in our criminal justice system.

KING: Mr. Mark Geragos a good witness for you?

MESEREAU: He was an excellent witness.

He was a very, very honest witness. He really spoke for his client. He explained, very simply and very carefully and honestly, what he had done to surveil this family because of his suspicions. And he really did go to bat for his client.

KING: There were some Jackson supporters concerned over the fact there was no black on the jury -- composite of that community, of course.

There was a black alternate.

Were you concerned about the race issue?

MESEREAU: Well, certainly Michael Jackson is part of a very prominent African-American family and initially, we did hope there would be some African-American representation on the jury.

But once the jury was picked, I always had a good feeling about this jury. I always felt they were very independent-minded. Nobody was going to intimidate them. They were going to take their job very seriously and be very fair.

And I was correct.

KING: Do you like jurors who take notes? MESEREAU: I don't know how to answer that, Larry.

I think note-taking is an indication that someone is paying attention and very concerned about their job. But on the other hand, you can also be paying attention and absorbing what's going on without taking notes.

So, I don't really know how to answer that question.

KING: All right.

When the jury asked a couple of questions of the judge, they were not revealed to the press or the public.

Were you concerned about any of that? Anything you can tell us about what they asked?

MESEREAU: You know, I really don't want to reveal that.

I don't know if Judge Melville has unsealed those questions, or not.

So, at this point, I'd rather not discuss that.

KING: Were you concerned by any of them, without telling us what they were?

MESEREAU: I was not concerned. I was actually encouraged by them.

KING: So, when you heard the question, that furthered your confidence?

MESEREAU: Yes, it did.

KING: How well did the judge do?

MESEREAU: The judge was an outstanding jurist.

I think all judges in America should learn a lesson from the way Judge Melville conducted this trial.

He was determined, from day one, that this was not going to get out of control. He was determined that justice was going to be done in and outside that courtroom.

He employed some very creative procedures to make sure that order was kept throughout the trial. He did a masterful job and I have total respect for Judge Melville and his wonderful staff.

KING: Even though he got mad at you a few times?

MESEREAU: Yes, he did, but he got mad at the prosecution, also.

He was very fair-minded.

KING: That's all you want, right? balance and fair?

MESEREAU: That's, I think, the most we can expect, and we had it with Judge Melville. He's an outstanding judge.

KING: We'll be right back with more a Thomas Mesereau.

We'll be including your phone calls on this edition of LARRY KING LIVE.

Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... The mother, when she looked at me and snapped her fingers a few times, and she says, "You know how our culture is," and winks at me. I thought, "No, that's not the way our culture is."

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As a mother to -- the values and stuff that she has taught them and they've learned -- and that is really hard for me to comprehend, you know, because I wouldn't want any of my children to lie for their own gain.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back with Thomas Mesereau. We certainly thank him for giving us this time tonight, exclusively. Let's take a few calls.

Tulsa, Oklahoma, for the victorious defense attorney. Hello.

CALLER: Hi. Um, Mr -- hi, Larry.

KING: Hi.

CALLER: Mr. Mesereau, do you have any idea when Michael might make a statement?

MESEREAU: You know, I really don't. I have not talked to him about that. Michael is going to have to go through a period of physical recovery. He's exhausted. He was not sleeping. He was not eating. It was a very, very traumatic experience for him and it's going to take a while for him to recover. I don't anticipate his making a statement very soon, but I suppose it's possible. But I have not discussed it with him.

KING: You then would not recommend any immediate in-depth interview?

MESEREAU: I really would not. I think Michael needs to spend time with his children and his family. He needs to savor his victory. He's a very, very grateful, very spiritual person. I think he would like to be left alone, and would like to heal and mend and move forward.

KING: They all took off in their cars back to Neverland. Where did you go right after the verdict?

MESEREAU: After the verdict, we went to see Judge Melville and his staff to thank them for their very professional behavior towards all of us and then we went to Neverland as well.

KING: Indiana, Pennsylvania, hello.

CALLER: Hello. My hats off to you, Larry, for your fairness during this thing and to you, Mr. Mesereau. My question is, the media has branded Michael Jackson as a freak and pedophile. How can he recover as the consummate talent he is?

KING: Good question.

MESEREAU: Well, I think he can recover because Michael is a very resilient person. Yes, he has been a target for many years. He's been maligned. He's been scandalized, but he's also one of the world's greatest artists and one of the world's greatest talents and also one of the world's greatest humanitarians and Michael has all the tools and the skills and the support to recover and go forward and do very well.

KING: Do you expect him to return to the stage?

MESEREAU: Larry, I'm not an expert on the music industry or the entertainment business, but I know Michael is an artist. He's a creative soul. You can't stifle his creativity and I would not be surprised if he makes a rebound and does it very effectively.

KING: Was the family easy to deal with for you? They're such a tight-knit group.

MESEREAU: The family was lovely to deal with. They're very, very wonderful people. They were all very supportive of Michael. There were a lot of rumors about dissension that were not true. They were a joy to deal with, a very lovely family.

KING: What happened to Raymone Bain?

MESEREAU: Well, you know, I worked with Raymone for many months. We worked very effectively together. We had a few differences towards the end, but that happens in big cases, but I have a lot of respect for Raymone, and always enjoyed seeing her and working with her.

KING: Why let her out that late in the case, though?

MESEREAU: You know, there's some confidential reasons why we had some differences at the end, but they're really insignificant. The fact of the matter is we were a team and we won and she did a very fine job.

KING: There's the famous tape of you apparently having an argument with, I guess, Brian Oxman and there was strong -- of course, correspondents went nuts with that tumult in the Jackson defense. What was that about? MESEREAU: I'm not going to talk about that, Larry. I think that's a matter of confidence. Brian was a very hard worker. He has known the Jacksons for a long time. He has given them very effective representation in many areas. We had differences. It happens in big cases when the stakes are high.

KING: None of our business?

MESEREAU: That's correct.

KING: You have said that Michael was a victim of bad advice in the past, that settling past molestation claims led to greed begetting greed. Are you saying he shouldn't have settled anything?

MESEREAU: That's correct. I think, looking backwards -- you know, we can all be Monday-morning quarterbacks in life and change things we've done, but I think if Michael could go back, he would never have settled those cases. He would've fought them to the end and the message would have got out, don't make false claims against Michael Jackson or you're going to trial.

KING: Oxman still represents -- he told Paula Zahn -- he still represents the family, right?

MESEREAU: That's my understanding. I have not talked to Brian since he left the defense team.

KING: Are you concerned there might be civil suits against Michael after this? Or does this wash that out?

MESEREAU: Well, I think it would be crazy to file a civil suit against Michael, given what happened in this trial. It's always possible. But, if it's done, he will fight it until the end and he will win.

KING: His ex-wife, Debbie Rowe, was called by the state. She appeared to help the defense. Do you agree?

MESEREAU: Yes, I do. She helped us a lot.

KING: Why, then, was she called?

MESEREAU: You'll have to ask the prosecutors about that. They wined and dined her at a local restaurant the night before. From what I understand, a lot of pressure was put on her to say what they wanted her to say. When she got on the witness stand, she told the truth and she explained who Michael was and was very effective for us.

KING: Anyone you called you regretted?

MESEREAU: Not really, Larry. You know, there were a couple of witnesses that didn't pan out exactly as we had hoped, but we did pretty well. We put on a very strong defense after, I think very effectively cross-examining their witnesses. So, we had an extraordinarily large number of good days in this trial.

KING: Sometimes defendants are a very important part of their case, sometimes not. Was Michael very involved in the defense?

MESEREAU: Yes, he was, but Michael is an artist. He's a musician. He's not a criminal defense lawyer and he was very willing to listen and to do what he was advised was the correct thing, and he was actually a joy to work with.

KING: So, in other words, if you had told him, Michael, I think you should take the stand, he would have?

MESEREAU: He absolutely would have. In fact, he expected to.

KING: We'll be back with more, and more phone calls for Thomas Mesereau on this edition of LARRY KING LIVE. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back with Thomas Mesereau. Let's take another call. Glenolden, Pennsylvania, hello.

CALLER: Hello, Larry. I'd like to ask Mr. Mesereau if there's a possibility that a malicious prosecution case be filed against the D.A.'s office of Santa Barbara and Mr. Tom Sneddon?

MESEREAU: I think it would be warranted but I have not discussed it with Michael Jackson. We just got the verdict, you know, recently. He's now recovering. Nobody has really discussed that issue. But if you ask me...

KING: But you think it was malicious?

MESEREAU: I do. I think that he was treated in a way that no one else would've been similarly treated. It was because he was a mega-celebrity. Why 70 sheriffs searching Neverland Ranch, based upon what this accuser and his family said, before they'd even investigated the background of the accuser and his family?

KING: So, you're saying, if he wanted to, he could bring a malicious prosecution suit, and be successful?

MESEREAU: I don't -- I'm not going to say right now what the merits or demerits of the suit would be. That would have to be explored. But do I think this was done maliciously and unfairly? Absolutely.

KING: You had a tragedy happen to you during this trial. Your sister died of lung cancer, right?

MESEREAU: That's correct.

KING: How did that affect this whole thing for you, I mean, emotionally?

MESEREAU: Well, it was very difficult emotionally. It happened right as the trial was beginning. Judge Melville gave me some time to handle the funeral and all the things related to that. It was very difficult, but I will say that one of her last messages to me was that she thought we were going to win. And I thought about her throughout the trial, yes.

KING: How old was she?

MESEREAU: She was 53.

KING: She smoked?

MESEREAU: Yes, she did. She smoked from the time she was 13, and, unfortunately, it took a toll.

KING: Was Michael compassionate about that death?

MESEREAU: Michael was not only compassionate; he sent her the most beautiful, the largest bouquet of flowers you've ever seen. He wrote a little poem for her. It came from he and his children. And it was one of the most meaningful and most wonderful things that he could have done for her during her final days.

KING: How does he interact with his kids?

MESEREAU: Beautifully. He loves his children. They love him. He spends a lot of time with them. He is a loving, doting, caring father. And his children just adore him.

KING: Are they well mannered?

MESEREAU: Yes, they are. They're wonderful children. I was with them yesterday.

KING: When you were doing your pre-trial questioning of Michael, when you have to get into a lot of subjects that are not everyday table conversation, was that hard? When you have to ask your own client, did you do this to this boy?

MESEREAU: I'm not going to go into the questions I asked Michael; they're privileged and confidential.

KING: Of course, but were they difficult for you?

MESEREAU: Frankly, no, because the more I got to know Michael Jackson and the more ridiculous I realized these charges were, and the more of a gentle, charitable, kind-hearted, decent person he is, the less difficulty there was. I mean, he always was a very straightforward, honest, down-to-Earth person to deal with. And the Michael Jackson that I know doesn't even come close to the Michael Jackson they tried to portray.

KING: And when you asked...

MESEREAU: So he was an easy person to deal with.

KING: And when you asked him questions, he answered you directly?

MESEREAU: Of course he did. He's very honest and he's very down-to-Earth. If you look at the few interviews he has done, you see a very, very simple, down-to-Earth person who is very honest about who he is, honest about his loneliness, honest about his childhood. He is a very, very decent, kind person and easy to deal with.

KING: And trusting?

MESEREAU: Too trusting. That's been his downfall. He has trusted the wrong people. He has felt sorry for the wrong people. He has tried to heal the wrong people. And they have turned on him and tried to take advantage of him through the legal system.

KING: Will he be tougher?

MESEREAU: Yes, he will. We've already had a talk about that. He will, for sure. This was a horrible experience for him, and he's not going to allow people to just run wild through his home, and -- because he feels sorry for them and wants to take care of them and wants to heal them. He has to get much firmer and he will.

KING: You said earlier, you let him be him. You didn't tell him what to wear or anything, but the pajama incident that got a lot of press, did that bother you?

MESEREAU: Well, but that was not something anybody planned. He had to go to the hospital. He expected to be there for a short period of time. Judge Melville took a very firm position, which he had the right to do, and said, get him here quickly or he was going to issue a bench warrant. So Michael had to run right from the hospital to the courthouse. He complied with Judge Melville's order. That was not something anybody planned or wanted. It just happened.

KING: You think it was much ado about nothing?

(CROSSTALK)

MESEREAU: I agree. Absolutely.

KING: So, therefore, you didn't deal with you telling him how to act in court? Sit up, sit this way, do this, do that, wear this, wear that?

MESEREAU: No. I wanted Michael Jackson to be who Michael Jackson is. And you know, jurors are smart. They're intuitive. They're instinctive. They know what they're being asked to do to somebody at the counsel table. And you don't want to have your client to do something that is phony or unrealistic. I wanted Michael Jackson to be exactly who he was and is, and be proud of it, and that's what he did. There was nothing phony about our side of the table. There was a lot that was phony about the prosecution's side of the table.

KING: Phony?

MESEREAU: Yes.

KING: Meaning they knew they were doing something that wasn't right? MESEREAU: I don't see how they could not have known that. Look at their conspiracy theory, for example. They were trying to say that Michael Jackson had a financial motive to essentially abduct a family and ship them to Brazil. It was the most ridiculous theory I have ever heard of. I don't know how they did it with a straight face. And it backfired on them, as it should have.

KING: We'll be back with more of Thomas Mesereau, some more phone calls, too, on this very interesting hour of LARRY KING LIVE. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back. You mentioned earlier how you boosted your client and always tried to be optimistic. But do you have to give -- do you have to talk at all about the possibility of a guilty verdict, tell him what might happen to him? Deal with what might happen?

MESEREAU: Well, Larry, you have to be honest with your client at all times. You do have ethical and professional obligations to explain the situation the client is in, but at the same time, you know, if you really believe in your case and you really are optimistic about your chances, you also have to convey that as well. And I was always optimistic about this case once I learned about it, because the more you looked into who these accusers were and who the witnesses the prosecution was going to call were, the more ridiculous everything looked.

KING: So, there was no reason to say, Michael, be prepared, you might be in jail tonight?

MESEREAU: Well, you never know what a jury is going to do. You don't know those 12 people. They're not personal friends of yours. You don't know what makes them tick. But I always had a good feeling about this jury. I always felt that our case was going in very well. And I always thought the truth would prevail. And I really felt that these jurors were very independent-minded, that nobody was going to push them around, they were going to follow the law and do what's right.

KING: Tempe, Arizona, for Tom Mesereau. Hello.

CALLER: Hello, Larry, I love your show.

KING: Thank you.

CALLER: My question is, how do you think the media coverage affected this case, Mr. Mesereau?

KING: Yeah. Did it?

MESEREAU: Well, ultimately, we had the right result. Justice was served. An innocent man walked free. So, I can't say that, in the long run, the media had the damaging effect that I was worried about at certain points in the trial. The problem I have with the media was they tried to turn it into a circus. They tried to pursue biases and prejudices against Mr. Jackson, because they thought it would generate interest and ratings, and they tried to make a circus out of the case. And to some extent, they did. But in the end, justice prevailed, because this jury was not going to be unduly influenced by other people. They were going to do what was right, and they did.

KING: Do you believe, therefore -- do you believe the jury didn't watch television?

MESEREAU: I believe they didn't. I believe this jury took Judge Melville's orders very seriously. I believe they took their job very seriously and I believe they were determined not to be unfairly or unduly influenced by anybody.

KING: Manillapan, Florida, hello.

CALLER: Hi, Mr. King. I love your show.

KING: Thank you.

CALLER: I'd like to know if Mr. Mesereau could disclose the approximate cost of the defense.

MESEREAU: I'm sorry. I didn't totally understand the question.

KING: If you could disclose the approximate cost of the defense.

MESEREAU: I will not talk about legal fees or cost. That's confidential.

KING: What did it cost the state?

MESEREAU: It had to have cost them many millions of dollars. I have been told that the board of supervisors of Santa Barbara county has been up in arms about the cost of this case and if you look at the number of sheriffs and investigators and experts and people and prosecutors put on this case, it's absurd. They wouldn't do it in a murder case. They wouldn't do it in a serial killer case, but they did it because Michael Jackson is a superstar and they wanted to take a superstar down.

KING: How important was your investigator, Scott Ross?

MESEREAU: He was extremely important. Scott Ross did a fabulous job, as did Jesus Castillo, our second investigator. They were critical to our defense. They were relentless. They were professional. They dug up the facts. They found the witnesses. They got them to court. These guys were just terrific.

KING: Do you use your team a lot, Tom? Did other lawyers work with you?

MESEREAU: Yes. My co-counsel and law partner, Susan Yu, was absolutely essential to this defense. She was tireless in the way she put the evidence together, the way she assisted me in preparation. Bob Sanger, my co-counsel from Santa Barbara was an unbelievably effective lawyer. He was a trial lawyer in the trial court. He argued in the appellate courts. He did law in motion. He knew the local procedures and system. We had a lot of assistants helping us out in his office and my office and it was a great team effort and it succeeded.

KING: And, we'll be back with some more moments with Thomas Mesereau, ask about him, his future. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: One more call. Gainesville, Georgia, hello.

CALLER: Yes. I'd like to ask Mr. Mesereau if he believes that Tom Sneddon is responsible for the grand jury testimony being leaked to the press.

MESEREAU: I don't know if Tom Sneddon is personally responsible for that, but certainly somebody in the prosecution side, it would appear, was responsible and when I say prosecution side, I'm including the sheriff's department.

As you know, those transcripts were leaked just as the trial was beginning, and it's my belief they were leaked to try and prejudice the entire process. Do I know that Tom Sneddon did it personally? I do not have any understanding of that, but I think somebody who favored the prosecution did it. That's my belief.

KING: You said Michael's going to stay at Neverland?

MESEREAU: I don't know the answer to that, Larry. We just haven't had a chance to talk about his future very much.

KING: He's got such an interest in kids. Do you think he'll still have some come over? Or are you going to advise him against...

MESEREAU: Again, well, I really haven't talked to Michael very much about the future. I do know, as we said before, that he has to get a lot tougher with who he lets into his life and who he feels sorry for and who he wants to heal and help because he's a real target.

KING: We'll ask his brothers tomorrow.

One other thing I didn't cover. Were you surprised -- I know you left the case -- were you surprised at the Robert Blake verdict?

MESEREAU: No, I was not. As you may recall, I did the three- week preliminary hearing in that case.

KING: I remember.

MESEREAU: I thought the case was full of holes and full of problems.

KING: You told me that.

MESEREAU: I was not surprised at all.

KING: You told me then you thought he would win.

MESEREAU: Yes.

KING: Sorry you left it?

MESEREAU: No. You know, life goes on. We had a falling out and those things happen in the high-pressure world of criminal defense. But he hired a very, very excellent lawyer who did a very excellent job and he's free.

KING: Interesting thing about Thomas Mesereau, born in West Point, father, lieutenant colonel; worked for his in-laws restaurant business, Mama Leone's, one of the most successful restaurants ever in America, famous in New York; was an amateur boxer; and represented defendants in death penalty cases in the south, pro bono, didn't charge; gives free legal assistance through the First African Methodist Episcopal Church in L.A. -- were you glad about that apology yesterday, for slavery and (INAUDIBLE) hangings?

MESEREAU: Well, what -- you know, Larry, yesterday was a wild day. Which apology...

KING: The Senate -- the Senate apologized for the treatment in the past of the American black.

MESEREAU: I'm absolutely in favor of that, if that's the way it was done and it was articulated properly, I am absolutely behind that.

KING: Are you looking forward to a lot more criminal cases? I mean, you're famous, widespread now. You know, it's obvious you're going to get a lot of calls. Are you ready for an onslaught of new business?

MESEREAU: No, I'm ready to get some sleep.

KING: But you seriously know you're going to get a lot of attention now?

MESEREAU: I'm sure I will, and, you know, I'll take it as it comes. I have strong views about my profession. I love what I do. I have a strong belief in civil rights and in making sure our justice system works and we'll just move forward. I feel very blessed by god to have been in the case.

KING: How many partners in your firm?

MESEREAU: Just four partners. It's a small firm.

KING: Might you expand?

MESEREAU: I don't know. We'll have to take it as it comes. I don't have any plans, other than to get some sleep, see my family and friends and move forward.

KING: Take a vacation for a while?

MESEREAU: I could definitely use one, yes.

KING: Thomas, thank you so much for a very informative hour. I appreciate you giving us an hour. We know how tired you are.

MESEREAU: Well, thank you for having me.

KING: Thomas Mesereau, very successful defense attorney, quite a career, quite a life, quite a story.

Tomorrow night, Tito and Jermaine, Jermaine and Tito Jackson, Michael's brothers who promised to appear on this show when the trial was over, no matter what the verdict, will appear on this show.

And on Thursday night, Billy Graham. That should be extraordinary. And Friday night, Shania Twain. Speaking of big stars, we have a big star right here in New York where I'm here with my whole family. I got father of the year award today. I was humbled. It was tremendous day for me to have the whole family here.


TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com

? 2005 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us. All external sites will open in a new browser.
CNN.com does not endorse external sites.
Denotes premium content.
Add RSS headlines.

Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 4:16 AM JST
Updated: Thu, Jun 16 2005 4:22 AM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Cnn Lary King Live- Jackson Found Not Guilty
Mood:  bright
Topic: Main News
Aired June 13, 2005 - 21:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We, the jury, in the above-entitled case, find the defendant not guilty of the...

(CHEERS)

LARRY KING, HOST, "LARRY KING LIVE": Tonight, Michael Jackson walks away a free man, acquitted on all counts in his child molestation trial. We'll hear from reporters who were inside the courtroom, and outside, among the fans, for the dramatic climax to this trial. And, we'll speak with Jackson camp insiders, and more, and it's all next, on LARRY KING LIVE.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Momentarily, we'll be talking to a whole panel of people.

And I'm joined here in New York by Cynthia McFadden, ABC News senior legal correspondent. We spoke on the phone earlier with Jermaine Jackson, one of Michael's brothers, and we'll -- hopefully -- we'll be talking with him by phone tonight during the program.

And tomorrow night, Tom Mesereau, the defense attorney, will be our exclusive prime-time news guest. That's tomorrow night, Tom Mesereau, the defense attorney.

But let's begin in the opening segment with Paul Rodriguez, better known as juror number 80, the jury foreman, the retired high school counselor.

How tough was this for you, Paul, first, to serve on jury duty?

PAUL RODRIGUEZ, JACKSON JURY FOREMAN: It was tough because it's been at it since about the middle of January when I first got my summons to appear for jury duty. So, it's been tough. It's been a long, long haul.

KING: What was the -- was there a key to this decision?

RODRIGUEZ: Was there a key to this decision?

KING: Yes.

RODRIGUEZ: Yes. We just couldn't buy the story of the mother for one, and the corresponding stories of the children, they were too much like the mother's. Although, you know, it's almost like they rehearsed it in so many ways. And anyway, some of the timelines weren't matching up. So, yes. Those were the things we probably looked at.

KING: It -- was it difficult not to hold all the prior things against him? The film? The settlement years ago? Does that enter into the discussion?

RODRIGUEZ: Yes, it did. Entered into the discussion and we probably spent quite a bit of time referring to that case and coming back to it on various occasions, just depending on what we were talking about or deliberating about at that moment. So, yes, it did enter into it, but in the final analysis, that's not what we needed to use for determining the guilt or not guilty verdict.

KING: When you left on Friday, did you have a pretty good idea it would be over on Monday?

RODRIGUEZ: No, we did not. When we left on Friday, we all decided that we needed to into something to get away from this and just think about other things because we knew it was going to be -- we thought it was going to be another few days before we would finish up and we just didn't think it would go this quickly, especially not today, on a Monday.

KING: So what happened today?

RODRIGUEZ: Well, what happened today is that we started out with this whole thing on the conspiracy charges, and that was on day one, and we couldn't get anywhere even after reading the instructions over and over again. There's 98 pages of instructions, and so we'd refer to that. Since we couldn't -- we were just at opposite ends on too much many issues there, so we decided to go onto something else, and after we did that just a few things were left, plus the conspiracy charge. So, we went back to that and we had a clear mind and a clear focus on what we needed to do and that's how we ended the day or ended the whole scenario.

KING: Are you saying the other charges were clearer than the conspiracy?

RODRIGUEZ: No. There was some -- we had to do a time line in order to get the charges clear in our minds as far as the molestation charges. But that seemed to come together a lot faster than what we thought it would. We thought that would be one of the toughest things, but it came together a lot faster than the conspiracy.

And the conspiracy, we might've been able to get that done sooner, but we decided that, let's go see if we can get some other issues taken care of and come back to that and that's basically the way we approached it.

KING: I don't want to knock pundits, Juror 80, but most of the pundits said the conspiracy was the easiest one. That would be not guilty. The hardest would be the others. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, it was. That's why I say we came back to it and I don't know why we just tabled it, but we decided to table it, and you are right, it was one of the easier ones to do. But I think that also what balanced out was just by completing the other charges against him.

KING: What did you -- how did Michael appear to you in court? What was it like to look at this for all these days?

RODRIGUEZ: Well, there for a while, you look at him and you watch his demeanor, you watch his body language, and yes, there was days he looked awful. You know, there was days where he looked like he had plenty of sleep, but after a while, you lose concentration that he's even there. You know, you're focusing on what's being said in the courtroom, what the lawyers are saying, what witnesses are testifying to, so he became secondary to the whole thing, although that's why we were there in the first place, is because of him.

KING: When it was finally decided unanimous, not guilty, were you happy for him?

RODRIGUEZ: No, not really. I think it's just a job that we had to get done and we did the best that we could and we just felt that the job was completed, and rather -- I don't know. There were some tears from some of the jury members. I don't know if there was tears of happiness or tears it was over with. But I had, you know, really, personally, had no real feelings one way or the other. I just felt like we needed to leave there with a clear mind and saying we did the best that we could under the -- with the evidence that we had presented to us.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Couple of other quick things -- I thank you for giving us the time. Did his lifestyle, which had to be uncommon to 99.5 percent of all of the people, did that throw you?

RODRIGUEZ: We did consider that a lot, you know, just him sleeping with children and so on, so forth. There's not too many grown men that we know that would do that. But, again, we had to base it on the evidence presented to us, and come out of there with -- deciding on everything with -- beyond a reasonable doubt. I can't emphasize that strongly enough. So if the evidence was there, we would have worked with it but there was a lot of things lacking, so we just didn't have anything that we needed to complete the case.

KING: One other thing before I let you go. Cynthia McFadden has a question for you. Cynthia?

CYNTHIA MCFADDEN, ABC NEWS SR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. I was wondering, the allegations of past abuse that the prosecutor presented, the so-called 1108 evidence. Did you find any of those other allegations credible?

RODRIGUEZ: Yes, we did. To a certain degree, we didn't -- again, we couldn't take that as complete evidence, to use that as information that we needed to complete this case. We could just use that as information presented to us of what a pattern could be developed to -- so on and so forth.

MCFADDEN: So, you did think there might've been a pattern, just not proof beyond a reasonable doubt in this case. Is that what you are saying?

RODRIGUEZ: Yes.

KING: Yes, Paul, I thank you very much. Thank you for the time, man. It was terrific of you. I know it's been a tough day for you. Thank you very much and thank you for your service.

RODRIGUEZ: OK, thank you.

KING: Joining us now by phone is Tito Jackson, one of Michael Jackson's brothers. He's on a cell phone kicking in now. Are you there, Tito?

TITO JACKSON, MICHAEL JACKSON'S BROTHER: Hey, Larry, how are you?

KING: How are you? Where were you? Were you in the courtroom?

T. JACKSON: Yes, I was in the courtroom.

KING: Did you drive back with Michael?

T. JACKSON: I'm sorry, Larry?

KING: Did you drive back in the car with Michael?

T. JACKSON: I was in the car behind -- of Michael's vehicle. Third car, I was in the third car.

KING: What happened when they announced the verdict in your heart? What was your feeling? Were you worried?

T. JACKSON: Of course, everyone would be worried. But they kept reading the counts. The pressure was lifting off me, and I was holding my mom tight, and we all cried through every count. We cried through every count. Justice has finally been served and Mike's a free man.

KING: What's first thing he said to you?

T. JACKSON: He told me he loved me and I told him, I love you, too.

KING: How did he hold up today?

T. JACKSON: Well, it would be hard on anyone, you know? Michael kept his strength and he hung in there. He didn't do any events and I think it was a very personal thing on Tom Sneddon's part. We want to come onto your show and we'll be able to get more into that, but Larry, you know, I also have here with me is my brother Jermaine. So, he wants to get on the phone as well.

KING: OK, put him on.

T. JACKSON: So, I'm going to pass it over to him.

KING: All right.

JERMAINE JACKSON, MICHAEL'S BROTHER: Hi, Larry.

KING: Hi, Jermaine. I look forward sitting down you in person, but I thank you for joining us with Tito. Did you ride back with Michael or were you in a different car?

JERMAINE JACKSON: I was in the third car but we were very, very, very, very happy, and, like we always felt from the very beginning and knew that he was (INAUDIBLE) innocent. And, I'll just say this, it takes one person to tell the truth, but it takes many to concoct a lie and that's what you saw there. And I just feel that the community up there in Santa Maria is a wonderful community. They are wonderful taxpayers, but the people who are in power and who are in authority, whoa. They need some work, because what they have done to -- well, what they tried to do in the lies they put out there against my family and Michael is just ridiculous.

And, at the same time, to report -- there were reporters reporting all this stuff and going on and on and on and then, go take a poll and try to see what the poll is going to be, around the U.S. -- it's just unfair. I mean, we kept quiet because we knew all the time justice was going to be served. It was on our side, but we can't control what the media is going to say, because they weren't reporting the right thing. So they were suading all the viewers and all the public's opinion.

KING: Were you surprised, though? Therefore, in view of that, with public opinion polls and the condition of the Santa Maria power structures you cite (ph), were you surprised by any part of his verdict?

JERMAINE JACKSON: I wasn't surprised by any part of the verdict, because I always felt and always said that Michael is 1,000 percent innocent. I know why this was done, and I'll say it again, Tito and I would love to sit down with you and share with the world, because what's important is that people know who we are and really know who Michael really is, and that's what's most important. He's a wonderful, wonderful person. And Neverland was never built to do what they tried to say. Neverland was built to bring happiness to the kids who were terminally ill, and he just wanted to give them a brighter day. That's all it was built for.

KING: How -- how are his kids?

JERMAINE JACKSON: His kids are fine. They're all fine, and the family is just strong -- stronger. We were strong before, but we're stronger now. And so I dare anybody to try to stand up against us, because we're very strong, and that's what a family's supposed to be. Michael is 1,000 KING: What are you doing tonight?

JERMAINE JACKSON: Excuse me?

KING: What are you doing tonight?

JERMAINE JACKSON: I'm going to go to sleep early. We're going to just probably rest, because we've been tired. This has been a long two years and more of just grueling and just -- just -- we're just going to just hug each other and jump up and down, and we can't wait to share this with you when we see you.

KING: Yeah, I look forward to it. And is Michael going to work again soon?

JERMAINE JACKSON: I really don't know. Right now, he's going to rest, but you know, it's in his blood. It's in his bones. And so -- but he's going to rest right now and get past all of this. But I will say, thank you to all the supporters around the world and the people who always believed and still believe in my family, in Michael, in all of us. So thank you very, very much, Larry.

KING: Thank you. Do you want to stay on or you want to come on later in the week?

JERMAINE JACKSON: I want to talk to you in person, so you can really -- because Tito and I got so much to say, because we were the ones there and just really...

KING: All right.

JERMAINE JACKSON: We got something to say. We got...

KING: We'll set it up for you...

JERMAINE JACKSON: We need to talk.

KING: ... and Tito. And thanks so much for doing this.

JERMAINE JACKSON: Thank you, Larry.

KING: Thank you, Jermaine and Tito Jackson, two of Michael's brothers.

The whole panel will assemble. Your calls later. We'll be right back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We the jury in the above-entitled case find the defendant not guilty of conspiracy, not guilty of a lewd act upon a minor child, not guilty of administering an intoxicating agent to assist in the commission of a felony as charged in count seven of the indictment.

(END VIDEO CLIP) (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Here's your shot of Neverland.

Let's meet our panel. In Santa Maria, CNN correspondent Ted Rowlands. In Neverland -- at Neverland is Brooke Anderson of CNN. In Santa Maria, Jane Velez-Mitchell, the correspondent for "Celebrity Justice." Michael Cardoza, defense attorney and former Alameda County prosecutor. Craig Smith, the former Santa Barbara County prosecutor and Superior Court commissioner. He knows Tom Sneddon quite well. He teaches law at Santa Barbara Ventura Colleges of Law. And here in New York, you've already met her, Cynthia McFadden, ABC News senior legal correspondent, co-anchor of "Primetime Live." And broke a lot of exclusives during this Jackson case.

All right, Ted, were you surprised?

TED ROWLANDS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: No. Because we really didn't know which way this was going. It was an amazing scene inside and outside the courthouse. I was outside when the verdicts were read. The fans, there were hundreds of them, were so quiet. You could hear a pin drop. Everybody listening to the audio feed from inside the courtroom, and with each not guilty, they would erupt, and then quickly get quiet again. Go ahead.

KING: But you weren't surprised, you yourself?

ROWLANDS: Well, I sat through this entire trial except for a few weeks, and I think that the jury did an excellent job of evaluating the case and mulling it over. And if you listened to the jurors afterwards, they were a conscientious jury and they did go through it. And you heard Mr. Rodriguez say that they just didn't feel like it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

KING: Brooke, were you surprised?

RROOKE ANDERSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Larry, you know, like Ted said, we did not know what to expect. The fans here, they were gathered as the verdict was read. And as each count was read not guilty, we heard elation and cheers.

KING: I know that, but were you surprised? I'm asking you.

ANDERSON: Honestly, you know, I guess I was a little bit surprised that all 10 counts not guilty, but then you never know what these 12 jurors are thinking, and this is what the jury found, and this is what we're going to go with.

KING: Cynthia, you're surprised?

MCFADDEN: Yes, I was surprised, Larry. I'll tell you why. Usually when the state gets to offer evidence like it did in this case, the 1108 evidence, which is really powerful evidence, these past allegations of bad acts, it's very difficult for the defense to prevail. So yeah, I was surprised. I think this was an absolute rejection of the prosecution argument. KING: It was a wipe-out, right?

MCFADDEN: It was a wipe-out. And I have to say, I was surprised that the prosecution was able to get absolutely not one vote for...

KING: Jane Velez-Mitchell, were you surprised?

JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, CELEBRITY JUSTICE: I was surprised, Larry, because I was sitting in the courtroom. And when the jurors filed in, they looked grim. They looked very serious. And then they did not make eye contact with Michael Jackson, and normally that's not a good sign for the defendant. Michael Jackson, by the way, looked terrified as he walked in, almost as if it was an effort to get to the defendant's chair.

But then boom, boom, boom, not guilty across the board. So it was an absolute stunner, and the room was surrounded in sobs. I had sobs behind me. The fans sobbing. Mother Catherine, two seats in front of me, sobbing. Michael Jackson had a tissue going up to his eye, and those on the side who could see him said he was crying. His attorney, one of them, Susan Yu, was sobbing. Then I look over at one of the jurors, who's mother of four, and she was sobbing outright. So a lot of tears in that courtroom.

KING: Michael, same question as everybody, were you surprised?

MICHAEL CARDOZA, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: No, I wasn't. But remember what happened in the beginning of this case, Larry. All the legal pundits were saying, not guilty all along. Then as this trial progressed, and that prior sexual misconduct came in, the famous 1108 evidence, as that came in, some people started to say, uh-oh, we might get a guilty verdict in this case.

And then closing arguments came. I thought Mesereau gave a very, very good closing argument. Ron Zonen, I think he really outargued him. Gave a great closing argument, brought the case even closer.

Anything could have happened. I was really expecting, either way wouldn't have surprised me. Was I surprised? No. But I'll tell you what, the jury did the right thing in this case, because they isolated out the accuser's crime in this one. They took the accuser, the accuser's family, looked at that and said, did not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and shoved that 1108 aside.

KING: Craig Smith, what did you think?

CRAIG SMITH, FORMER SANTA BARBARA COUNTY PROSECUTOR: Well, was I surprised? Yes and no. We knew all along that it was a very close case, that it was on the fence. Certainly when the case went to the jury, people thought it could go either way. No one could call it. I really thought there was going to be some kind of split verdict, some type of compromise. I thought at the very least they would find Michael Jackson guilty of one of the lesser-included offenses of simply furnishing alcohol but they didn't even find him guilty of that. So I am surprised. KING: We'll take a break and come back, and when we come back, Angel Howansky a Jackson family spokesman and Majestic Magnificent, Michael Jackson's friend, confidante, and personal magician -- I never had one of those -- will join us. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're joined now in Santa Maria, California, by one of Michael Jackson's closest friends and confidantes, Majestic Magnificent, who's called Michael's personal magician. What does a personal magician do?

MAJESTIC MAGNIFICENT, MAGICIAN, FRIEND OF JACKSON: That's something the press is labeling on me. I'm not Michael's personal magician. I just happen to be a magician from Muhammad Ali transferred to Michael.

I want to answer that question that you asked everybody else. I had no doubt whatsoever that Michael would be acquitted on all the charges. Neither did Michael. From the very beginning, he said over and over again, justice will prevail and I will be acquitted and you will see, I'm innocent.

KING: So, are you saying, Majestic, then, this morning, when you got up, you weren't worried at all?

MAJESTIC MAGNIFICENT: Not even a little bit, because I know his character. I know he would not hurt a child, and if justice is going to be fair, not like -- not unlike these tabloids shows. You're a credible journalist, but these people like Nancy Grace, Diane Dimond, all these people trying Michael in the press, that is not in courtroom. It's the normal people and the jurors that make the decision. That's how I knew he was going to be acquitted.

KING: How's the family doing?

MAJESTIC MAGNIFICENT: Great, wonderful. I just spoke to Randy, everybody enjoying the moment of happiness and they all together and having this like, hey, it's over, and Michael will be making music. He will be singing. He will be dancing. You know, can't nobody do what Michael do on a stage. So, people say, he can't make a comeback and all this. He never been nowhere. Ya'll just -- they just tied him up for a while.

KING: So you're saying he's coming back?

MAJESTIC MAGNIFICENT: Oh my god. Can you -- name somebody who can sing and dance like Michael, Larry. Of course the world want to see that.

KING: Did you talk to him today?

MAJESTIC MAGNIFICENT: No, I haven't. I just spoke to Randy today.

KING: When are you going to see him? MAJESTIC MAGNIFICENT: Probably this week some time. I'm going over there -- I am sure there's going to be something in the next couple -- coming days. I'll probably go out to the ranch sometime.

KING: Thank you, Majestic. Always good seeing you. Majestic Magnificent.

MAJESTIC MAGNIFICENT: You, too. Take care, Larry.

KING: Not a personal magician, just happens to be a magician. Thank you. Glad we cleared that up.

MAJESTIC MAGNIFICENT: Thank you for being fair. Thank you so much!

KING: Thank you. We always try to be that.

Ted Rowlands, the crowd outside, as you discussed them earlier, they were jumping, they were happy, et cetera. What was the Jackson family like when they came out?

ROWLANDS: Very subdued. Relief, I think, would be the way to characterize them. Michael Jackson waved to the crowd, but no means were they raising their fists or smiling or high-fiving, not by any stretch of the imagination. Tom Mesereau was also very business-like, almost as if, you know, they were relieved and almost angered, too, that they had to put forth so much effort, so much heartache to get to this point, but not maybe what you would think. At least not -- that surprised me.

I thought there would be more smiles and a more of a pleased aura around them. But it was, pretty -- it was just, let's get out of here. Let's get home time type of feeling you got.

KING: And Brooke Anderson, what happened when they got home?

ANDERSON: Oh, when they got home, Larry, they were greeted by hundreds of fans. I even saw part of Jackson's staff at Neverland walk to the gate. I saw housekeepers. I saw chefs waving at him, cheering him on. The mood of the fans has definitely changed today from tense and anxious to celebratory and excited. We've seen some of the family members leave. We've seen Randy and Tito and Joe leave.

We haven't seen signs of Michael Jackson yet and I estimate there are about 200 fans here right now. Some of them tell me they're waiting to see Michael, hoping that he'll invite them into Neverland.

KING: Jane Velez-Mitchell, what do you gather public opinion will be of this, generally?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, in general, I think that people are going to say, that's the way it goes with celebrities. There's a celebrity justice and then there is justice for everyone else, although I do think that they will accept the jury's decision. I think people really feel this jury did as good a job as anyone could possibly do. They weighed the evidence. They worked hard, and they really fought to be fair, and I think they acquitted themselves in how they handled this. So, I think the general public, while possibly thinking well, something fishy's going on over there, is going to accept that Michael Jackson is not guilty of these particular charges.

KING: We'll take a break and be right back. We'll meet Angel Howansky, a Jackson family spokesperson; Debra Opri, attorney for members of the family; Jesse Jackson, more of our panel. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM SNEDDON, SANTA BARBARA CTY D.A.: Obviously, we're disappointed in the verdict, but we work every day in a system of justice. We believe in the system of justice, and I've been prosecutor for 37 years, and 37 years, I have never quarreled with a jury's verdict and I'm not going to start today.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back on what will be a historic day, June 13th. Joining us now from Santa Maria is Angel Howansky, the Jackson family spokesman. First, people have been asking this, Angel, how's Michael's health?

ANGEL HOWANSKY, JACKSON FAMILY SPOKESMAN: Michael -- this was definitely a long trial for Michael. I believe he just was a little dehydrated. But other than that, I know right now he's probably eating and having a good time. I'm not sure.

KING: Where were you when the verdict came in?

HOWANSKY: I was actually upstairs. There's a section where they have the family upstairs in the courthouse.

KING: Yes.

HOWANSKY: I was upstairs. And then when I heard that, when I -- when everybody started running, I ran downstairs so I could hear everything, too. There is only so many seats for the family in the courtroom, and family comes first. So I wasn't in there, but I was upstairs.

KING: Did you talk to Michael?

HOWANSKY: I had not spoken to him yet. I have spoken to the parents.

KING: What did they say?

HOWANSKY: And I know -- they are so happy this is behind them. They are so overwhelmed. This was a very long trial. And I really admire Mrs. Jackson. Every day she came to court, never missed a day, and that was a lot for her, and I'm so glad. And they're happy that this is over with, so they can put this behind them and move forward. And I just love that family. They are very generous people. And Michael should not have gone through this. And he was finally able to tell the world that he is innocent. And no one else can question that anymore. And I'm so proud.

KING: But they also are, as Jermaine and Tito spoke with us earlier, they're also angry. Do you understand that?

HOWANSKY: Absolutely. I understand that. He shouldn't have gone through this in the first place. And for him to have to go through all of this, publicly -- his family went through a lot as well, and there is definitely going to be a lot of anger, I understand. Because this should not have happened in the first place.

KING: Majestic says he's definitely going back to singing and performing. Do you concur?

HOWANSKY: I concur. The world would be at a loss if Michael Jackson did not get back out and sing and perform. His music -- I talked to some Koreans today, and they told me that Michael's music liberated them, liberated Hong Kong. And I'm just -- there is no one in the world like him.

KING: What happened to the other spokesperson?

HOWANSKY: Raymone?

KING: Yeah.

HOWANSKY: I wasn't involved in that. I am not sure exactly what happened. I've been with the family for 15 years. I've been a longtime family friend. Then I started representing the parents, probably since the last time, 1993. But I wasn't involved with the other spokesperson, and it wouldn't be fair to me to make a comment on that at all.

KING: What do you think the public's perception of Michael is now? Do you think they'll view this as a celebrity who got off, or a guy who got a fair trial and was judged fairly?

HOWANSKY: When I was out with the family, when I was out with the parents specifically, you would not believe the people that came out of nowhere and told the family that they support them and that Michael should have never gone through this. I don't believe he's going to be known as a celebrity that got off. From my understanding and what I know of the family, they're very generous people, they're very loving and they're very sharing. And those who really know them really know that that's how they are.

Michael loves children. He gives millions and millions of dollars to children and to charities. And people -- you know, the media made it seem like the public was anti-Michael, and we found quite the opposite. The public loves Michael Jackson. And the minute the verdicts came in, I got calls from Norway, I got calls from South Africa, all over the world with people crying, singing in their different languages for Michael, and just tears of joy. And I'm so happy for him, that he stood and he stood strong. KING: Thank you. Angel Howansky, the Jackson family spokesperson, from Santa Maria.

Back to Santa Maria and Michael Cardoza. Did the prosecution goof?

CARDOZA: No, I don't think they did goof in this case. Well, maybe a little goof. And what I mean by that is with Sneddon, back in '93, '94, he loses the Jordy Chandler prosecution because of that $20 million settlement. All right, that said; then what he does in my opinion is put Jackson in his crosshairs. He's looking to get Michael Jackson.

And I'm sure he believed Michael's a pedophile. So he's saying, I got a pedophile loose in my county, not going to happen. Then this family walks in. I think he was a little too quick to believe them and didn't really look at their background that carefully. Didn't look at the J.C. Penney case. Didn't look to the fact that they committed perjury in that case. Brought this case, and what he did, he bolstered this case with a prior misconduct, sexual misconduct. That made this case a lot stronger, but as I said, the jury did the right thing. They looked at this case and said, you didn't prove it.

KING: Cynthia, you think they were too zealous?

MCFADDEN: The prosecutors?

KING: Yeah.

MCFADDEN: Well, listen, I think they certainly appeared that way, at least to the public. You know, we didn't ask the jurors about what their opinion of the prosecutors were. But listen, I think if you're a prosecutor, and a young man comes into your office and says that he has been sexually molested by a man who you know has previously settled several other similar cases for multi millions of dollars, you have an obligation to investigate.

Now, maybe Michael is right, maybe a due investigation would have suggested that the case shouldn't go forward, because we knew from the start there were credibility problems with this accuser and his mother. But I certainly don't think the prosecutor was misguided in bringing these charges initially. Now, whether or not they should have proceeded, I don't think they tried the case very well. Listen, when you make your opening statement and say your witness is going to say one thing and then either you don't produce the witnesses or they say the direct opposite, you've got a problem, and we all know that's what happened.

KING: Craig Smith, you're a former prosecutor. Was this -- do you have questions about the way this was prosecuted?

SMITH: I really don't. And I have to disagree with what my friend Michael Cardoza had to say. Tom Sneddon has not had Michael Jackson in his crosshairs ever since 1993. He did have the rug pulled out from under him with the settlement of that earlier case for the $20 million or so. But he was not pursuing Michael Jackson all these years. This case came to him.

And so once this case came to him, and there was credible evidence to believe there was probable cause that Michael Jackson had done these things, I think Tom felt he had an obligation to follow through. And indeed, many of the things they did to try to check out and corroborate this story -- and what ultimately led to the filing of the conspiracy charge. The fact that there were these surveillance tapes found in the office of Mark Geragos' investigator, when they went out and executed the search warrant. That added strength.

Unfortunately for the prosecution, when they actually got into trial, every time there was a break, it could have been a good break for them or a bad break. It always went a bad break. For instance, they had more evidence before the grand jury on the conspiracy and the furnishing of alcohol than they had in front of the trial jury. Remember, they lost their crucial witness because their crucial witness got arrested and therefore, was unable -- or unavailable to testify at trial.

KING: Let me get a break and we'll come back with more. Don't get away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was very uncomfortable with that. A lot of the witnesses looked over at us from time to time, but then they'd look back. But she didn't take her eyes off of us, so that was a very uncomfortable feeling.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I disliked it intensely when she snapped her fingers at us. That's when I thought, don't snap your fingers at me, lady.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back on LARRY KING LIVE. That's the fingers of Ted Rowlands holding the latest edition of "The Santa Maria Times." Not guilty on all counts. I understand, Ted, you also have a poll result, right?

ROWLANDS: Yeah, CNN-"USA Today"-Gallup poll is out already on this. Verdict in the Michael Jackson case: 34 percent of those polled say they agree with it, 48 percent say they disagree. This is an interesting one. Outraged by the verdict in the Jackson trial is the question: Yes, 24 percent; no, 73 percent. Clearly people, maybe not agreeing with the verdict, but by no stretch of the imagination outraged, and then the question you asked everybody, are you surprised by the verdict? Yes, 47 percent; no, 52 percent. The latest.

KING: Surprised, Cynthia?

ROWLANDS: From the polling of CNN and "USA Today."

KING: Are you surprised at that poll? MCFADDEN: I think that's -- I think that's really interesting.

KING: Thirty-four percent support it and 47 don't?

MCFADDEN: Forty-eight percent disagree with the verdict. You know, it's really hard, especially when you're not in the courtroom, Larry. I mean, it's easy to have a 3,000-mile-away opinion. And I think that you know...

KING: Well, you haven't attended the trial is what you're saying.

MCFADDEN: Yeah, we haven't seen it all. I mean, one the virtues of having a camera in the courtroom is that the public actually has a much more informed opinion, because they get to evaluate the witnesses for themselves and not through the filters of those of us (INAUDIBLE).

KING: Jane Mitchell, why do you think more people aren't upset? They may disagree with it, but only 30 percent -- less than 30 percent are upset?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Because they've been hearing about this case from the beginning, and they've been hearing about the problems with this case. The timeline, the conspiracy charge that was so problematical of the cover-up, the conspiracy begins 19 days before the alleged molestation. And people, pundits have been saying what are they covering up before an alleged incident even occurs? And the jurors themselves said during their news conference that the timeline did bother them. There were a lot of things that just didn't make sense and add up about the prosecution's case, and they never fully explained them away. And you can't convict somebody because you have a gut feeling, or something doesn't seem right, when you have a 98- page jury instruction book.

KING: Chicago to Reverend Jesse Jackson, the spiritual adviser to Michael Jackson, founder and president of the Rainbow/PUSH coalition. Were you surprised, really?

JESSE JACKSON, RAINBOW/PUSH COALITION: Well, I had a queasy feeling. Really, I felt the pain, the stress. I hoped for the best, I really expected the worst. In the sense that the jury was never sequestered. And there were really two trials. There was the public media trial, and there was the courtroom trial. And then in the media trial, you had the talk show hosts, whether it was Nancy Grace or O'Reilly and a thousand others saying Michael was guilty over and over again, Court TV, Michael is guilty. And yet in the courtroom, they discern opinions and impressions from fact in evidence. And they were able to make the distinction. And I was delighted that they did, but I was not sure that they could.

KING: Did you talk to Michael?

JESSE JACKSON: This morning. He called me this morning. We did have a talk today. Michael's had the combination a of the extreme excruciating pain in his back, the fall he had in Munich, Germany, complicating that by the stress he's going under, and I suppose with that kind of pain and stress, it takes away your appetite. So he lost a lot of weight. Somebody with his own sense of his own innocence, and he felt confidence in this jury, confidence in Mesereau, and he felt that he would be, in fact, exonerated today, and in the end, that happened.

KING: Did you pray with him on the phone? What was the call about?

JESSE JACKSON: Well, he called because there was concern about the outcome of the trial today. And throughout the thing -- excuse me -- I've said to Michael, that if he declared his innocence, that if you have -- the jury has the faith, you must have the faith and God has the power. That you are a champion. And sometimes -- excuse me -- champions fall down. You get up again. The ground is no place for a champion. I tried to keep his spirits boosted.

KING: Thank you very much, Jesse. Reverend Jesse Jackson, the spiritual adviser to Michael Jackson, from his hometown of Chicago. We'll be back with more of our panel. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Tomorrow night on LARRY KING LIVE, an exclusive prime-time interview with Tom Mesereau. A very happy man tonight, the very successful defense attorney in this case.

What happens to his career, Cynthia?

MCFADDEN: Home run. I mean, nothing could have been more high- profile. Tom Mesereau has a lot to applaud (ph) tonight.

KING: He's through the roof now, right?

MCFADDEN: He is. I mean, he will be getting phone calls from everybody who gets in trouble, certainly.

KING: Cardoza, are you jealous?

CARDOZA: Am I jealous? You know? On a certain level, sure, I would have loved to have tried this case, but kudos to him. He tried a heck of a case. He put it on the line. He did it all. He did it right. He won. That's great. I'm really happy for him. I think he's a great guy.

I talked to him a little bit during the trial because the bailiffs would shoe us off, you know, don't talk, you can't talk. But I think it's great for him, and I'm really happy for him.

And if I might add -- you know why people are mad, Larry? Remember that poll you just talked about? Because there are some people who by that 1108, the past prior sexual misconduct, think that Michael Jackson's a pedophile. And if they have that mind-set, they are going to say, I don't care if he did this one, I would have found him guilty and I would have kept him off the street. I am not letting him at another little boy, and those are the people who say they're outraged. KING: Craig, do you think people, the viewer at home, was thrown by the pundits? That they may have built an opinion based on what the pundits were saying that had nothing to do with what jury was thinking?

SMITH: Well, I don't know that people were really thrown. And I don't know that the pundits were uniformly predicting a verdict of guilty on the molestation charges. I think for every pundit or analyst that you could find that thought it was going well for the prosecution there were at least one or two others who thought that the defense was going to pull it out. So, I don't think people were fooled by whatever the pundits were predicting.

KING: I'm going to take a break, come back and get a final comment from all our panelists on what happens to Michael Jackson now. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We all came in with our personal beliefs, and some of those did differ. But we spent a lot of time really seriously studying the evidence and looking at the testimony, and the jury instructions, and obviously came to an agreement.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Before we get some final thoughts from our panel, we're going to meet another juror. Raymond Hultman is joining us from Santa Maria.

Raymond, what did you think of the prosecution and how well -- or didn't -- not well -- they presented this case?

RAYMOND HULTMAN, JACKSON TRIAL JUROR: Larry, I think they presented the case probably as well as they could have under the circumstances. I think where the jury was left with some questions was the fact that there was not enough evidence to directly point to the accuser, and I think that was the most troublesome issue with the whole deliberation thing.

KING: Did you ever, Raymond, come close to guilty on any of the counts yourself?

HULTMAN: Well, to be quite honest, and everyone in the deliberation room was aware of this, I had some real strong feelings toward guilt after I viewed the sheriff's interview with Gavin Arviso, and I don't know if it was because of some naivete on my part, but in any event, it was quite -- it was quite compelling to me. But that's really not completely what this trial was all about, or what deliberation was all about. It had to do with other circumstances that were taking place, and just basically the credibility of the witness.

KING: Did other jurors, say, talk other jurors out of opinions? Did someone say, I think this and another juror would say, well, you ought to think this.

HULTMAN: No, I don't think anybody was really talked out of an opinion. It was more of presenting additional information about the timing of certain events. I mean, it's very conceivable that somebody can appear to be telling the truth and their demeanor would indicate that and everything else. But when you look at past history of the accuser, there's some doubt. There's room for reasonable doubt, and really, that's what it was all about.

KING: And you didn't let -- you didn't let the past record of Michael Jackson affect you with regard to this charge?

HULTMAN: No. It affected me. It affected me, certainly. There were -- there were some jurors that I think would have you believe that this was all about the accuser and all about the Arvisos in this particular case but I tried to make it quite clear that I felt it was very important to consider all of the evidence in the case including the evidence that was presented from 93-94, all of the other circumstances surrounding the actual molestation accusation.

But that evidence could only be used in the case of the 93-94 case to show a possible pattern that Michael Jackson may do this kind of crime, and -- but when it came right down to it, we were looking at 10 counts in this case that dealt with very specific items, and they were all directed at the accuser, the -- Gavin Arviso -- and we had to make a decision on that and it showed that there could be reasonable doubt.

KING: So you will sleep well tonight?

HULTMAN: I will sleep well. I mean, I don't think I lost any of my convictions. I -- I feel that Michael Jackson probably has molested boys. I cannot believe that, after some of the testimony was offered, I can't believe that this man could sleep in the same bedroom for 365 straight days and not do something more than just watch television and eat popcorn. I mean, that doesn't make sense to me, but that doesn't make him guilty of the charges that were presented in this case and that's where we had to make our decision.

KING: Thank you, Raymond. Raymond Hultman, a very honest appraisal. Thank you, Raymond, very much. Extraordinary, huh, Cynthia?

MCFADDEN: Yes, really, these two jurors have been just fascinating. Both of them suggest that they thought there was some truth to the allegations of past molestation, but there wasn't enough in this case. Very interesting.

KING: Yes, isn't it to you, Jane?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh, absolutely. I think what that juror just said hits the nail on the head. Michael Jackson obviously still has huge image problems, but America is willing to forgive, as long as the individual in question admits mistakes they did make and is willing to change and grow, and I think that's the real challenge for Jackson: can he change and can he grow and learn from all of this? KING: I apologize to the rest of the panel, but they will be back as we are, as they say in the business, plumb out of time. Ted Rowlands, Brooke Anderson, Jane Velez-Mitchell, Michael Cardoza, Craig Smith, Cynthia McFadden, and all of our other guests.

Don't forget, Tom Mesereau, exclusive prime-time appearance tomorrow night on LARRY KING LIVE. We will include your phone calls for the very successful defense attorney. My whole family was supposed to be on the show tonight but because of this, we taped them earlier and it will air Sunday night on Father's Day night.


TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com

? 2005 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us. All external sites will open in a new browser.
CNN.com does not endorse external sites.
Denotes premium content.
Add RSS headlines.

Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 4:01 AM JST
Updated: Thu, Jun 16 2005 4:11 AM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post



CNN) -- The following are a sample of reactions to the acquittal of Michael Jackson on all 10 charges in his child molestation trial:

Chant outside the courthouse:

M.J. innocent, innocent, innocent!

Jury's statement read by the judge:

We the jury, feeling the weight of the world's eyes upon us, all thoroughly and meticulously studied the testimony, evidence and rules of procedure presented in this court since Janurary 31, 2005. Following the jury instructions, we confidently came to our verdicts. It is our hope that this case is a testament to the belief in our justice system's integrity and the truth. We would like the public to allow us to return to our private lives as anonymously as we came.

Statement from lawyer of Debbie Rowe, one of two ex-wives of Michael Jackson and mother of two of his children:

Debbie is overjoyed that the justice system really works, regardless of which side called her to testify at the trial.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson, spiritual adviser to Michael Jackson:

The jury has spoken. I hope that many lessons will be learned from this. The healing process must begin. And Michael must assess the impact of the very impropriety of these problems that got him into this trouble. We hope that all those involved now will learn a lesson that we will go through another stage.

He was tried and convicted in many newsrooms, on many TV shows. The jury had the capacity in the end to discern innuendo and suggestions from fact.

The Rev. Al Sharpton:

I think that this is a vindication for people that believe that people are innocent until proven guilty. I think that there are no winners here. I don't think that there's reason for Michael or those opposed to Michael to gloat. There's a lot of pain, a lot of hurt here -- children have been dragged into court, Michael's reputation has been damaged severely, but I think the criminal justice system worked this time.

Debra Opri, Jackson family attorney:

I am not shocked. I expected it. Did I cry? Yeah. Am I going to cry again? Yeah. After a year the stress is just melting away, and I'm so happy for Katherine, Joe, Michael, LaToya, Janet, Tito, Jackie, Jermaine and Randy. I spoke with the family as they were exiting and they're all very happy and very relieved.

Elizabeth Taylor, actress and friend:

Thank God Michael is vindicated for all time. Now maybe people will leave him alone.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/13/jackson.reax/index.html


Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 2:27 AM JST
Updated: Thu, Jun 16 2005 3:51 AM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Jackson jurors: Evidence 'just wasn't there'
Mood:  bright
Topic: Main News


Jackson jurors: Evidence 'just wasn't there'

Pop star acquitted of all charges in molestation case
SANTA MARIA, California (CNN) -- A stoic Michael Jackson walked out of court acquitted by jurors who said they didn't have enough evidence to convict him of molestation charges that could have sent him to prison for years.

Jackson made no comment -- and didn't even smile -- as he left the Santa Maria courthouse after the verdict Monday, surrounded by his parents and siblings.

He did wave and blow kisses to hundreds of supporters, who screamed, hugged one another and threw confetti when they heard the news -- some of them overcome with tears of joy. (Fans react) Jackson's brother, Jermaine, told CNN's "Larry King Live" his family was "very, very happy."

"Like we always felt from the very beginning and knew, he was one thousand percent innocent," he said. "It takes one person to tell the truth, but it takes many to concoct a lie." Jackson was accused of molesting a 13-year-old boy two years ago when they were sleeping alone together in his bed at Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara County. (Verdict list)
The jury acquitted Jackson on 10 counts:

 Four counts of committing a lewd act with a child.
 One count of attempting to commit a lewd act on a child younger than 14.
 One count of conspiracy to commit false imprisonment, extortion and child abduction.
 Four counts of providing alcohol to a minor to facilitate child molestation.

Santa Barbara County District Attorney Thomas Sneddon, who sat grim-faced as the court clerk read out the verdicts, later told reporters he would accept the decision.

"In 37 years [as a prosecutor], I've never quibbled with a jury's verdict, and I'm not going to start today," he said.Asked if he thought the jury had just acquitted a child molester, Sneddon said, "No comment."Jackson's lead defense attorney, Thomas Mesereau Jr., told reporters on his way out of the courthouse that "justice was done." "The man's innocent. He always was," Mesereau said.

Jury retrospective

The jury foreman, Paul Rodriguez, said jurors were "very troubled" that Jackson, by his own admission, had overnight sleepovers with children in his bed. But Rodriguez, a 63-year-old retired high school counselor from Santa Maria, said jurors were instructed by the judge to base their verdicts on the facts of the case, not "our beliefs or our own personal thoughts."

"We would hope ... that he doesn't sleep with children anymore," Rodriguez said on CNN. "He just has to be careful how he conducts himself around children." At a post-verdict news conference, jurors said that after more than 32 hours of deliberations over seven days, they all agreed prosecutors had simply not proved their case against the pop star beyond a reasonable doubt.

At the news conference, jurors were identified only by their seat number in the courtroom. "We actually challenged one another in the deliberation room," said Juror No. 1, a 62-year-old man from Santa Maria, later identified as Raymond Hultman. "We challenged the issues, and we came to the decision that pointed to reasonable doubt." Later, in an interview on "Larry King Live," Hultman said he believes Jackson "probably has molested boys."

"I can't believe that this man could sleep in the same bedroom for 365 straight days and not do something more than just watch television and eat popcorn," he said. "I mean that doesn't make sense to me, but that doesn't make him guilty of the charges that were presented in this case and that's where we had to make our decision."

As they deliberated, jurors kept coming back to the "closetful of evidence" supplied by prosecutors during the 14-week trial, but "it was just not enough," said Juror No. 10, a 45-year-old woman from Solvang, not far from Jackson's Neverland Ranch. "We expected probably better evidence, something that was a little more convincing. And it just wasn't there," she said. Rodriguez said jurors did find credible some of the testimony relating to past child molestation allegations against Jackson, which prosecutors were allowed to introduce to try to prove a pattern of behavior.

But he said that testimony wasn't enough to overcome the jury's doubts about the facts in current case. Juror No. 8, a 42-year-old woman from Lompoc who cried during the reading of the verdict, said the jury's decision was emotional for her because it was "a no-win situation for the [accuser's] family and Michael Jackson." "But we had to do what we were instructed to do," she said. During the trial, Jackson's defense team attacked the credibility of Jackson's teenage accuser and his family, particularly the boy's mother.

The jurors, who listened to the mother for more than five days, indicated that they, too, doubted her credibility and were put off by the way she directly addressed jurors and accented her testimony by snapping her fingers. "I disliked it intensely," said Juror No. 5, a 79-year-old woman from Santa Maria. "I thought, 'Don't snap your fingers at me, lady.' "

Juror No. 10 said "you couldn't help but wonder" whether the mother concocted the charges against Jackson and coached her children to lie, as the defense alleged. The juror said that as a mother she was also troubled by the fact the accuser's mother allowed her son to sleep alone with Jackson. "What mother in her right mind would allow that to happen -- just freely volunteer your child to sleep with someone?" she said. As for the testimony of the boy himself, Rodriguez said jurors were troubled by the fact that the youngster's version of events was inconsistent with testimony offered by other members of his family. "It was really hard to believe what he was telling us," he said. Jurors said they also were troubled by the logic of the prosecution's timeline.

Prosecutors said the molestation took place about three weeks after Jackson and his associates allegedly launched a conspiracy against the family to enlist their help in damage control efforts after the boy was shown holding hands with the entertainer in an unflattering television documentary. Jurors apparently also discounted the cache of sexually explicit material seized from Neverland and presented by prosecutors, who argued the material was used by Jackson to help groom young boys for abuse.

"Those are adult magazines. Anybody can own them," Rodriguez said. "It doesn't prove the charge."

Sneddon defends case

Debra Opri, a Jackson family attorney, said prosecutors made a mistake when "they brought charges against Michael Jackson with the wrong accuser."Sneddon defended his decision to proceed with the case, saying prosecutors don't have the luxury of picking the victims they represent.

"When a victim comes in and the victim tells you they've been victimized, and you believe that and you believe the evidence supports that, you don't look at their pedigree," Sneddon said. "We did the right thing for the right reasons."Sneddon said that despite Monday's verdict, he "probably wouldn't" shy away from pursuing new allegations against Jackson if law enforcement had a good case against him. "We'd review it like any other case," he said.

The jury's verdict was read shortly after 2 p.m. (5 p.m. ET), about 90 minutes after jurors informed Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville that they had reached a decision.The reading of the verdict was delayed to give Jackson time to drive from Neverland to the courthouse in Santa Maria. Jackson looked straight ahead and showed little reaction as he listened to the court clerk go through the not guilty verdicts on all 10 counts. (On the Scene)

His mother, Katherine, who attended every day of the trial, started to cry as his siblings LaToya, Tito and Randy held her. His father, Joseph, sat with his hands clasped in front of him. After Melville told Jackson he was free to go, the entertainer hugged his attorneys before walking out of the courthouse and getting in a black SUV for the return trip to Neverland.

CNN's Ted Rowlands, Rusty Dornin and Dree De Clamecy contributed to this report.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/14/jackson.trial/index.html


Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 1:53 AM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Jackson Won't Share Bed With Kids Again
Mood:  a-ok
Topic: Main News

By TIM MOLLOY, Associated Press Writer 24 minutes ago

Basking in the jurors' decision to acquit his client of all counts, Michael Jackson's lawyer said Tuesday the singer will no longer share his bed with young boys."He's not going to do that anymore," attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. told NBC's "Today." "He's not going to make himself vulnerable to this anymore."

Jackson was found not guilty Monday of child molestation, conspiracy and other counts. Jurors said the accusations of a young boy and his family were not credible — a total legal victory that triggered jubilation among the pop star's fans and embarrassment for the district attorney's office.

But Mesereau said the singer was still recovering from the ordeal."He's going to take it one day at a time. It's been a terrible, terrible process for him," Mesereau said Tuesday. A raucous welcome greeted Jackson as he returned to his Neverland Ranch on Monday afternoon. As a convoy of black SUVs carrying him and his entourage pulled through the gates, his sister LaToya rolled down a window, smiled widely and waved. The crowd responded with a euphoric cheer.

"All of us here and millions around the world love and support you," proclaimed a banner strung across a fence by the compound in Los Olivos that Jackson said he created to provide himself with the childhood he never enjoyed.
"It's victory," said Tracee Raynaud, 39. "God is alive and well."

There was no comment from Jackson or his family Tuesday. He has no media representative since Raymone K. Bain was dismissed last week, and neither he nor his family issued any statements Tuesday morning.
The acquittals marked a stinging defeat for Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon, who displayed open hostility for Jackson and had pursued him for more than a decade, trying to prove the rumors that swirled around Jackson about his fondness for children.

Sneddon sat with his head in his hands after the verdicts were read. "We don't select victims of crimes and we don't select the family. We try to make a conscientious decision and go forward," Sneddon said afterward, adding "I'm not going to look back and apologize for anything that we've done." Jurors may have acquitted Jackson of all charges of molesting a 13-year-old cancer survivor, but not all of them were convinced the King of Pop had never molested a child.

"He's just not guilty of the crimes he's been charged with," said Ray Hultman, who told The Associated Press he was one of three people on the 12-person panel who voted to acquit only after the other nine persuaded them there was reasonable doubt about the entertainer's guilt in this particular case.

Prosecutors presented testimony about Jackson's allegedly improper relationships with several boys in the early 1990s, including the son of a maid who testified that Jackson molested him during tickling session between 1987 and 1990. Another, Brett Barnes, took the stand to deny that he was molested during sleepovers at Neverland.

But Hultman said he believed it was likely that both boys had been molested. He said he voted to acquit Jackson in the current case because he had doubts about his current accuser's credibility. "That's not to say he's an innocent man," Hultman, 62, said of Jackson.

Some jurors noted they were troubled by Jackson's admission that he allowed boys into his bed for what he characterized as innocent sleepovers. "We would hope first of all that he doesn't sleep with children anymore and that he learns that they have to stay with their families or stay in the guest rooms or the houses or whatever they're called down there," jury foreman Paul Rodriguez said. "And he just has to be careful how he conducts himself around children."

Some jurors acknowledged they flatly disliked the accuser's mother, portrayed by the defense as a welfare cheat who brought a trumped-up lawsuit against J.C. Penney, accusing store guards of roughing her and her family up. "I disliked it intensely when she snapped her fingers at us," said one juror, a woman, who declined to give her name.
Another woman juror said she felt sorry for the accuser and his siblings, believing they had been trained by their mother to lie. "As a mother, the values she has taught them, it's hard for me to comprehend," she said. "I wouldn't want any of my children to lie for their own gain."
The verdict means Jackson will be free to try to rebuild his blighted musical career. But his legal victory came at a terrible price to his image.

Prosecutors branded him a deviant who used his playland as the ultimate pervert's lair, plying boys with booze and porn. Prosecution witnesses described other bizarre behavior by Jackson: They said he licked his accuser's head, simulated a sex act with a mannequin, kept dolls in bondage outfits on his desk. Defense lawyers described Jackson as a humanitarian who wanted to protect kids and give them the life he never had while growing up as a child star. The boy had asked to meet the star when he thought he was dying of cancer.

The defense said the family exploited the boy's illness to shake down celebrities, then concocted the charges after realizing Jackson was cutting them off from a jet-set lifestyle that included limo rides and stays at luxurious resorts.

Jackson was cleared of 10 charges in all, including four counts that he molested the boy in early 2003. Jackson also was charged with providing the boy with wine — "Jesus juice," the pop star called it — and conspiring with members of his inner circle to hold the accuser and his family captive to get them to rebut a damaging documentary. Jurors also had to consider four lesser charges related to the alcohol counts, forcing them to render 14 verdicts in all.
The case was set in motion by the 2003 broadcast of the British TV documentary "Living With Michael Jackson" that Jackson had hoped would actually improve his image. In the program, Jackson held hands with the boy who would later accuse him, and he acknowledged sharing his bed with children, a practice he described as sweet and not at all sexual.

After the verdict, a weary Jackson retreated to Neverland where, according to his family, he went straight to bed. The entertainer, who appeared exhausted as he shuffled out of court, is "trying to get back his strength," said his father, Joe Jackson. "I feel justice was done," Jackson's father said. "We thank the fans for supporting us."
As the verdict was read, Jackson sat motionless, as he did throughout the trial, only dabbing at his eyes with a tissue. One of his lawyers, Susan Yu, burst into tears. Some of the women on the jury also wept.

"I'm shaking," said Emily Smith, 24, of London, who was among the few lucky fans in Santa Maria who got courtroom passes to hear the reading of the verdicts. "I believe justice has been done today. I can't tell you how good it feels."
___
Associated Press writers Paul Chavez, Jeff Wilson and Greg Risling and AP Special Correspondent Linda Deutsch contributed to this report.
Copyright ? 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright ? 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback


Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 1:36 AM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Tue, Jun 14 2005
Jackson not guilty on all counts!!!!!!
Mood:  party time!
Topic: Breaking News


MSNBC staff and news service reports

Updated: 10:06 p.m. ET June 13, 2005

SANTA MARIA, Calif. - Michael Jackson was found not guilty Monday on all counts in his trial on child molestation charges, ending a two-year legal saga for one of the world's most well-known pop stars.

The courtroom sat silently as Judge Rodney Melville opened jury envelopes and silently read the verdict forms before allowing the court clerk to read the verdict out loud. Lead defense attorney Tom Mesereau Jr., who scored a dazzling legal victory in the case, patted Jackson on the shoulder after the verdict was read. Two jurors dabbed their eyes with tissues.
Jackson showed no visible reaction in court. He then slowly, silently walked out of court surrounded by family and his bodyguards, looking slightly stunned. The singer briefly waved to fans.

His fans, kept behind barriers at a distance from the courthouse, shouted and wept with joy over Jackson's acquittal, celebrating a complete victory for the singer's defense team, though one that may not repair his tarnished and ever more bizarre public image.
?Justice is done. The man's innocent. He always was,? Mesereau later said in a statement on Jackson's official Web site.

Tito Jackson told MSNBC by phone that Michael was resting in the hours after the verdict, and the family was ?just trying to absorb everything.? In the same interview, Michael's brother Jermaine Jackson thanked his brother's longtime fans for their support throughout the trial and said the family was heartened by the results. ?Being a family and staying together we can overcome anything,? Jermaine Jackson said.

Michael Jackson, 46, was indicted on 10 counts for allegedly molesting a then-13-year-old cancer patient, serving him wine and then conspiring to hold him and his family captive. The charges included four allegations of molestation, one of attempted molestation, four of serving alcohol to a minor and one for conspiracy.

He could have faced nearly 20 years in prison if convicted on all charges. Instead, he got into his black SUV with his family and aides, and quickly departed the courthouse complex, arriving back at Neverland shortly after 6 p.m. ET to another throng of cheering fans.

Defeat for D.A.

Jackson's acquittal was an astounding defeat for District Attorney Thomas Sneddon, who long pursued charges against the singer. Not only did the jury acquit Jackson on all 10 charges but also found him not guilty on a series of lesser charges, such as serving alcohol to a minor.

?I think we all just looked at the evidence and pretty much agreed,? said juror No. 5, a 79-year-old widow, at a news conference after the verdict. Asked at a separate news conference why he went forward with a case based around an accuser that had serious credibility issues, Sneddon said he always felt confident about his case. ?We don't select our victims and we don't select the families they come from,? he said.

When asked whether his office would stop pursuing charges against Jackson, the district attorney replied, ?No comment.? But he insisted that his prior efforts to indict Jackson in 1993 had ?absolutely, unequivocally nothing to do with our evaluation of this case.?

Jurors sat through 14 weeks of testimony, then deliberated for seven days before reaching their decision. The jury of eight women and four men ranged in age from 21 to 79; eight were parents and six acknowledged they were fans of Jackson's music.

Two were Hispanic, one was Asian and the rest were white. Jackson supporters had protested that no black jurors were chosen for the trial. As the trial unfolded, dozens of witnesses described the intricate and often unsettling details of life at Jackson's Neverland ranch. Prosecutors argued that the singer molested the boy, now 15, in late February or early March 2003, shortly after the airing of a documentary, "Living with Michael Jackson." On that program, viewed worldwide by an audience of millions, the accuser held hands with Jackson, and the singer confessed that he allowed young boys to sleep in his bed ? but insisted it was an innocent, loving act.

Jackson's handlers viewed the documentary as a P.R. nightmare, according to testimony, and worked to prepare a so-called "rebuttal" video to counter the details revealed in the British-produced film, which was seen by many at the time as a confirmation of longtime suspicions about Jackson's relationships with children.

Mother on the stand

Prosecutors alleged that Jackson and his associates conspired to hold the accuser and his family in their custody so they could help stem the flood of negative publicity. Testimony revealed that the accuser and his family stayed at Neverland in the weeks following the documentary, and taped an interview offering warm praise for the singer ? an interview the mother claimed was scripted.

They also stayed with Jackson during a trip to Miami and accompanied the pop star on his private jet back to California, a trip during which the accuser's mother claimed she saw Jackson licking her son's head. The mother spent several days on the stand, offering testimony that was always dramatic, sometimes bizarre and occasionally incoherent. She described her last stay at Neverland as tense and scary, but never quite explained why she didn't called police or other authorities.

At first, she said, Jackson's aides tenderly offered to help her family from the barrage of media interest. Jurors heard a tape of associate Frank Tyson, whom prosecutors called an unindicted co-conspirator, telling her, ?Let us take care of you. Let us protect you.? But she insisted that Jackson's associates, whom she called ?killers? on the stand, eventually turned on her: holding her a virtual captive for weeks and plotting to take her family on a one-way trip to Brazil.

Yet testimony detailed that she could leave Neverland to shop and run errands. The mother faced her own legal scrutiny during the trial, and Mesereau frequently underscored her credibility problems with jurors. She was forced to acknowledge she lied under oath in a 2001 lawsuit against JC Penney, and she took the Fifth over allegations that she committed welfare fraud. A welfare worker testified she had.

Other witnesses, including her former sister-in-law, portrayed the accuser's family as vindictive and money-hungry, the mother as a grifter who pleaded for help ? often invoking her family's misfortunes ? and always asked for more.
TV host Jay Leno told jurors how he grew suspicious when the accuser called him repeatedly, saying Leno was his hero.

Celebrities on the stand

Leno was just one of a handful of big-name entertainers who made their way to the Santa Maria courthouse, though most celebrities named on a star-studded witness list ? everyone from Quincy Jones to Elizabeth Taylor ? were never called as a confident defense surprised observers with a streamlined case that shaved the trial's length by a month or more.
Comedians Chris Tucker and George Lopez took the stand to describe their interactions with the accuser. Talk show host Larry King appeared in court, but Melville ruled his testimony irrelevant. Most notably, actor Macaulay Culkin ? a longtime Jackson friend ? took the stand to firmly deny that Jackson had ever molested him.

Other young men who had long been considered possible victims of Jackson also appeared. The now-grown son of Jackson's former maid described for jurors how Jackson turned a 1990 tickling episode into a fondling incident. The mother of a boy who received millions from Jackson in a settlement over 1993 molestation claims that nearly derailed his career said Jackson had begged to sleep with her son: ?He said, ?You don?t trust me. We?re a family. Why won?t you allow him to be in my bedroom??? Yet dancer Wade Robson, another longtime Jackson pal who faced molestation rumors, flatly denied any inappropriate touching by the pop star.

Lurid testimony

At times, testimony in the Santa Maria courtroom was lurid and unsettling. Investigators described finding smut in Jackson's bedroom, magazines like Hustler Barely Legal, with both the singer's and accuser's fingerprints.

The accuser's brother described sexually charged Web-browsing sessions during which Jackson allegedly showed the boys images of nude women while cracking jokes. In one jaw-dropping moment, the boy recalled Jackson pointing to an image of a woman?s breasts and quipping, ?Got milk??

A former Jackson security guard claimed he had seen the singer fondle and perform oral sex on another boy who later received a multimillion-dollar settlement from Jackson. Another former employee claimed he saw Jackson put his hands down Culkin's pants. Some of the most gripping testimony came from the accuser himself, who described how a man he once considered his ?best friend ever? allegedly molested him twice.

Yet Mesereau and his team carefully poked holes in the credibility of the accuser and many other witnesses ? noting, for example, that several former employees who testified lost a lawsuit against Jackson and were ordered to pay the singer $1.4 million.

Holes in the case

The veteran defense lawyer even got the accuser to contradict himself in front of jurors, and caught the accuser's brother in a lie involving an adult magazine that he claimed the singer showed him. Time and again, the defense team found effective weak spots in Sneddon's witnesses and presented their own witnesses to cast doubt on key details.

Prosecutors were also stung when one of their most high-profile witnesses, Jackson's ex-wife Debbie Rowe, described the singer as a "great father" and attacked his aides. Called by prosecutors to describe a taped interview about Jackson as "scripted," she shocked the courtroom by saying just the opposite. Her testimony backed up frequent suspicions that Jackson's interest in her was hardly romantic ? ?We never shared a home," she said ? but did nothing to help the prosecution and left many with the impression that Sneddon's case had serious flaws.

Santa Barbara County authorities first raided Neverland in November 2003. Jackson was booked two days later, and indicted in April 2004. But Sneddon first tried to prosecute Jackson 10 years earlier over the 1993 allegations. The accuser in that case backed out and charges were never filed, but the singer's associates claimed the district attorney had a vendetta against Jackson. In a 1995 song, "D.S.," the pop legend even presumptively referenced Sneddon, calling him a "cold man."

MSNBC.com's Jon Bonne and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
? 2005 MSNBC.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8062350/?GT1=6657

Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 12:01 AM JST
Updated: Thu, Jun 16 2005 1:17 AM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Mon, Jun 13 2005
Prison Could Mean Famous Digs for Jackson
Mood:  blue
Topic: Main News
By KIM CURTIS, Associated Press WriterSun Jun 12,11:10 PM ET

If the child molestation case against Michael Jackson ends with a prison sentence, the pop star's likely new home would be almost as exclusive as his Neverland ranch. It's far from glamorous, but the protective housing unit within Corcoran State Prison is considered a highly desirable refuge for inmates who need extraordinary protection from other prisoners. It's also home to a handful of California's most notorious criminals. Occupants of its 8-by-12-foot cells include Charles Manson and Juan Corona, who killed 25 migrant farmworkers in the 1970s. The unit housed Sirhan Sirhan, who assassinated Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, until he was moved to a harsher lockdown in 2003.

Because the unit is so secure, it's considered a virtual oasis in the 163,000-inmate state prison system. Some people who have been there describe it as strikingly calm. "It's been real nice for me," one unidentified inmate says in a three-minute Corrections Department video released last year. "It's a peaceful environment. It's almost like being free on the street." Only one violent incident has been reported, and the house rules allow more freedom than at most prisons. "They know they're in a safe place and they don't want to ruin that," said Corrections Department spokeswoman Terry Thornton. "It's an exceptional placement."

It has a capacity of 47, but just 21 inmates live in the unit, located about 100 miles northeast of the gated estate where prosecutors charge Jackson molested a 13-year-old boy. Jurors resume deliberations in Jackson's case Monday. If he is convicted, Jackson could go to prison for many years and would be evaluated to see if Corcoran's protective housing unit were appropriate, Thornton said.

"Just like people are fascinated with famous people, inmates are people, too," Thornton said. "They would consider it a feather in their cap to hurt" a famous inmate. Inmates must meet certain criteria, including "specific, verified enemies," "notoriety likely to result in great bodily harm," and no prison gang affiliation.

Officials are refusing all requests for reporters to visit the unit, but Thornton described it in detail. Each cell has a concrete bed, sink, desk and toilet. Televisions and radios are allowed, if the inmate can afford them. Night lights also are allowed. Inmates wear denim jeans, blue shirts and brown boots, and are issued white T-shirts, white boxer shorts and a denim jacket.

Staff members, not inmates, prepare and serve food.

Inmates can use the day room to read, play chess or watch television. The exercise yard is available for about 5 1/2 hours a day. There's a basketball court and a bar for chin-ups, but no free weights. Residents can shower daily. They have access to a law library and may receive weekend visitors for as long as five hours a day. They share one telephone and make calls during certain hours. By 8:45 p.m., they must be back in their cells, but there's no official "lights out" time.

The only major incident was in 1999 when a guard left a door open and three inmates from an adjacent secure housing unit attacked Manson, Corona and a third unidentified man, Thornton said. Manson was unhurt, Corona was hit in the back and the third inmate was hit on the shoulder with Manson's guitar.

The protective housing unit sits within a sprawling complex in the southern San Joaquin Valley that's earned a reputation as one of California's most violent prisons. Eight guards were acquitted of civil rights violations in 2000 following charges they staged gladiator-style fights among inmates. Last fall, jurors rejected a lawsuit by an 118-pound inmate who said he was repeatedly raped after guards intentionally housed him with a 220-pound aggressor known as the "Booty Bandit."

One lawyer who has been to the protective unit described it as a place of "extraordinary calm. "But it's not a pleasant place," said Catherine Campbell, a Fresno attorney involved in the gladiator fights lawsuit. "It's dark. It's airless. It doesn't feel particularly clean," she said. "It's sort of like being buried alive with a lot of very strange people."

Copyright ? 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

Copyright ? 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback


Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 6:07 PM JST
Updated: Thu, Jun 16 2005 1:24 AM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
CNN PEOPLE IN THE NEWS- Michael Jackson's Profile
Mood:  blue
Topic: Main News
CNN PEOPLE IN THE NEWS

Profiles of Angelina Jolie, Michael Jackson

Aired June 11, 2005 - 17:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: When PEOPLE IN THE NEWS returns, he's the legendary pop star, now more famous for his off-the-wall behavior and image makeovers than his music.

BOTEACH: He puts on that black thing, that mask. And I said to him, take that stupid thing off! You look like a monkey!

ANNOUNCER: Michael Jackson, from superstar to just plain bizarre, coming up next.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: Welcome back to PEOPLE IN THE NEWS. Michael Jackson's fate is now in the hands of eight women and four men. After a four- month long trial, the pop star's child molestation case went to the jury last Friday, and it's been a waiting game ever since.

A look now at the one-time King of Pop's transformation from international superstar to celebrity defendant.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN (voice-over): This is how we first saw Michael Jackson. A charismatic, precocious pop star singing songs like "I Want You Back" with his brothers, the Jackson 5.

Yet, this is the same person, the child who became the biggest star in the world, now on trial facing charges of child molestation.

For more than 30 years, we've been fascinated by Michael Jackson. We've watched as he's transformed himself from an African-American boy to something completely different. He's arguably one of the most famous men on Earth, yet seems to live in a child-like world of his own.

GELLER: There's something blocking his mind, which makes him one of the children. He's just never grown up.

BOTEACH: He would always give me these rational and intelligent explanations as to why his success was directly tied to him choosing to remain a child.

ZAHN: But what is reality and what is image making? Where does the truth start and the myth end? To paraphrase his hit song, who does Michael Jackson see when he looks at the man in the mirror?

J. RANDY TARABORRELLI, BIOGRAPHER: There is no star like Michael, no celebrity like Michael, and no person like Michael. He is completely unique.

ZAHN: Michael Jackson grew up in Gary, Indiana, the seventh of nine children. Their steel worker father, Joe, turned five of his boys into a band with a then 5-year-old Michael out front.

PETER CASTRO, ASSISTANT MANAGING EDITOR, "PEOPLE" MAGAZINE: He was a symbol for the consummate entertainer. You know, not since Sammy Davis, Jr. had someone come along with such a diverse range of talents.

ZAHN: As seen in the video from a documentary produced by Michael Jackson, the group auditioned for Barry Gordy, founder of Motown Records.

TARABORRELLI: From the time most kids were building tree houses, Michael Jackson was building an image. At the age of 10, he was told to say that he was 8. And Michael was happy to play along with that, because he understood at a very early age that image-making and public relations was very important.

ZAHN: It worked. The Jackson 5 exploded onto the pop charts. Their first three singles, "I Want You Back," "ABC" and "The Love You Save," all hit number one.

But behind the image of the happy family and their rags-to-riches story, there was something else -- incredibly hard work and a father who pushed his children.

TARABORRELLI: When Michael discusses these beatings today, he gets very emotional. It's clear that he hasn't come to terms with any of that yet.

BOTEACH: On the one hand, he would always complain. My father didn't love me enough. My father made me into a performance machine. My father was too strict. He was too much of a disciplinarian. He would make me rehearse too much. I would see kids on the monkey bars and I would cry because I couldn't have a childhood.

ZAHN: Rabbi Shmuley Boteach was a friend and spiritual adviser to Michael Jackson for two years.

BOTEACH: I said to him, "Look at the flipside of that. Because of that, you became a big performer. And maybe even because you weren't given enough love as a child, you wanted the world's love. So you worked really hard, perfecting your dance moves, and you became a superstar. Would you trade it in for a normal childhood and give up the celebrity?" And interestingly, he'd say to me every time, "No, I wouldn't do that."

ZAHN: Jackson and his brothers would become pre-teen idols, appearing in commercials and on magazine covers.

However, Jackson's teenage years were awkward. He suffered from bad acne and was self-conscious about his appearance.

BOTEACH: He did say to me that he was once on an airplane and his father said to him, "You know, your nose isn't nice," or something like that. And generally, he expressed to me that he was made to feel that he was ugly, that he was not pretty.

ZAHN: By 1979, the Jackson 5 had made a highly publicized split from Motown, and Michael Jackson was ready to spread his wings.

Michael soared with his first solo album, "Off the Wall." Songs like "Don't Stop Till You Get Enough," and "Rock With You" reaching number one.

JOHN NORRIS, SR. CORRESPONDENT, MTV NEWS: They are songs that still hold up today. They don't sound dated. I guess what none of us could have anticipated was the album that they would then produce after "Off the Wall."

ZAHN: That album was 1982's "Thriller," and it would catch fire when Jackson unveiled an out-of-this-world dance move on a TV special for Motown's 25th anniversary.

NORRIS: What a moment that was in pop culture history when he moon-walked across the stage there.

TOURE, CNN POP CULTURE ANALYST: So he's doing the moonwalk, which when he first did it, nationally, it was like, wait, is gravity being, like, messed with here, special effects, like what are we doing? And I mean, you know, within six months, every 10-year-old in Dallas could do it.

ZAHN: The transformation was complete. Michael Jackson was about to go from child pop star to the biggest star on the planet.

When PEOPLE IN THE NEWS continues, chimps, oxygen chambers, the Elephant Man's bones -- Michael Jackson's bizarre behavior.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: Now back to PEOPLE IN THE NEWS.

ZAHN: In December, 1982, 24-year-old Michael Jackson released "Thriller," and with that historic piece of vinyl, a phenomenon was born.

TOURE: Michael was not a phenomenon with "Thriller." He was beyond phenomenon. I mean, the record flew out of stores. You know, it could not be stopped.

NORRIS: From the iconic look to the moonwalk to the glove.

CASTRO: The red jacket and -- with the zippers and glasses and the white socks.

TOURE: King of Pop is too small a moniker for him. He was beyond that.

ZAHN: Saying "Beat It" to the competition, for 37 weeks, the album sat at number one.

Fan clubs, trading cards, Michael dolls. The Michael Jackson craze reached fever pitch.

In 1984, Jackson took home seven Grammys. He also raised eyebrows with his red carpet companions, Brooke Shields and Emanuel Lewis.

TOURE: I don't think anybody, even, like, the Iowa housewives, were saying, well, you know, they're not sleeping together. And Emanuel Lewis was right there as the underline, like this is not sexual at all.

ZAHN: In July, 1984, the Jackson 5 reunited in a flurry of publicity. But their victory tour reviews were mixed. Seemingly, soft-spoken Michael was retreating into a world of his own.

NORRIS: Michael had begun to exhibit a certain, I think, aloofness and a tendency to kind of withdraw from the world.

CROWD: Michael! Michael! Michael!

ZAHN: By 1985, the pop star's plastic surgery began to take shape.

TOURE: Every few months, you would see him and you'd go whoa, hey, you're looking weird, dude. But I think it was about '85, '86, and I was like, wow, he's not going to be able to get any weirder than this. And then two years later, I was like, I was wrong.

ZAHN: In 1986, a photograph of Michael asleep in an anti-aging chamber rocked the tabloids. In 1987, his interest in the Elephant Man's bones, Bubbles the chimp, Liz Taylor, and an array of strange disguises set tongues a-wagging.

BOTEACH: And he puts on that black thing, that mask, and I said to him, Take that stupid thing off! You look like a monkey! You look like you're insane. And he said -- and even then, he said to me, well -- it was more like, he says, a razzle-dazzle king of thing. It's mysterious.

ZAHN: Jackson's follow-up to "Thriller," the album simply called "Bad" hit the stores in 1987.

The pop star's eccentric behavior hardly deterred the album's record-breaking five number one's.

"Bad" went on to sell eight million copies, and Jackson went on to change his image once again. Taking cue from "Bad's" title, he became a crotch-grabbing tough guy, a far cry from his gentle off- stage persona.

And yet, the money kept rolling in. In March 1988, Jackson finalized the purchase of a 2,700-acre ranch. The cost, $28 million. He filled the property with an amusement park, a private zoo, and named the oasis, Neverland.

NORRIS: There's a reason it's called Neverland Valley, you know. His fixation on the I won't grow up, I'm a lost boy, I'm Peter Pan.

BOTEACH: He repudiated the adult world. For him, it was a world of betrayal. He'd say to me, Shmuley, you know why I'm the biggest star? Because I'm so much more creative than others, I'm so much more playful. I experiment more. They don't. They're rigid. They've calcified, they've hardened. They've become adults. They've grown up.

ZAHN: And with Neverland, came the children.

TARABORRELLI: Michael began to sort of surround himself with young boys. And much to, I remember, the chagrin of people who were working for him.

ZAHN: Three years later, in the fall of 1991, "Dangerous" was released. Long awaited, the buzz was big. As a result, its lead single, "Black or White" shot to number one.

Coincidentally, fans were wondering about Michael's much lighter skin tone. Was he black or white?

CASTRO: If you believe the fact that he -- you know, that he has this congenital skin condition, that's why he's so white, then fine. But a lot people think that he has bleached his skin. With Michael Jackson, you never know what the truth is.

ZAHN: Coming up, not once but twice, scandal rocks the gates of Neverland.

NORRIS: There are people who to this day are convinced that he never abused a child in his life. I also know people equally convinced that 10 years ago he got away with something terrible, and that he is a predator, and that he may get away with something terrible again.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: Welcome back to PEOPLE IN THE NEWS.

ZAHN: By the early '90s, Michael Jackson's new music, even fresh R&B hits like "Remember the Time," couldn't come close to the phenomenon he had created with "Thriller."

Jackson's strange appearance soon began to overshadow his music. He became more reclusive, retreating further into Neverland, where he continued to surround himself with children.

Then in 1993, disturbing allegations surfaced, concerning his association with children. A 13-year-old boy filed a lawsuit, accusing the singer of sexual molestation. Jackson denied the accusation on TV.

JACKSON: I ask all of you to wait and hear the truth before you label or condemn me. Don't treat me like a criminal, because I am innocent.

ZAHN: The case was eventually settled for nearly $20 million. And the suit was dropped in 1994. But Jackson's reputation was seriously damaged.

Less than a year later, Jackson made headlines once again when he married Lisa Marie Presley, the 26-year-old daughter of Elvis.

TOURE: It was quite obvious to all of us from the beginning that it was a sham, that it was a publicity stunt, and it was just kind of disgusting and silly.

ZAHN: The marriage collapsed less than two years after the wedding. Presley filed for divorce in 1996. But later that year, Jackson sent shock waves around the world when he remarried. The singer tied the knot with Debbie Rowe, the nurse of his dermatologist.

TARABORRELLI: The thing about Michael is that he does want what he wants and he will find a way to get it. She offered to have a child for him. She thought he should be a father. And as unconventional as it is, if you really look at it, it's sort of surrogate motherhood.

ZAHN: Rowe gave birth to their son, Prince Michael Jackson, in 1997. The couple divorced in 1999, just a year after they had a baby daughter, Paris Michael Catherine. Jackson was granted full custody of the children.

In 2002, Jackson was front page news again when he dangled his newborn son, Prince Michael II, from the balcony of a Berlin hotel.

TOURE: He thinks he's being loving. I mean, you know, it's sort of like the anti-King Midas, like everything he wants to do just gets screwed up.

ZAHN: Just a year later, Jackson was catapulted back into the limelight when he was featured in the Martin Bashir documentary, "Living With Michael Jackson." In the show, 44-year-old Jackson admitted to letting children sleep with him in his bed at Neverland.

JACKSON: It's not sexual. We're going to sleep. I tuck them in. We put -- I put little, like, music on and it's a little story time. I read a book. ZAHN: Uri Geller, author and self-proclaimed psychic, became friends with Jackson five years ago. He said he urged the singer to keep children out of his bedroom.

GELLER: Michael Jackson doesn't listen to anyone. And he's his own man. I was the only person that had the chutzpah to scream at him and tell him that his business of inviting children to his bedroom is wrong. And Michael just stared at me. He cannot comprehend the severity of such an invitation.

ZAHN: That documentary triggered the bombshell news that pushed the faded pop star back into the spotlight. Just nine months after the show aired, the 13-year-old cancer patient featured in the documentary accused Jackson of sexual abuse.

Although Jackson denies the abuse allegations, he was arrested and charged with multiple counts of child molestation.

And now as we await the verdict of the sensational trial, will the world ever comprehend the true nature of this man?

GELLER: No one knows Michael Jackson really but Michael Jackson himself. I once asked Michael, here in this house, I looked into his eyes and I said to him, "Michael, are you lonely?" And he looked up at me. It was like a 10-second stare, and then he said, "I am a very lonely man." And I think that said it all.
(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: If Michael Jackson is convicted on all 10 counts in his child molestation case, he could face up to 20 years in prison.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com

? 2005 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us. All external sites will open in a new browser.
CNN.com does not endorse external sites.
Denotes premium content.
Add RSS headlines.




Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 12:04 AM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Sun, Jun 12 2005
Jackson Jurors Face Daunting Instructions
Mood:  don't ask
Topic: Main News
By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special CorrespondentSat Jun 11, 3:21 PM ET

Jurors deciding the child molestation case against Michael Jackson may have to reach as many as 20 separate decisions because of the complicated instructions given to them by the judge. It could take them a long time to sort it all out.

A detailed study of the 98 pages of legal instructions shows the panel is facing a task that could be confounding even to people familiar with the law. One of the toughest decisions could be whether Jackson participated in a conspiracy.
"Jurors are locked in the jury room without a lawyer, and they are expected to master one of the most complicated areas of the law — conspiracy," said Jim Hammer, a former San Francisco prosecutor who is now a legal analyst for Fox News.

Within the single conspiracy count are three other allegations — conspiracy to commit the crime of extortion, the crime of child abduction and the crime of false imprisonment. Each of those crimes requires a specific intent and must be decided individually. "I can't think of another crime with three specific intents. It requires them to look into Jackson's mind," Hammer said.

Along with conspiracy, the indictment charges Jackson, 46, with molesting a 13-year-old boy in 2003 and giving him wine. He has denied the charges.Jurors have spent more than 28 hours since June 3 weighing the 10 total counts against Jackson. Deliberations resume Monday morning.

On most days, the panel has spent six hours in court, with three brief breaks but no lunch hour. The court has said the jury asked just one question, but the query made last Monday and its resolution were not publicly disclosed.

Jurors also have been presented with several entirely separate determinations to make on alleged crimes by Jackson that were never charged and occurred up to 15 years ago.

A unique California law lets jurors decide whether evidence involving those old allegations that was presented during trial shows a pattern of abusing children.If the jury decides the old claims were true, the panel can use them to support a decision in the current case but cannot convict him of the old allegations.

In reaching that determination, jurors were instructed to use a different standard of proof — not the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard required in the current case. Instead they can decide whether the old allegations stand up by a "preponderance of the evidence," a lesser standard that is often used in civil cases.The law is controversial and could be a key factor in an appeal if he is convicted.Hammer said the only area of the law as complicated as conspiracy is homicide in which many different degrees of the crime can be at issue.

Beyond the specific crimes alleged in the conspiracy charge against Jackson, the count also alleges 28 "overt acts" in furtherance of the conspiracy with a group of unindicted co-conspirators. Jurors were told to disregard the fact that the other alleged conspirators were not charged and did not appear in the trial.

To find Jackson guilty of that count, the panel must decide unanimously that one or more of the overt acts is true.

Jurors were told to decide if Jackson was a member of the alleged conspiracy and "whether he willfully, intentionally and knowingly joined with any other or others in the alleged conspiracy."

One particularly confusing instruction reads, "You are not required to unanimously agree as to who committed an overt act or which overt act was committed, so long as each of you finds beyond a reasonable doubt that one of the conspirators committed one of the acts alleged in the indictment to be overt acts." The other issue likely to complicate matters for jurors involves the alcohol allegations.

Four charges allege that Jackson administered alcohol to assist in the commission of child molestation. But jurors can find Jackson innocent of those charges and guilty of the lesser crime of simply "furnishing alcohol to a minor," a misdemeanor.



Copyright ? 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

Copyright ? 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 6:55 PM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Annoucment from MJJ Productions Regarding Mr. Jackson's PR Firm
Mood:  sad
Topic: Main News

Created: Friday, 10 June 2005



MJJ Productions regretfully announces the termination of Raymone Bain and Davis, Bain & Associates.

We thank you for your services.

Source: MJJsource / MJJ Productions

Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 1:40 AM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Sat, Jun 11 2005
Flap arises over who speaks for Jackson
Mood:  blue
Topic: Main News

Jury has deliberated 20 hours so far without reaching a verdict

SANTA MARIA, California (CNN) -- After deliberating for 20 hours over four days, the jury in the Michael Jackson child molestation trial retired for the evening Wednesday without reaching a verdict. Jackson spent part of his day in a hospital for treatment of a back problem, his spokeswoman said. Meanwhile, a flap arose in the Jackson camp over who was authorized to speak on his behalf. Lead defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. issued a statement saying he had "not authorized anyone to speak or hold press conferences on behalf of Michael Jackson or his family."

Jackson and his family posted a similar statement on his Web site saying that while the efforts of his friends and supporters "are noticed and very much appreciated," only his attorneys were "authorized to speak on his behalf."

In recent days, the Rev. Jesse Jackson -- a longtime friend of the Jackson family -- has given a number of interviews describing Michael Jackson's mood.

At a news conference Wednesday afternoon at the Santa Barbara County courthouse in Santa Maria, the entertainer's spokeswoman, Raymone Bain, insisted she had Mesereau's blessing to talk to the media.
"If Mr. Mesereau didn't want me here, I wouldn't be here," she said. "I never speak to the media without talking to Tom Mesereau."

A short time later, Mesereau got the court to authorize release of his statement, which noted: "A gag order is in effect, which the defense team will continue to honor."The order imposed by Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville forbids attorneys and witnesses from talking to the media without court approval.

Reached later by CNN, Bain said Mesereau's complaint referred to comments from people not authorized to speak on Jackson's behalf, rather than to her statements as his official spokeswoman. "[He] is concerned that there are unauthorized persons talking about the case," she said. "There have been a number of people speaking out of turn, passing out books and using the court as a forum."

Sources told CNN, however, that Mesereau's statement was indeed prompted by Bain's news conference.
In her earlier comments at the courthouse, Bain said Jackson was "taking it easy" at his Neverland Ranch, surrounded by his parents, brothers and sisters
.
"He's in good spirits, but as you all can image, he's very nervous," Bain said. "He has confidence in his innocence."

Bain said Jackson, who is not required to be at the courthouse for the deliberations, has been spending time with his children, talking on the phone with friends, conferring with his attorneys and watching movies and television.

She described the family's mood as "upbeat." "They are a strong family, and they rely on their strong faith," she said. "They realize the seriousness, but their mood was upbeat." Jackson also spent two hours Wednesday at Cottage Hospital in Santa Ynez, the same hospital where he was treated over the weekend, Bain said.

It was "a basic routine treatment for his back," a follow-up to the weekend treatment, she said. He was visited there by the Rev. Jackson, who was on his way out of the area Wednesday afternoon, she said. Eight women and four men on the jury are weighing Jackson's guilt or innocence on 10 felony charges brought against him by a grand jury last April.

The charges stem from events prosecutors say took place with a 13-year-old boy in February and March 2003: four counts of lewd conduct with a child younger than 14; one count of attempted lewd conduct; four counts of administering alcohol to facilitate child molestation; and one count of conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion.

Jackson, 46, pleaded not guilty to the charges and did not take the stand during the trial. His trial involved 14 weeks of testimony by more than 130 witnesses. The jury deliberated about two hours Friday and six hours each Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday -- 20 hours so far.

Earlier this week, attorneys for a consortium of media outlets, including CNN, asked Melville to release the verdict form provided the jury and to disclose the contents of any questions the jury asks. (Full story)

CNN's Dree De Clamecy and Ted Rowlands contributed to this report.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/08/jackson.trial/index.html
--------------------------------------------------

In other media source, Raymond Bain & her company was terminated from MJJ Production.

More on this in coming days.

Anna M.


Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 4:01 PM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Thomas Mesereau: Closing Arguments of the Defense (Complete Court Transcript)
Mood:  bright
Topic: Main News
Created: Wednesday, 08 June 2005

Mr. Thomas A. Mesereau's Closing Statement


Santa Maria, California
Thursday, June 2, 2005

1 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.
2 Thank you, Your Honor. Like in the age of
3 computers, right?
4 Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'd like
5 to begin my closing argument by thanking each and
6 every one of you on behalf of Michael Jackson, his
7 family, and everyone at the defense table for all
8 the time you've spent on this case. It's been a
9 long trial. You've spent many months. You spent a
10 lot of time looking at some testimony that was
11 interesting and some that was not, some that was
12 dull and some that was exciting, but you've had to
13 work very, very hard, and we all appreciate it very
14 much. Thank you very much.
15 Ladies and gentlemen, I just heard a
16 prosecutor get up, start his closing argument with
17 an attack on me. And whenever a prosecutor does
18 that, you know they're in trouble.
19 Now, I can look at you and say, "Mr. Sneddon
20 said that Debbie Rowe would testify that the
21 outtakes were scripted." She did not. She said the
22 opposite.
23 I can tell you that Mr. Sneddon said that
24 Chris Carter would testify to acts at Neverland. He
25 never showed up.
26 I can tell you that Christian Robinson was
27 supposed to come for the prosecution and say things
28 were scripted. He did not. We called him. He
1 said they were not scripted.
2 That's not the point. This is not a
3 popularity contest between lawyers.
4 The issue in this case is the life, the
5 future, the freedom and the reputation of Michael
6 Jackson. That's what's about to be placed in your
7 hands. And the question you have before you is very
8 simple. Do you believe the Arvizos beyond a
9 reasonable doubt, or not?
10 If you don't, Mr. Jackson must go free.
11 I submit, based upon the testimony you've
12 heard, the witnesses you've seen, the issues you've
13 seen addressed, there is no way in the world you can
14 find that the Arvizos are trustworthy beyond a
15 reasonable doubt.
16 And if you can't do that, if anything they
17 said to you, if anything they presented to you
18 causes you to pause and wonder or suspect what
19 really happened, Mr. Jackson must be acquitted under
20 our legal system.
21 You have heard so much testimony about the
22 scams of Mrs. Arvizo. The prosecutor gets up and
23 tries to prop her up, justify her actions, explain
24 her as a nice person, tell you you can trust her,
25 tell you everyone should trust her. And he
26 especially looks at you in the eye and says, "She
27 never asked for money."
28 Well, I have some questions for the jury.
1 When she took her children to The Laugh
2 Factory, placed them on stage, had them do skits and
3 plays about their poverty, about how poor they were,
4 about the part of town they came from in front of
5 George Lopez; when she told George Lopez a story
6 about how her children used to dive for coins in a
7 fountain; when the fund-raisers took place and money
8 was raised, and Janet Arvizo called George Lopez and
9 wanted to give him a gift to thank him, was she
10 asking for money?
11 When Janet Arvizo and Davellin kept hounding
12 Chris Tucker, "When are we getting the truck? When
13 are we getting the truck? When are we getting the
14 truck?" was she asking for money?
15 When Janet Arvizo went to Miss Kennedy, who
16 owned the dance class and said, "You know, we
17 settled the J.C. Penney case. We got some money out
18 of it, but all we ended up with were two bicycles.
19 Please continue to give my children free lessons,"
20 was she asking for money?
21 When Janet Arvizo concocted the J.C. Penney
22 fraud, when her lawyer was shocked, after 25
23 meetings with her, to hear her say at a deposition
24 how she'd been fondled 25 times by J.C. Penney
25 security guards, was she asking for money?
26 When Janet Arvizo had her children call
27 celebrities, constantly hounding celebrities, trying
28 to get money, with her in the background scripting
1 them and coaching them, do you think she was asking
2 for money?
3 When Janet Arvizo went to the editor of the
4 local newspaper in El Monte and said, "We have no
5 insurance. Chemotherapy costs $12,000 per
6 injection. Please put the bank account number in
7 your article. Please do an article. I know it's
8 against your policy to do things like this, but
9 please do it for us, because we can't pay our
10 medical bills," was she asking anyone for money?
11 When the calls went to Jay Leno, repeated
12 messages, "You're my favorite comedian," messages he
13 thought were awfully effusive, sounded scripted,
14 sounded contrived, didn't sound like the appropriate
15 message from a child of that age, when he called the
16 hospital and a woman was in the background telling
17 her son to be effusive, to be wordy, to continue to
18 tell him, "You're my favorite comedian," when he
19 thought they might be asking for money but they
20 actually didn't, what was Janet Arvizo doing?
21 Ask yourself, "Do I have any problem
22 believing what Janet Arvizo says?" Because if you
23 have the slightest problem that's a reasonable one,
24 the slightest doubt that's a reasonable one, the
25 slightest suspicion, Mr. Jackson must go home and he
26 must be free.
27 Now, the list of people she hustled is
28 endless. You know that ten days after the J.C.
1 Penney settlement -- the prosecutor wants you to
2 think she just got $32,000. The fact of the matter
3 is, she put 25,000 in an account for Gavin, she put
4 8,000 in an account for Star, and she set that up so
5 that she can't touch it, which I commend her for.
6 She got much more than $32,000, and yes, she had to
7 pay legal fees and costs, and that's what you
8 normally do when you file a lawsuit and take it to
9 settlement. But when she filed for emergency
10 welfare ten days after getting that money, was she
11 asking for money?
12 In the J.C. Penney case, in her deposition
13 when she admitted that she had filed a state
14 disability claim because she was depressed, and when
15 she was asked, "Why are you depressed?" she said,
16 "Because I'm a nobody," was Janet Arvizo asking for
17 money?
18 When she fraudulently sought food stamps,
19 when she fraudulently sought disability, when she
20 fraudulently sought every state benefit she could
21 get her hands on by perjuring herself and perjuring
22 herself and perjuring herself through constant
23 welfare applications, where she disguised
24 settlements, disguised bank accounts, disguised
25 benefits, was Janet Arvizo seeking money?
26 Because if you think she was, the
27 prosecution falls.
28 Now, ladies and gentlemen, the issue is
1 very, very simple. If you do not believe the
2 Arvizos beyond a reasonable doubt, Michael Jackson
3 must be acquitted. That's the law.
4 And these claims are completely based upon
5 your having to believe the Arvizos every which way
6 but Sunday. You've got to believe them.
7 Now, I submit that the witnesses we have
8 called and the cross-examination we have elicited in
9 this case proves the Arvizos are con artists, actors
10 and liars.
11 What do I mean?
12 Janet Arvizo is a very interesting
13 individual in some ways. Janet Arvizo sometimes
14 directly asks for money. She directly asked her
15 lawyer, Mr. Ranieri, for a contribution. He said
16 no.
17 More often than not, Janet Arvizo does not
18 directly ask for money. But she's so skilled at
19 what she does in articulating her tales of woe, her
20 family's poverty, her abuse, all the problems, that
21 invariably the person she's talking to decides on
22 their own to write her a check.
23 Isn't that what happened to Hamid Moslehi at
24 the home during the rebuttal video? He saw her
25 giving an acting lesson, as she describes it, about
26 her state of affairs. "Everybody abandoned us.
27 DCFS. My husband. Everyone. Nobody would come. I
28 couldn't -- I couldn't feed my children. I had no
1 cereal to give them. We had no money. We had no
2 means of transportation. We couldn't get anywhere."
3 She tells all of this in the rebuttal. Then
4 she has a 25-minute discussion with Hamid, and what
5 does he do? He writes her a $2,000 check.
6 I ask you, was she asking for money?
7 When she was on the phone with Jamie Masada
8 and Jay Jackson -- and she was living with Jay
9 Jackson at the time. He was making $80,000 a year.
10 And Jay Jackson asked if Masada would pay the costs
11 of the karate school with Janet on the phone, do you
12 think she was asking for something?
13 See, Janet Arvizo is much smarter than her
14 ex-husband David. David was like a bull in a china
15 shop. He would just come out and say, "Give us
16 money," or he'd send Gavin out to say, "Give us
17 money."
18 Janet develops a relationship first. She
19 hardly knows you and she's hugging you. She's
20 loving you. She's saying, "You're our family.
21 You're my brother. You're my father. We're all
22 part of your family and you're part of ours."
23 She starts sending letters to Michael
24 Jackson in 2002, when Mr. Zonen told you there was
25 no contact. Every letter, "Daddy Michael, you're
26 our family. We love you. We can't live without
27 you," words to that effect.
28 Janet Arvizo waits and develops a
1 relationship before she looks you in the eye and
2 gives you a tale of woe about why you should give
3 something to her. And it's happened time again,
4 time again, time again.
5 Now, you know that Janet Arvizo wanted her
6 children to be actors. You know that, because they
7 went to various schools to be actors. Every time
8 they went to a school about how to act, she told the
9 teachers how poor they were. You know her children
10 wanted to be actors. They said they wanted to be
11 actors. And you know that she had an almost
12 compulsive addiction to celebrities. I submit it
13 wasn't just about getting money. It was almost a
14 thrill. It was almost an excitement. They called
15 every celebrity in town they could get their hands
16 on. Chris Tucker said, "They made me think I was
17 the only comedian in their life. I later learned
18 they were calling every comedian in Los Angeles."
19 It's a very unusual story. It's hard to believe
20 that it's true when you really step back and look at
21 the MO of the Arvizos. But it is true and we proved
22 it.
23 Now, are they liars? I'm going to show you
24 pages of this transcript from this trial, their
25 testimony to you, and I'm going to show you where
26 they have repeatedly committed perjury in this
27 trial. But that's nothing new. Look at the J.C.
28 Penney lawsuit. How did that suit originate?
1 Eight-year-old Gavin shoplifted, ran into a
2 parking lot and was followed by security guards.
3 David followed, Janet came out from another
4 location, and an altercation developed. Janet and
5 David were arrested.
6 You saw Janet's booking photo at the police
7 department. Not only is there not a bruise on her
8 face, her hair is very neat. It couldn't be neater.
9 She filled out documents, "I have no medical
10 problems. I have no injuries. I don't need
11 attention." She left the jail at approximately
12 twelve o'clock, went to a hospital that evening, and
13 had photos taken within the next couple of weeks at
14 the request of her attorney, and lo and behold, she
15 was bruised, lo and behold she was injured, and lo
16 and behold a lawsuit was filed.
17 Very interesting the way that lawsuit
18 developed, because Janet Arvizo had Gavin testify
19 for her in a sworn deposition at the age of
20 approximately nine or ten. And Janet Arvizo
21 initially did not allege sexual assault. Initially
22 she alleged assault and false imprisonment.
23 As her thoughts about how to get money from
24 J.C. Penney and Tower Records developed, the sexual
25 assault claims developed as well. She amended her
26 complaint, and suddenly, to the surprise of her own
27 lawyer, who couldn't believe what he was hearing at
28 a deposition, she had been fondled 25 times in a
1 parking lot, after security guards did belly flops
2 on top of her, after they spit on her children,
3 after they spit pumpkin seeds at them, after they
4 hit them all with closed fists, after they hit them
5 with handcuffs, after they bruised every part of her
6 body. The claims went through an evolutionary
7 process. They developed and got bigger and bigger
8 and bigger.
9 And she used her son's illness, his cancer,
10 to get damages. She claimed that Star had a cyst on
11 his brain. That was to get damages. Eventually
12 J.C. Penney settled in a fraudulent lawsuit for
13 $152,000.
14 This is a pattern that serves as a looking
15 glass for everything that followed. And I repeat:
16 Ten days after she gets the money, she doesn't just
17 seek welfare under penalty of perjury, she seeks
18 emergency welfare assistance using violence in the
19 home as a reason.
20 Now, I have some graphs we're going to show
21 you that plot out these evolutionary claims, but I
22 have to tell you, it's a pattern and it does not
23 stop, and it's going to right in this courtroom
24 today.
25 You know that Gavin Arvizo, at a very young
26 age, made a false claim of abuse against his mother
27 in the 1990s to the Department of Children & Family
28 Services. He then withdrew the claim. He was very
1 young. He was very street smart. He'd been
2 schooled by his parents, David and Janet.
3 You note in the middle of Janet's spousal
4 abuse case with her ex-husband David, suddenly the
5 claim that David had molested Davellin surfaced.
6 I'm going to show you her testimony in this
7 courtroom. She doesn't remember it. She didn't
8 know it happened. She said she was too young.
9 Janet told her it happened. The slow evolution of a
10 claim of molestation.
11 Just like what happened in this case. And I
12 will chart it out for you, the meetings with
13 lawyers, the meetings with Masada, the development
14 of claims, starting off with claims about, "We don't
15 want to be in the lawsuit in England. We don't --
16 we want our stored materials back," evolving into
17 harassment, evolving into false imprisonment,
18 evolving into molestation. I will chart that out
19 for you in my closing argument.
20 Whenever you see a legal claim from Janet
21 Arvizo or Gavin Arvizo, you have cause to be
22 suspicious. The history is clear. The manipulation
23 is absolute.
24 Janet Arvizo and lawyers.
25 Have any of you tried to count how many
26 lawyers she's seen in her short life? I'll give you
27 some ideas. She said she had a lawyer in her civil
28 divorce action with David and her criminal
1 proceedings with David for all these years named
2 Manning. She had lawyers represent her in the J.C.
3 Penney case against J.C. Penney and Tower Records.
4 She had a criminal defense attorney represent her
5 when they were arrested at J.C. Penney. She went to
6 Bill Dickerman while she allegedly was being falsely
7 imprisoned.
8 And by the way, she first went to Bill
9 Dickerman on the 21st of February, 2003. Two days
10 after that, they were continuing to go after their
11 visas and passports at various federal buildings.
12 And the prosecution tells you she was not trying to
13 develop a lawsuit against Michael Jackson? You have
14 in evidence the visa applications. You have the
15 passport applications. You have documents showing
16 they're going to the Brazilian consulate, they're
17 going to the federal building in Los Angeles. She's
18 already been to Bill Dickerman. What do you think
19 is going on?
20 Bill Dickerman represents her for a period
21 of time and then shuttles her off to Larry Feldman,
22 who is a very well-known attorney in Los Angeles who
23 had represented the Chandlers against Mr. Jackson in
24 1993. Why do you think he sends her to Larry
25 Feldman? Why do you think he has a profit-sharing
26 arrangement with Larry Feldman? Why do you think
27 Mr. Feldman gets ahold of Stanley Katz, a
28 psychologist he used against Mr. Jackson in the
1 early '90s? Why do you think Mr. Masada is bringing
2 her to all these meetings? Doesn't it suggest
3 everybody's looking for a big payday against Michael
4 Jackson? There's only one thing they need. A
5 conviction, by you.
6 There's going to be great celebration in Los
7 Angeles among this group if he is convicted of one
8 single count in this case.
9 You heard Mr. Feldman testify. He spent an
10 enormous amount of money in the early '90s
11 litigating and getting a settlement against Mr.
12 Jackson. He didn't want to do it again. He told
13 the grand jury in Santa Barbara he didn't want to
14 spend that money again. He grudgingly admitted that
15 if Mr. Jackson is convicted in this courtroom, he
16 will not have to spend huge sums of money
17 establishing liability in a civil courtroom. It
18 will be established.
19 Now, he tried to fudge his way around this
20 by suggesting that once liability is established, if
21 you want to prove punitive damages, you still have
22 to prove malice and you still have to go into court.
23 That's true. But isn't liability the big
24 hurdle?
25 Aren't they all after millions from Mr.
26 Jackson? Haven't you seen one witness after another
27 come into this courtroom having sued Mr. Jackson,
28 having tried to get a settlement out of Mr. Jackson?
1 Every one, Ralph Chacon, McManus, Abdool, Cindy
2 Montgomery. They're all lined up.
3 He has a reputation for being a very
4 childlike person, very naive, very idealistic, a
5 musical genius. A person who likes to sit in trees
6 and compose. A person who likes to spend time in
7 the studio. A person who, from an early age, was
8 such a genius at what he did that he attracted
9 millions of dollars before he even knew what it
10 meant. A person who has not managed his money
11 terribly well. Has allowed people to use his
12 signature. Has trusted the wrong people. They've
13 emptied out accounts. They've diverted funds. Mr.
14 LeGrand even had the people around him investigated
15 for stealing from Mr. Jackson, the very people the
16 prosecution claims were his co-conspirators.
17 And he has been a target for years,
18 particularly after he settled with Chandler and
19 Francia, because he doesn't like courtrooms, he
20 doesn't like lawyers particularly, he doesn't like
21 litigation. He's known to be childlike, and
22 different, and creative, and offbeat. He's known
23 not to trust adults.
24 He's known to have developed Neverland as a
25 Disney-like environment to bring inner city children
26 so they can have some fun. He's known to have
27 developed his own lifestyle in a very idealistic and
28 naive kind of way. And he is an unbelievable target
1 because he's attracted millions and millions and
2 millions of dollars through the years because of his
3 genius and his talent and through his hard work.
4 This case is no different.
5 You saw Mr. Robel in that taped interview
6 with Gavin in July, the first interview, before any
7 investigation had ever taken place, he looked at him
8 and he said, "We're going to bring a criminal case.
9 You and your mother are victims. Mr. Jackson is
10 wrong. The people around him are wrong."
11 He hadn't even investigated the case and the
12 train started rolling and nobody would put the
13 brakes on. They didn't know anything about the
14 Arvizos on that date. They didn't want to know.
15 They didn't want to know about welfare fraud and
16 perjury and lying under oath, and J.C. Penney, and
17 hustling celebrities, and bank accounts, putting
18 checks into her mother's account to hide it from
19 welfare and everybody else. Nobody knew about that
20 on this side of the table. The problem is when they
21 began to learn, nobody wanted to say "Stop," and
22 that's why we're here.
23 And I submit, you cannot let injustice
24 happen in this courtroom. You cannot let these
25 people prevail. They're all just ready to pounce
26 with a conviction.
27 I don't have to say much about welfare fraud
28 and perjury. We proved it. The applications prove
1 it. They're all signed under penalty of perjury.
2 They're all manipulative. Not only what's said and
3 what's not said, but what she does. She takes her
4 welfare checks and puts them through Jay Jackson's
5 account, a person in the United States Army making
6 $80,000 a year.
7 She doesn't want a record of where she's
8 depositing them. She doesn't want them to be
9 traced. She lies about settlements. She lies about
10 where she's living. She lies about who's helping
11 support her. She lies to get food stamps. She lies
12 to get disability. Everything she can get her hands
13 on, we have proven is true.
14 And perjury is meaningless to her. She lied
15 in the J.C. Penney depositions. She lied on the
16 applications. Perjury is a habit. And she
17 committed perjury right in this courtroom. We're
18 going to show you some transcripts to show it.
19 I submit, ladies and gentlemen, the biggest
20 red flag in these claims is Janet Arvizo and Gavin
21 Arvizo and Star Arvizo and Davellin Arvizo going to
22 lawyers before they go to the police.
23 The visits to lawyers start on February
24 21st, 2003, when they meet Attorney Bill Dickerman.
25 As I said before, they have more meetings with him.
26 He refers them to Larry Feldman. Feldman brings in
27 Stan Katz. Feldman has a profit-sharing arrangement
28 with Dickerman. They're having all of these
1 meetings, developing their claims, and they don't go
2 to the police until June 13th, 2003, four months
3 later.
4 If you truly believe you've been falsely
5 imprisoned, you've been extorted, your children have
6 been abducted, your children have been molested,
7 they've been plied with alcohol to take advantage of
8 illness, why are you going to all these lawyers
9 first?
10 This is not the first time civil lawyers
11 have tried to manipulate the criminal process to get
12 their work done for them, by the way. Think about
13 it. You don't have to hire experts. You don't have
14 to hire investigation. You don't have to go through
15 months of trial. Because if somebody is convicted
16 and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the
17 civil burden of proof, preponderance of the
18 evidence, is already established.
19 They want the taxpayers of this county to
20 establish liability for them. And it's crystal
21 clear that that has been their plan from day one.
22 And I'm asking you not to let it happen.
23 To let it happen, you have to strip Mr.
24 Jackson of his freedom and reputation. You have to
25 label him a convict. You have to label him a sex
26 offender. You have to label him all of the things
27 he is not and they have not proven he is.
28 This is a case, a prosecution, based on the
1 Arvizos' lies and innuendo and exaggerations only.
2 Do any of you really think, from what you've
3 learned about Mr. Jackson, that he would even be
4 capable of running a conspiracy to abduct children,
5 falsely imprison a family, ship them off to Brazil?
6 For what purpose? To make a documentary that they
7 didn't even appear in? For what purpose?
8 I want you to think carefully, ladies and
9 gentlemen, I beg you to think carefully about the
10 dates of the alleged molestation. The charge says
11 the molestations occurred February 20th, 2003,
12 through March 12th, 2003. They claim the
13 molestations begin right after the filming of the
14 rebuttal and the DCFS interview.
15 Now, why do they pick those dates? Because
16 Janet and her family were so laudatory, so effusive
17 about Michael Jackson, praising him every which way
18 they could. "He's a father figure. He's generous.
19 He's caring. He's sensitive. He's always there for
20 them. He helped Gavin with his illness."
21 The dates were carefully chosen to follow
22 those statements. They couldn't get away from those
23 statements. They had to do something about them.
24 But think about this, ladies and gentlemen:
25 How absurd is it to say molestation by Michael
26 Jackson occurred on Gavin Arvizo between February
27 20th and March 12th? What's going on at that point
28 in time? And I will show you a timeline as well.
1 You've got international media scrutiny of
2 Michael Jackson. He's under a microscope, the
3 Arvizos are under a microscope, because of the
4 Bashir documentary. Everyone's talking about it.
5 All sorts of media are buzzing around. They're
6 following the Arvizos. They're trying to follow
7 Michael Jackson. There's ample evidence to suggest
8 that. The Arvizos don't like it. Mr. Jackson, of
9 course, is used to it. He seems to have generated
10 publicity his whole career.
11 But to make a long story short, there is no
12 question you have a media frenzy going on
13 internationally.
14 You have a Department of Children & Family
15 Services investigation going on as well. Mr.
16 Jackson knows it, Janet Arvizo knows it, everyone
17 knows it. Remember the evidence of leaks from DCFS
18 that the prosecution didn't care for? Everyone
19 knows about the investigation.
20 Mr. Geragos is doing his own investigation
21 into the Arvizos because he's concerned about who
22 they are, who they meet with, what their motives
23 are, what they're up to. He told you that he did a
24 quick litigation search. He saw the J.C. Penney
25 suit. It raised some red flags, as it should have
26 for any lawyer pledged to protect a client, and he
27 started his own investigation with Brad Miller, a
28 licensed private investigator. So that's going on.
1 The evidence has shown and proven that the
2 effort to produce a rebuttal show was monumental.
3 You had producers, you had distributors, you had
4 agents, you had lawyers, you had different networks
5 vying to do it. You've already heard about CBS
6 being at Neverland. Janet Arvizo was there on that
7 particular day. Mr. Geragos was there on that
8 particular day. To make a long story short, you
9 have an intense effort to produce this rebuttal that
10 the Arvizos never appeared in and didn't have to
11 appear in.
12 According to the prosecution, this criminal
13 conspiracy is beginning on February 1st, 19 days
14 before the alleged molestation. Put all this
15 together, what does it say to you about the dates
16 the so-called molestation occurred? It's absurd.
17 It's unrealistic. And it makes no sense. Because
18 the whole case makes no sense.
19 You know, these molestation counts and this
20 attempted molestation count, they are completely
21 based on the testimony of Gavin and Star Arvizo.
22 There is no independent witness who allegedly sees
23 any of this. Star changed his story a bunch of
24 times, as I will show you through transcript. But
25 he's the one who says he saw molestation one night,
26 when all the lights were out except the light on the
27 stairwell. The lights in the room were out, he
28 looked for a couple of seconds, and he says he saw
1 Mr. Jackson, lying in bed, touch his brother, who's
2 out like a light. He's asleep. He says he saw that
3 twice.
4 Gavin Arvizo says he was touched a couple of
5 times as well. There is no independent witness to
6 any of this. You have to believe Star beyond a
7 reasonable doubt, you have to believe Gavin beyond a
8 reasonable doubt, and look at the lies they told in
9 court.
10 I am going to go through transcripts of
11 their testimony, but just to whet your appetite a
12 little bit, they are profuse in their testimony that
13 they only had alcohol with Mr. Jackson. And you
14 know Shane Meridith caught them with alcohol. You
15 know Simone caught them with alcohol. You know
16 Angel Vivanco caught them with alcohol. They were
17 profuse in their testimony that they didn't know
18 anything about sexuality till Mr. Jackson showed
19 them a "Hustler"-type magazine. And we know that's
20 false, because they were caught.
21 You know that Gavin looked at you, under
22 oath, and said, "Mr. Jackson told me that if men
23 don't masturbate, they'll go out and rape,"
24 forgetting that he had told the grand jury, "My
25 grandmother told me that."
26 We will go through a transcript as well
27 about these particular witnesses, but you have to
28 understand there's no independent witness allegedly
1 watching any of this. You got to believe them
2 beyond a reasonable doubt. You got to believe them
3 all the way. It's impossible.
4 The prosecution doesn't like to focus on the
5 fact there is no forensic evidence supporting any of
6 these alleged molestation claims. No DNA supports
7 it. There's no semen stain or sample that supports
8 it. No evidence of bodily fluids support it that
9 you can link to Gavin. No hair, no fibers. They
10 didn't fingerprint the bottles or any of the area
11 where he's supposed to have been molested. No
12 forensic evidence. No independent witness to any of
13 this.
14 Conspiracy.
15 They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
16 that Michael Jackson had a specific intent to enter
17 into an agreement to falsely imprison, abduct
18 children and extort.
19 There is no evidence that he did anything
20 like that whatsoever. They don't put him at
21 meetings. They don't record his phone calls. They
22 don't have anything that suggests he wanted to enter
23 into a felony conspiracy to commit these crimes on a
24 family. They have to prove that he wanted to abduct
25 these children to Brazil, I guess.
26 How absurd is that? No plane tickets were
27 ever purchased for the trip to Brazil. When they
28 didn't want to go to Brazil, they went home. And
1 they went home when they realized Michael Jackson
2 was not going to Brazil, because Janet was playing
3 all sides, like so many other people around Michael
4 Jackson. She wanted to be part of Michael Jackson's
5 world. She wanted to benefit from the financial,
6 the celebrity, the public relations advantages she
7 had with Michael Jackson.
8 And everybody's playing everybody to see if
9 they can gain advantage and be with Michael Jackson.
10 It's been the story of his life. It's why his
11 finances have had problems despite all these
12 millions generated.
13 The Arvizos were no different. Once she
14 found the most popular celebrity in the world, who
15 happened to be that childlike and that naive, who,
16 unlike Jay Leno, didn't see the signs, unlike Chris
17 Tucker, who eventually saw the signs, unlike others
18 that got taken and disappeared, Michael brought this
19 family into Neverland and took care of them.
20 Can you imagine, based upon what you've seen
21 in this courtroom, Michael Jackson conspiring to
22 abduct children, falsely imprison or commit
23 extortion? Does he look like the kind of person who
24 would do that? You saw a tape. He wants to have
25 celebrity animal parties. He wants an international
26 day for children. He likes to sit in a tree and do
27 music. He says, "Other people go to baseball games
28 and football games. I like to sit in my tree." He
1 likes to create. He lets children visit Neverland
2 who are ill and sick.
3 Does he look like the kind of person who is
4 even capable of masterminding a criminal conspiracy
5 of this magnitude? It's absurd.
6 And to even consider it, you have to believe
7 Janet Arvizo beyond a reasonable doubt that she
8 escaped from Neverland, went back, escaped from
9 Neverland, went back, escaped from Neverland, went
10 back.
11 It's absurd on its face. And, ladies and
12 gentlemen, you have to shake your head to think they
13 would even bring a claim like that against Mr.
14 Jackson, who, by the way, is the only person charged
15 with it.
16 Have one of these other alleged
17 co-conspirators even been charged with a
18 misdemeanor? No. No. It was done to keep them
19 away from this courtroom, scare them.
20 If you really think there was a conspiracy
21 of this magnitude, if you really think the actions
22 were this serious, if you really think a family was
23 being abducted and hidden and spirited away to their
24 doom, why do you only charge Michael Jackson?
25 Because he's a mega celebrity and that's
26 what this case is about. Seventy officers search
27 his home. They don't do that in homicide cases.
28 Seventy officers invade his privacy.
1 Yes, he's a human being. They find a lot of
2 girlie magazines; "Hustler," "Playboy," "Penthouse."
3 He does read them. Did he want the world to know
4 that? No, that's his private life. Did he think
5 they were going to bring it all into a courtroom and
6 just flash it for the world? No.
7 They went all around his house trying to
8 find something. And I'm going to tell you in a
9 little while what they didn't find. But let me just
10 go through this general outline first.
11 There is no incriminating statement by Mr.
12 Jackson of any kind that, "I want these people
13 spirited to Brazil. I want them held against their
14 will. I want these children abducted, separate them
15 from their mother"; nothing. In fact, throughout
16 all of this elaborate evidence of a conspiracy, you
17 hardly hear of him. He's not at meetings. He
18 doesn't have a cell phone. They can do all this,
19 you know, fancy arrows going every which way but
20 Sunday, but where is Michael Jackson in the middle
21 of this?
22 In fact, the evidence is that Janet
23 complained to Azja Pryor and others, including Maria
24 Gomez, that "These people are separating me from
25 Michael Jackson." She felt she was a victim of
26 their efforts to monopolize Michael Jackson and keep
27 her away. And indeed, Mr. LeGrand did testify
28 Dieter and Konitzer were intending to take over all
1 of his affairs, all of his business matters, and
2 Dieter and Konitzer didn't want Michael Jackson
3 involved in their discussions.
4 What significant events in this so-called
5 conspiracy is he even at? Where is he? You don't
6 know where he is. You don't hear from him. He's at
7 Neverland. He's in his studio. He's traveling.
8 Where is he when this so-called conspiracy is being
9 hatched and operated?
10 Janet's statements refute this whole idea of
11 a conspiracy. Her actions refute the idea of a
12 conspiracy, as you heard me say ad nauseam in my
13 examination of witnesses: "Did you call the police?
14 Did you call the police? Did you call the police."
15 No.
16 The conspiracy's happening at Jay Jackson's
17 apartment, a major in the U.S. Army. That's where
18 the interviews with Brad Miller take place. That's
19 where the Department of Children & Family Services
20 interview take place. What kind of a conspiracy is
21 going to want to meet at Jay Jackson's apartment?
22 What kind of a conspiracy goes on with all
23 of these hotels, and all of these shopping sprees
24 and all of this stuff in full view? What kind of
25 conspiracy goes on when you've got a licensed,
26 bonded mover to move her stuff into storage and put
27 it in Brad Miller's name?
28 This is not a conspiracy. There's no
1 conspiracy at all involving Mr. Jackson.
2 Now, what some of these other guys may have
3 done on occasion is unclear, because they weren't in
4 the courtroom and Mr. Jackson wasn't with them.
5 They're all trying to make a buck off of him, that's
6 clear. They're all angling for advantage. That's
7 clear. The testimony that Schaffel was trying to
8 make a buck off Mr. Jackson is clear. The testimony
9 that Konitzer and Dieter wanted to take over his
10 affairs is clear.
11 Where is Mr. Jackson in this conspiracy?
12 You can put him in the center of a nice
13 photograph and you can have all these faces around
14 him, but that's not evidence. That's a substitute
15 for evidence.
16 Now, Mr. Jackson got himself in trouble by
17 very innocently and naively telling Bashir, "I have
18 allowed children into my bed. I have allowed
19 children into my room. What do you do with a child
20 that has no parents? What do you do? Children
21 flock to me all over the world. I'm a childlike
22 figure. And I see nothing wrong with it because
23 nothing sexual happens. And the world needs more
24 love, and children need more caring, and this is,
25 like, kids are bringing guns to schools."
26 Idealistic, naive, in light of the target he
27 is, but not criminal in nature. And if he really
28 were out to commit crimes, why would he go on an
1 international documentary and make these statements?
2 Because he hasn't been committing crimes.
3 But he has naively and idealistically and in
4 a childlike way let people run roughshod through his
5 home, let them sleep in his bedroom. He has opened
6 his gates to all kinds of people. And it's a naive
7 way to look at the world because he is such a
8 target. He is.
9 Say to yourself, why would he say these
10 things to Bashir if he were a criminal? Why?
11 Because he's not.
12 Now, because their case is so weak, because
13 of their concern that you're not going to believe
14 the Arvizos beyond a reasonable doubt, this
15 prosecution has engaged in a mean-spirited, nasty
16 attempt, a barbaric attempt to dehumanize and
17 degrade Mr. Jackson. It started during jury
18 selection when Mr. Zonen talked about his sagging
19 music career. It continued as they flashed
20 magazines to you throughout the trial. It continued
21 with efforts to show you his finances to show he's
22 had some financial problems through mismanagement
23 and misguided motives.
24 And what am I talking about?
25 The guy's millions in debt and he gives a
26 million dollars to Marlon Brando because he feels
27 bad about his friend. He pays for everybody.
28 Shopping sprees, hotels. He has all these sharks
1 around him getting power of attorney so they can
2 sign documents for him. His generosity, his lax
3 behavior knows no bounds because the man has a
4 wonderful, kind heart.
5 But they do it thinking somehow he'll be
6 embarrassed, or they'll embarrass him by this
7 preposterous claim that because Mr. Jackson had some
8 financial difficulties with cash flow, that he would
9 want to abduct a family to do a broadcast that
10 didn't even include them, a broadcast that generated
11 money that isn't even close to fulfilling the debt
12 obligations that they tried to establish.
13 They didn't really do it because they think
14 you're going to buy that it's a motive for a
15 conspiracy. They did it to embarrass him and
16 dehumanize him in your eyes because they're worried
17 you just might like Michael Jackson. You just might
18 admire Michael Jackson. You just might have pity
19 for Mr. Jackson for being treated the way they've
20 treated him and for being the target of Mr.
21 Sneddon's actions for many years.
22 They're worried, and the only way they can
23 handle it is through dirt everywhere. To take
24 everything he has tried to build and create and
25 accomplish and try and degrade it and dehumanize it,
26 and I submit it's wrong.
27 And I submit it's no substitute for
28 evidence. It is absolute misconduct by them.
1 He's not charged with possessing any illegal
2 pornography, because no illegal pornography was
3 found. Everything they found in his home was
4 lawful. That was clear. He's not charged with
5 showing adult material to children. That's not one
6 of the charges here. They're doing that to dirty
7 him up, and try to get you to somehow make it easier
8 for you to convict him.
9 He's not charged with lax supervision. How
10 many times in this trial have we heard that kids get
11 all the candy they want, all the ice cream they
12 want; that kids can run around Neverland and have
13 fun with the animals; that they're not supervised
14 well enough; that the doors are open; that they run
15 in and out of his room, in and out of his house?
16 How often have we heard that? That they can jump on
17 ATVs and drive everywhere.
18 They tried to make it look like a crime.
19 He's not charged with lax supervision. Kiki
20 Fournier said he's too nice to people. He lets
21 people into his house too often. He lets them run
22 around.
23 And of course you know the Arvizo kids, what
24 they were doing, in and out of everything, like they
25 were at every house they were able to get into.
26 The prosecutor mentioned Dr. Esplin, our
27 expert. Dr. Esplin said most false claims of
28 molestation come from children ten and up and
1 usually the motive is financial gain. And he talked
2 specifically about a long history of deceptive
3 behavior by the parents.
4 Could you have parents with more of a
5 pattern of deceptive behavior than David and Janet?
6 The prosecution did us a favor. They
7 focused on David, how he just hustled Mr. Lopez for
8 money, and irritated people at The Laugh Factory,
9 and irritated people at the hospital, and kept
10 trying to get money, and concocted this scheme with
11 Gavin, his young son, about George Lopez stealing
12 money from a wallet.
13 They painted him as the bad guy, not
14 realizing that there was no way in the world they
15 were going to make Janet look good. And what they
16 did was they added all the pieces to the puzzle.
17 This is a family where children have been
18 taught to con, and children have been taught to lie,
19 and children have been taught to very brashly and
20 brazenly, and with no embarrassment or any type of
21 restraint, call one celebrity after another, and
22 keep bombarding them with calls, like they did to
23 Jay Leno, like they did to Chris Tucker, like they
24 did to Michael Jackson. This is the way they've
25 been taught.
26 It doesn't mean they're irredeemable. It
27 doesn't mean they don't have some good qualities.
28 Azja Pryor, a very nice person, fell in love with
1 the kids. But she wasn't street smart like Mr.
2 Leno. She didn't see what was coming until
3 eventually they hounded her for a truck, hounded her
4 for money. Janet told her her tale of woe and she
5 gave her 600 bucks, and the pattern continued.
6 The prosecutor mentioned Stanley Katz. He
7 quoted Stanley Katz, Larry Feldman's good friend,
8 who he hired in '93 to go after Mr. Jackson, who he
9 brought into this case to take the same type of
10 approach with the Arvizos.
11 Do you remember Stanley Katz, a psychologist
12 with the Ph.D., looked at you and said, "I've never
13 heard of a false claim by a teenager"? Remember he
14 said that? Remember he said that? Did anyone on
15 this jury believe that?
16 Of course you didn't. It was self-serving,
17 it was manipulative and it was dishonest.
18 Dr. Esplin is the leading authority on false
19 claims. He's done studies with law enforcement all
20 around the world. He told you children ten and up
21 are the biggest group for making false claims like
22 this. And if you see a pattern and a history of bad
23 behavior by parents, it raises a red flag.
24 Could you ever have imagined more of a
25 history than what you've seen here?
26 I want to clarify some of the issues in the
27 case, ladies and gentlemen, because I really believe
28 the prosecution, with their scattered claims of too
1 much candy and too much girlie magazines and too
2 much ice cream, and here, there and everywhere, are
3 muddying the waters so you will not focus on what
4 the real claim is.
5 First of all, the only alleged victim of
6 child molestation in this case is Gavin Arvizo. The
7 counts only relate to Gavin Arvizo. They brought in
8 alleged victims from the '90s - three of them came
9 in and said nothing happened - because they're
10 desperate. They are absolutely desperate. The only
11 claims here relate to Gavin. If you don't believe
12 Gavin and Star beyond a reasonable doubt, acquittal
13 is necessary.
14 As I said before, they're the only witnesses
15 to the molestation counts. Nobody else. I told you
16 they repeatedly lied under oath and I told you
17 there's no independent witnesses to support their
18 claims.
19 What are you left with? What are you left
20 with? What kind of a system do we have if these
21 kinds of witnesses can convict someone and destroy
22 their life, with all you know about them at this
23 point.
24 I talked about there not being forensic
25 evidence. There's none.
26 You know that he went to his teacher and was
27 questioned twice. "Did Mr. Jackson ever molest
28 you?" And the answer was, "No."
1 And that's when the prosecution started to
2 backpedal. "Well, we have evidence that people
3 delay reporting, and we have evidence that young men
4 get embarrassed about being sexually handled in a
5 way like this."
6 Some of that may be true, but how do you
7 know it's true here? How do you know it's true
8 here?
9 And if the prosecution has the burden to
10 prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, how can they
11 come to you and respond to the fact that he told
12 this teacher on two occasions, "Mr. Jackson never
13 touched me," by saying, "Well, studies show that
14 sometimes people delay their reports"?
15 Is that proof beyond a reasonable doubt or
16 is it just a wishy-washy type of explanation for
17 something they know is devastating to their case
18 because the problems continue: The lack of
19 forensics, the lack of an independent witness, the
20 lies under oath, the history of the family. Now you
21 got a witness who Gavin Arvizo said it never
22 happened to.
23 And as I said before, he's the only alleged
24 victim in the case.
25 As I said before, he made a false claim
26 about his mother abusing him in the '90s. He made
27 false claims as a child in the J.C. Penney case
28 where he was deposed under oath. He supported his
1 mother in everything she wanted to do.
2 I'm going to go through their transcripts,
3 their testimony, and show you where Gavin and Star
4 kept changing their stories, kept telling lies. And
5 as I said before, the timing is outrageous that
6 molestation is going to occur starting February
7 20th.
8 THE COURT: Is this a good place for a break?
9 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, sir.
10 (Recess taken.)
11 THE COURT: Counsel?
12 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.
13 Ladies and gentlemen, the prosecution would
14 like the defense to focus only on Janet Arvizo.
15 That is their dream. Their dream is that we will
16 focus on her and somehow the children will look
17 clean and honest and truthful. And I want to make
18 sure that's not what our thrust is.
19 You may recall that Gavin Arvizo met Chris
20 Tucker at his home and lied. He told him, "We made
21 no money at the fund-raiser," and that's when Chris
22 Tucker wrote a check. Chris Tucker described him as
23 cunning, smart. He didn't trust him.
24 Even at a young age, Star Arvizo told Louise
25 Palanker, "All we got was love for Christmas," and
26 she began to write the $10,000 checks.
27 Davellin kept hassling Azja Pryor for Chris
28 Tucker's truck. It was relentless. She finally had
1 to stop talking to Davellin, and she actually liked
2 Davellin.
3 I don't want to suggest, in any shape or
4 form, this is just a target of Janet. The whole
5 family has difficulties with the truth, difficulties
6 with honesty, difficulties with money, and the
7 children have been raised this way.
8 Now, I want to make a couple of things clear
9 that I talked about earlier.
10 In the J.C. Penney fraud, which Gavin was
11 very much a part of at a young age, Janet was
12 arrested and got out of jail at 9:15. David got out
13 of jail at 12:03. Janet checked into the ER at 1:11
14 that day claiming she'd be injured.
15 The family has been part of these fraud
16 scams, not someone alone.
17 When David was in the picture and
18 manipulating celebrities, he used Gavin.
19 Do you remember George Lopez said, "We'd go
20 to a mall, and David would be standing there, and
21 Gavin would be asking me to buy all these things.
22 And I thought it was strange that the father would
23 simply stand there, not say anything, and let his
24 child just keep asking me to buy and buy and buy."
25 But that's the way it's worked. Mrs. Watson
26 Johnson said that Star would call her asking for
27 money and she could hear Janet in the background
28 coaching him.
1 Mary Holzer said that Janet bragged to her
2 that her kids were good actors, that Gavin knew his
3 lines well, but Star used to falter. He wasn't
4 quite as smart, wasn't quite up to it.
5 Could you believe how many witnesses came in
6 to establish this MO of scamming and manipulating
7 and lying? Can you believe that many people would
8 come in to testify that this family has gotten in a
9 rhythm, a pattern of going after celebrities?
10 Because it's worked and worked and worked. It's a
11 family program. It's not just Janet's problems.
12 Now, ladies and gentlemen, the prosecution
13 has tried to focus your attention on what they now
14 call pornography at Neverland. And they found for
15 the last ten years' worth of "Hustler," "Playboy,"
16 "Penthouse," things of that sort. All legal. All
17 heterosexual.
18 In a library of thousands and thousands of
19 books, they found a couple of books that focused on
20 men. And they wanted you to think that somehow Mr.
21 Jackson was some -- I don't know whether they're
22 trying to say he's a gay man, or, as Mr. Zonen in
23 his mean questioning, try to suggest he's asexual.
24 They're not sure which way they're going. But
25 basically they went through this home where
26 thousands and thousands of books have accumulated,
27 where the evidence was, that when fans around the
28 world sent things to Mr. Jackson, he keeps
1 everything like a pack rat.
2 And what do they find? They found this
3 book, "Boys Will Be Boys" - okay? - published in New
4 York in 1966. Yes, it has some naked pictures of
5 boys. It also has pictures that are not naked,
6 okay?
7 And what does it say, what is inscribed in
8 the book? It says, "Look at the true spirit of
9 happiness and joy in these boys' faces. This is the
10 spirit of boyhood, a life I never had and will
11 always dream of. This is the life I want for my
12 children, MJ."
13 Now, you've already seen the outtakes where
14 Mr. Jackson talks about his not having a childhood.
15 He was working clubs at a young age at 3:00 in the
16 morning --
17 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, I'll object to this
18 matter as exceeding the scope of the Court ruling.
19 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, the prosecution
20 talked similarly about Bashir.
21 MR. ZONEN: It's the outtakes.
22 THE COURT: The objection is sustained on
23 that.
24 MR. MESEREAU: Is this the sign of a
25 pedophile? To write an inscription in a published
26 book of this sort?
27 The other book, "The Boy: A Photographic
28 Essay," says, "To Michael: From your fan, Rhonda,"
1 with a little heart. "1983, Chicago," it says in
2 it.
3 Now, Mr. Zonen didn't know what to do with
4 that so he suggested through his questioning on
5 cross-examination that maybe somebody had faked it.
6 But there's no evidence anybody faked that. They
7 seized these things in the early '90s.
8 And was there any evidence that these books
9 were ever shown to any witness? No. Not one
10 witness came into this courtroom and said, "Michael
11 Jackson showed me books of men." Not one.
12 Now, we're asking you to use your common
13 sense in this area of alleged pedophilia.
14 First of all, they never put a pedophilia
15 expert on the stand, because they were afraid.
16 Having all of these heterosexual books and magazines
17 doesn't add up to pedophilia, okay?
18 What do you typically find? You find
19 illegal child pornography, websites galore,
20 pictures. None of that came in. And, yes, the
21 prosecution suggested they would prove that, and
22 none of it was found at Neverland. No websites of
23 pedophilia. No child sex pictures on websites. No
24 photographs. None of the things you typically
25 associate with a pedophile.
26 And their biggest problem is repeated
27 editions of "Hustler" and "Playboy" and "Penthouse"
28 and "Barely Legal" do not equate with what they're
1 trying to prove. I'm not saying it's necessarily
2 commendable that you have all these magazines, but
3 you can get them at any newsstand and there's been
4 no evidence that anything was illegal.
5 And if Mr. Jackson has been proven to like
6 to read these magazines for years and years and
7 years, how does that equate to their theory that he
8 wanted to sexually touch a male child?
9 It doesn't. There's a problem with their
10 case. And as I said before, not one of these books
11 they found, among thousands, of males was shown to a
12 single witness. No illegal child pornography,
13 either in a website or anywhere else. No websites
14 where you try to meet children, like pedophiles
15 often do, and the rest.
16 This is nothing but a mean-spirited attempt
17 to damage his reputation and embarrass him by
18 digging into his private life through repeated
19 searches, with 70 officers, trying to find something
20 to dirty him up with.
21 They have dirtied him up, because he's
22 human. But they haven't proved their case. They
23 can't.
24 Now, you know that Gavin and Star tried to
25 act like they're very naive on sexual matters.
26 Do you remember that last police interview
27 which they showed you so you would understand
28 Gavin's demeanor? Well, you can certainly study his
1 demeanor in conjunction with what's said, because
2 they played for you what was said. It wasn't
3 offered for the truth. The tape was offered to show
4 his demeanor, but you can consider his demeanor in
5 terms of what is said.
6 Do you remember, after Mr. Robel said,
7 "We're going to bring a criminal case against Mr.
8 Jackson, and you're the victims, you and your mom,"
9 before they'd even investigated? Do you remember he
10 started off by looking at Gavin and saying, "Tell me
11 something that's wrong. Give me an example of
12 something that's wrong."
13 And Gavin hesitated. And you study his
14 demeanor. He's sort of stymied. He doesn't quite
15 know what to say. He comes up with, "Staying out
16 late at night."
17 MR. ZONEN: I'll object to the content as
18 exceeding the scope of the court ruling.
19 THE COURT: Overruled.
20 MR. MESEREAU: And then they ask him, "Come
21 up with something else."
22 And he hesitates. He has this guilty look
23 on his face. He doesn't know what to say. He says,
24 "Break things."
25 And then Mr. Robel says, "How about
26 something else?"
27 He hesitates. He looks stymied. He looks
28 confused, and he says, "Kill somebody."
1 Did he ever say lie, cheat, or steal? Do
2 most children his age, if you ask them, "Give me an
3 example of something that's wrong," say, "Don't lie;
4 don't tell the truth"?
5 No. And if you have time in the jury room,
6 just take a look at the beginning of that interview.
7 By the way, that's the same interview where
8 his mother's outside the door, and he says, "I
9 haven't told my mother any of this," after they met
10 for months with lawyers, okay?
11 That's the same interview where you can
12 study his demeanor as he lies about wanting to leave
13 Neverland because he was scared.
14 Didn't he testify to you that he loved
15 Neverland, wanted to be there? Didn't he tell
16 various witnesses he loved Neverland, wanted to be
17 there?
18 Study his demeanor. That's why they asked
19 you to look at it. Study it. And study this sort
20 of fake notion that he's unsophisticated in sexual
21 matters. He acts like he doesn't know what an
22 erection is.
23 He's 13. His brother's been caught with
24 girlie magazines at Neverland. He acts like he
25 doesn't know what an ejaculation is. He acts so
26 innocent.
27 They've been meeting with Feldman and
28 Dickerman and Masada and Katz for months. He's been
1 talking to his mother about this stuff for months.
2 Do you believe for a second they went to Feldman
3 without thinking there was some type of molestation
4 they could pull off? Why else do you go to Feldman?
5 Why else? Do you really believe his mother was
6 outside the door and they never talked about it?
7 Study his demeanor. You don't see much
8 emotion.
9 You know, one of the most important moments
10 in this trial was, I submit that when you get in the
11 jury room, discuss this occurrence: He's on the
12 witness stand. He describes the alleged sexual
13 touching, the alleged molestation. You saw no
14 emotion whatsoever.
15 When did you see him really get mad? When
16 he talked about Michael Jackson abandoning his
17 family.
18 Do you remember? Do you remember the
19 emotion, the anger? Do you remember how he reacted?
20 You can't look at a transcript and see it. You have
21 to see it in person. He was angry because he felt
22 that Michael Jackson had abandoned his family. They
23 were not part of his world. And he wanted to be
24 part of his world. That was clear.
25 No emotion about the alleged touching.
26 Plenty of emotion about, "Why did Michael do that to
27 us?"
28 That happened on cross-examination. And
1 that sums up this case when it comes to Gavin Arvizo.
2 Put all of this together, what do you get?
3 The Arvizos, Gavin and Star, tried to suggest that
4 Michael Jackson corrupted them with these magazines.
5 Yet Star was caught twice with his own magazines.
6 Julio Avila caught him with a magazine in his
7 backpack. He said, "I got it at home," when he was
8 caught writing "Suck dick" on the wall.
9 That is not a naive kid on sexual matters,
10 but they'd like you to think it was all Michael
11 Jackson taking these innocent little lambs and
12 corrupting their minds. And it's baloney.
13 They tried to tell you that Michael Jackson
14 taught them masturbation and taught them the facts
15 of life and, again, they were just these innocent
16 little kids. But they were caught masturbating by
17 Rijo, who took the stand and was as honest as can be
18 and thoroughly abused by Mr. Zonen. Do you remember
19 he started to wipe his eyes he was so scared about
20 this whole event?
21 Gavin and Star are not what they're trying
22 to make you think they are.
23 I've already talked about the financial
24 motive. It's clear as day. You don't keep going to
25 all these lawyers and changing your claims unless
26 you have a financial motive.
27 Demeanor? Well, in that police interview
28 that they ended their case with, do you remember
1 Gavin begins with, "How long is this going to take?"
2 Do you remember that?
3 You've got a police officer stroking him
4 along, "You're the victim. You're the victim.
5 We're going after Michael Jackson. We're going
6 after his people. We're on your side. Don't be
7 afraid," encouraging him to make these accusations
8 that conflict with things that he said to the police
9 on other occasions.
10 He didn't show emotion. Remember, he's
11 trained as an actor. His mother's proud of it.
12 He's proud of it.
13 Does it complicate your job?
14 Yes. But you have to deal with the facts.
15 Does it make it harder to believe him beyond
16 a reasonable doubt?
17 It does. But the facts are the facts are
18 the facts.
19 These are the same kids that were dancing on
20 the stage at The Laugh Factory about their poverty
21 so celebrities would feel sorry for them.
22 Now, as I said before, we're going to get
23 into some transcript, because transcripts don't lie.
24 I want to show you what they said in this courtroom
25 so the prosecution can't get up and just
26 misinterpret what they said or did.
27 Let me cover a few more points first.
28 The alcohol counts. I want to be clear on
1 what you're being asked to do. The felony alcohol
2 counts require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that
3 alcohol was given to molest Gavin Arvizo. He's the
4 only alleged victim of those counts.
5 What they're saying is Michael Jackson, with
6 all you know about him through this trial, would
7 look at a cancer patient, a child, and say, "Ah-hah,
8 I'm going to ply him with alcohol so I can disable
9 him and molest him."
10 Michael Jackson couldn't even conceive of
11 such a thing. He couldn't.
12 The same problems with the molestation
13 counts exist for the felony alcohol counts, because
14 it's allegedly giving alcohol for the purpose of
15 molesting.
16 Now, Judge Melville read you the jury
17 instructions yesterday, and there is the option of a
18 misdemeanor count on alcohol. It's called a
19 lesser-included. But it still requires that you
20 believe Gavin Arvizo beyond a reasonable doubt,
21 okay? And it still requires that the time period
22 for the alleged molestation be the time period for
23 that misdemeanor count.
24 And you can't believe Gavin Arvizo on
25 alcohol beyond a reasonable doubt. Why?
26 He and Star claim they only drank with
27 Michael Jackson. Remember that? They repeatedly
28 say that under oath. Shane Meridith caught the two
1 of them in the wine cellar with a half-empty bottle
2 of wine. Michael Jackson was nowhere around. So
3 they lied under oath.
4 Rijo Jackson. He says he was in Michael
5 Jackson's bedroom. Michael Jackson was in the
6 bathroom. A glass and a bottle of alcohol was
7 brought in while Michael Jackson was in the
8 bathroom. Gavin and Star ran upstairs and then ran
9 out of the room, and after they'd run out of the
10 room alcohol was missing from the bottle.
11 Now, I ask you this: If Michael was so
12 freely giving them alcohol, why did they have to run
13 out of the room behind his back? Why?
14 Simone Jackson was in the kitchen area. Saw
15 them come in and go to the refrigerator and take
16 alcohol. They didn't see her.
17 Michael Jackson was nowhere near where they
18 were that night. They've lied under oath about
19 alcohol.
20 Angel Vivanco. He says that Star told him,
21 "You either put this liqueur in my milkshake or I'll
22 get you fired." Michael Jackson isn't there.
23 Now, the alcohol allegations don't relate to
24 the air flight, okay? That's not the time period.
25 As I said before, the time period for the alcohol
26 allegations is the same time period for the
27 molestation allegations, which allegedly start
28 February 20th, and I've talked to you about how
1 weird that is and how ridiculous it is.
2 But the Arvizos came up with this story on
3 the plane about drinking alcohol, but Cynthia Bell
4 saw none of this. And she didn't have credibility
5 problems. They did.
6 Michael Jackson wanted alcohol in cans so
7 kids couldn't see it, because he does drink alcohol
8 on occasion and he doesn't like to advertise it. Of
9 course, with this investigation, his personal life
10 has been turned topsy-turvy, and they're trying to
11 make a criminal out of him because he gets
12 intoxicated from time to time.
13 You have to look at this with a human lens.
14 You have to look at him as a human being. He's been
15 put under this microscope his whole life as this
16 megastar. Some say he's better known than Elvis
17 around the world, but that has a price attached to
18 it. And the price sometimes is loneliness and
19 confusion and not knowing who your friends even are.
20 And he is a human being, but he's not a criminal.
21 Jesus Salas. They thought he was going to
22 be their star witness on alcohol. They put him on
23 the stand. He said he came into Michael's room with
24 wine, glasses and soda.
25 They got upset that he mentioned soda. He
26 said, "You never asked me about it before."
27 Now, if Michael Jackson is giving alcohol to
28 the Arvizos, then why is he coming into his room
1 with soda cans for them? Why?
2 When the Arvizos testified that they only
3 had alcohol with Michael Jackson, they lied, and
4 they lied and they lied. You cannot believe them
5 beyond a reasonable doubt. You cannot convict on
6 those counts.
7 I just want to refer you to the end of this.
8 Some of this is a little repetitive, but he's not
9 charged with negligent or lax supervision. That's
10 not a crime. It's not in this case. If they were
11 running wild around Neverland because their parents
12 let them do it or Michael let them do it, if they
13 get ahold of the key, if they did kitchen raids, as
14 they testified to, in the house and grabbed alcohol
15 from the refrigerator, that's not a crime he's
16 charged with.
17 He's not charged with being negligent, okay?
18 They've got to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
19 he intended to furnish stuff to these kids.
20 I want to refer you to the third one,
21 because, you know, in their efforts to say there's a
22 conspiracy by Michael Jackson to abduct children,
23 extort, falsely imprison, that because he was having
24 a cash flow problem, despite the millions he makes
25 every year, that he was going to engage in this scam
26 to whisk this family off to Brazil, I'd like to
27 refer you to the third item.
28 Ladies and gentlemen, turn on the television
1 any night of the week. Don't celebrities have
2 public relations problems? Don't celebrities get
3 arrested, get charged, get videotaped in
4 compromising positions, get audiotaped, get
5 photographed? Don't people who've known them with
6 an axe to grind come forward and tell stories? When
7 they have public relations problems, they deal with
8 them.
9 The public relations problems associated
10 with Bashir were dealt with. You had a Maury Povich
11 documentary to deal with it. It was a successful
12 documentary. All of these various factors came
13 together to produce it on the 20th. This is the way
14 celebrities deal with PR problems. They're always
15 faced with them, and their public relations
16 spokespeople always tell them, "This is a crisis.
17 This is the biggest problem of your life. We'll
18 deal with it. Here's how we deal with it."
19 The idea that the Bashir documentary was
20 such a public relations problem that he would commit
21 felonies like this is ridiculous. Is ridiculous.
22 Now, if some of the people around them are
23 excessive -- I don't know if they were or not. I
24 mean, they brought in evidence there was a rock
25 thrown at the Arvizo house. I mean, Michael Jackson
26 is nowhere near that if it happened.
27 They brought in testimony that the Germans,
28 so to speak, were mean to Janet, although Angel
1 Vivanco says she was having champagne with Dieter,
2 and they appeared to be getting along the first time
3 and the next time they weren't.
4 If anybody acted excessively, Michael
5 Jackson didn't. He's nowhere to be seen. And he
6 had no intention and would never deal with a PR
7 crisis -- it wasn't the first PR crisis in his
8 career, by the way. He's been under a microscope, a
9 looking glass, since he was a child. He doesn't
10 engage in a conspiracy to kidnap a family to Brazil.
11 The response was the documentary, which was
12 successful.
13 Okay. Now -- okay. All right.
14 You know, and I will show you Janet's
15 transcripts, you know, that she knew a lot of police
16 officers. Do you remember I asked her all these
17 questions about Andrew Lassak, a police officer that
18 she knew, police officers from the MTA, the
19 Metropolitan Transportation Authority, that she
20 knew, and she was gladly describing how the police
21 station was constructed? I'll show you the
22 transcript.
23 And Lassak was in touch with them. She had
24 his cell phone number. She knew other police in the
25 area and never went to any of them and said, "We're
26 in trouble. We're being falsely imprisoned. We're
27 being held against our will. We're victims."
28 Nothing of this.
1 She told Azja Pryor she was hoping to go to
2 Brazil and she hoped Azja would come with her.
3 Now, you know that David LeGrand was
4 concerned that Dieter and Konitzer and Schaffel, he
5 even investigated Vinnie and Frank, who were like
6 really young kids, he was concerned they were all
7 engaged in self-dealing and they were taking
8 advantage of Michael Jackson. And he hired an
9 investigative firm in New York to investigate.
10 Do you remember the testimony about finding
11 an offshore account that he thought Sony had set up,
12 et cetera? And he approached Dieter and Konitzer
13 and said, "Where did this $900,000 go? You've just
14 withdrawn it. Justify it."
15 And of course Mr. Auchincloss, in a
16 remarkable shift of position, got up and tried to
17 prove they hadn't stolen anything.
18 If LeGrand was concerned about these alleged
19 co-conspirators and what they were doing to Michael,
20 does that suggest Michael is involved in a
21 conspiracy with them? Or does it suggest the same
22 old pattern of Michael Jackson, the creative genius,
23 generating hundreds of millions of dollars in his
24 lifetime, and letting people sign his name, and
25 letting people steal money, and letting people get
26 away with all sorts of financial things? Otherwise,
27 with what you've seen of his finances, why would he
28 have cash flow problems? Why would that Beatles
1 catalog be leveraged?
2 He hasn't always managed money well, but
3 he's not a criminal, and he doesn't commit crimes
4 because of it.
5 You know that Weizner and Konitzer tried to
6 take over his business, because LeGrand said so. He
7 saw documents where they said, "We're going to take
8 over Michael Jackson's affairs." You know that
9 Schaffel was stealing from Michael Jackson. Their
10 star witness, Rudy Provencio, who none of you would
11 buy a used car from, believe me, he said Schaffel
12 was stealing from Michael Jackson.
13 Remember Provencio, who suddenly came up
14 with a diary at the last minute, who was recording
15 people's phone calls not knowing he was being
16 recorded as well, and in one classic comment said,
17 "I'm not even giving my lawyer information. This is
18 for the book, honey." Remember the word "honey"?
19 This is the guy they want you to think you
20 can trust, their star witness on conspiracy, who
21 couldn't put Michael Jackson anywhere either, except
22 in a recording studio.
23 They did nothing to refute the notion that
24 Geragos, as any lawyer would in his position, put
25 the Arvizos under surveillance. You're allowed to
26 do that. It's done in cases all the time. People
27 do in divorce cases. They do it in criminal cases,
28 and they have private investigators who are
1 licensed, like Miller was, follow people around to
2 see where they're going.
3 And based on what you knew of the Arvizos,
4 you can see why. It's not part of a conspiracy. It
5 was a lawyer representing a celebrity client who he
6 feared was about to be shaken down, about to be
7 taken advantage of, who had a history of being taken
8 advantage of, and he did exactly what he should have
9 done. He investigated. And he was very open about
10 what he did.
11 As I said before, if this was a conspiracy
12 to hide a family, or worse, whatever they're saying,
13 why is Miller using a bonded, licensed mover, who
14 had pretty good record-keeping procedures, to move
15 their stuff into storage and put it under his name?
16 Dickerman and Janet and Masada meet at The
17 Laugh Factory on the 21st. Dickerman never calls
18 the police. And as I said before, after the 21st,
19 she continues to go to these various embassies and
20 get her visas and her passport stuff done.
21 Does that suggest there's a conspiracy going
22 on? Does that suggest she's worried? Or does it
23 suggest, "Hey," you know, "We wanted Michael to be
24 our family. We wanted to be included. There's
25 nobody left now. Gavin's healed. Star's healed.
26 We're not going to use illness to generate money
27 anymore through any lies or manipulations. We're
28 slipping away from Mr. Jackson. These guys are
1 taking over his affairs. They're keeping us away
2 from him. Now how do we get something out of this?"
3 Go to a lawyer.
4 That's what she did, and that's what she's
5 still doing.
6 You've heard a lot about the body wax, the
7 shopping sprees, the hair appointment. She had an
8 excuse for everything, that somehow she was being
9 forced to the orthodontist against her will, that
10 somehow she was being forced to get a body wax
11 against her will.
12 The woman from the salon came in, and it was
13 interesting. She said Janet looked at her and said,
14 "I'm from South America." A little strange. Sounds
15 like she might have Brazil on her mind, and it
16 sounds like it may not be something she's
17 particularly concerned about.
18 But she was left there alone. She could
19 have done whatever she wanted. She could have
20 called 9-1-1 at any time. She wanted a hair
21 appointment for the next day.
22 I mean, all of these witnesses came in. No
23 one detected any concern by Janet that she was being
24 held against her will. Nobody saw a PR crew
25 following. Nobody substantiated any of the things
26 Janet said to you under oath, because they're false.
27 Her problem, as I said before was, she
28 figured out, "At some point Michael's not going to
1 be our family/father soon. Now what do we do to
2 gain?"
3 And here we are.
4 Now, the prosecutor talked about these
5 alleged prior bad acts.
6 A prosecutor once told me, "Prior bad acts
7 are a band-aid for a bad case," because none of
8 these alleged victims are alleged victims in this
9 case. So why do they bring them in? If they've got
10 such a great case for Gavin being a victim, why are
11 they bringing these people in and why are they
12 trying to sell you false claims of molestation? And
13 I do mean false.
14 Macaulay Culkin says he was never molested.
15 He called it absolutely ridiculous. And they tried
16 to attack Macaulay like he was trying to lie on the
17 stand.
18 They want you to believe people like Ralph
19 Chacon, Adrian McManus and Kassim Abdool rather than
20 Macaulay Culkin or Wade Robson or Brett Barnes.
21 Why does a prosecution come into this
22 courtroom and tell you these three people are
23 victims of molestation when they are absolutely
24 adamant they're not? Why? If they're trying to
25 tell you the truth.
26 Adrian McManus said in a deposition under
27 oath that Mr. Jackson never did anything to any
28 child. Then changes her story; goes to the
1 tabloids. She and Chacon and Abdool find out that
2 Blanca Francia and Jordan Chandler got money, and
3 they want money, too. They don't want to work.
4 They want to be millionaires at Mr. Jackson's
5 expense.
6 Ladies and gentlemen, when he settled those
7 two cases in the early '90s, he became a real target
8 for people who don't want to work. And he still is.
9 McManus, a Judge in this courthouse, in this
10 county, finds that she stole from a child's trust.
11 A Judge in this courthouse finds that she acted with
12 malice against Michael Jackson. She sues Michael
13 Jackson. He cross-complains and decides not to
14 settle that case, just to fight it. It's the
15 longest trial in the history of -- civil trial in
16 the history of this courthouse, six months. And he
17 prevails, and he wins his cross-complaint, and
18 there's a judgment against McManus and Chacon and
19 Kassim for over a million dollars.
20 McManus is found with materials from
21 Neverland stored in her house. She steals from a
22 children's trust. She steals from Mr. Jackson. She
23 has judgments against her. They want you to believe
24 her over these alleged victims who come in and say,
25 "He didn't do anything to us."
26 What does that tell you about their case?
27 What does that tell you about how desperate they are
28 to do something to win?
1 Wade Robson got on the stand and he said,
2 "These claims that I was molested are ridiculous,"
3 were his words.
4 What does Mr. Zonen do? He starts grabbing
5 these books and shoving them in his face, books he's
6 never seen before, and asking him to describe sex
7 acts to you. That's his response. Abusive, mean-
8 spirited, and having nothing to do with seeking the
9 truth. Nothing.
10 Brett Barnes came in and was angry. He
11 said, "It absolutely never happened. I wouldn't
12 stand for it." He was angry. He flew from
13 Australia, he gave up his job, to come here and
14 testify that this stuff is false.
15 Do they want you to believe him?
16 No. No, put your faith and trust in Ralph
17 Chacon, who said he wanted to be a millionaire in
18 his deposition in that case. Put your faith and
19 trust in Kassim Abdool, who forgot that he had
20 signed a statement saying he never saw anything
21 improper happen at Neverland and admitted he wanted
22 to be a millionaire. Put your faith and trust in
23 Adrian McManus. Put your faith and trust in all the
24 trips to the tabloids they made through that agent
25 they hired, who they claim their lawyer was
26 responsible for. Don't believe these three young
27 men who say, "We were never touched."
28 It's the story of this case.
1 Jordan Chandler never testified. He filed a
2 lawsuit with Larry Feldman and got money. Mr.
3 Jackson settled that case in the early '90s. He
4 didn't even come into court, say one way or the
5 other. His mother hasn't seen him.
6 June Chandler, his mother, never testified
7 she saw any molestation. What she testified to was
8 that Michael became essentially a member of their
9 family and stayed at their home in his room. She
10 also said he stayed at her ex-husband's home in the
11 room with Jordan, but she never saw any molestation
12 and never testified to any.
13 And that's a strange story, too, because Joy
14 Robson said, "She's a gold digger." She made a
15 statement in an interview that men had disappointed
16 her in her life and she didn't know if she wanted
17 another man in her life, meaning Michael.
18 Joy was correct. She was out for fame and
19 fortune, and that's what she's all about.
20 Blanca Francia took 20,000 from a tabloid,
21 talked to Larry Feldman and ended up with another
22 lawyer and settled.
23 Jason Francia says tickling went too far
24 after he initially denied anything had happened. He
25 said, "At the age of 16, money became important to
26 me," and he settled.
27 And guess what? No criminal case was ever
28 filed against Michael Jackson for any of these
1 alleged victims.
2 Now, let me ask you this, ladies and
3 gentlemen: If Jason Francia cooperated with Mr.
4 Sneddon, and indeed he said Mr. Sneddon was there
5 for the first meeting with his counselor, I wonder
6 what Mr. Sneddon was trying to do? If he cooperated
7 with the sheriffs, if he allowed himself to be
8 interviewed -- although in his last interview, he
9 said, "Don't tape-record it." Do you remember that?
10 That was an interview having to do with this trial.
11 He and his lawyer showed up at the sheriff's office
12 and said they didn't want it tape-recorded, all
13 right?
14 But let's assume, and it seems pretty clear,
15 that he cooperated with law enforcement from day
16 one. Remember the cross-examination on his
17 interviews? He first denied anything happened.
18 Then these police were leaning on him with curse
19 words, et cetera, and he said, "Well, he tickled
20 me," and then he started remembering it went too
21 far, et cetera, said his genitals were touched.
22 Let's assume all of that's true. He
23 cooperates. He works with Mr. Sneddon. He works
24 with the sheriffs. Why was a case not filed? Why?
25 Because they didn't think they could win one
26 with him. He took money. His mom took money. His
27 mom went to a tabloid. He came into court and said,
28 "Gee, I didn't even know my mom went to a tabloid."
1 Mr. Zonen said that to you in his closing argument a
2 little while ago like you're supposed to believe it.
3 He didn't tell you he didn't want his interview with
4 the police tape-recorded, did he?
5 No criminal case for any of these people.
6 Phillip LeMarque. I've already talked
7 Chacon, McManus, Abdool. They were all part of that
8 group that did the same thing.
9 Phillip LeMarque, he was the chef that
10 claims that Macaulay Culkin was being touched, when
11 Macaulay Culkin says he wasn't being touched.
12 Remember, he was the one who tried to up his price
13 to $500,000 for a story and said, "I was just
14 kidding around." He had that agent representing
15 him. He kept upping the price, and eventually he
16 found out the agent sold the story himself.
17 You're going to trust him over Macaulay
18 Culkin?
19 They want you to. That's what they want.
20 If you listen to them, Macaulay, Wade, Brett, all
21 came here to lie under oath and say they weren't
22 molested. Do you buy any of that?
23 I want to mention one other thing about
24 these families.
25 The prosecution would like you to think that
26 Michael Jackson, the manipulative monster, sort of
27 befriends families and just uses them and discards
28 them, and that he somehow has a pattern of doing
1 this, and he did it to the Arvizos, those poor
2 souls.
3 These families have been friends of Michael
4 Jackson, in one case almost 20 years. They consider
5 Michael to be in their family. They love him as a
6 family member. They trust him. They have stayed
7 friends all these years, and if they wanted to
8 develop false claims, like others, they could have.
9 And they could have stood in line for millions, the
10 Robsons, the Barneses, Macaulay.
11 They didn't.
12 And when their family member, their friend,
13 was in trouble in this courtroom, they came here to
14 testify, and they didn't have to.
15 Macaulay Culkin is 24 years old. He is very
16 wealthy and very successful. He's on top of the
17 world. He's in his 20s. You're immortal in your
18 20s. He didn't have to come here and testify for
19 his friend. He did it because he wanted to do the
20 right thing.
21 And the same with Brett Barnes flying from
22 Australia.
23 The same with Wade Robson. He's a
24 successful choreographer now.
25 They came here to stand up for their friend
26 in a time of need and tell the truth.
27 And they want you to believe Chacon, Abdool
28 and McManus and LeMarque rather than these three
1 individuals and their families, sisters, mothers, et
2 cetera.
3 What does it tell you about their motives?
4 What does it tell you about their case? What does
5 it tell you about what they're willing to do to try
6 and win in this courtroom?
7 I have some timelines I just want to quickly
8 go through with you before we get into transcript,
9 if I may.
10 J.C. Penney suit. All right. August 27th,
11 '98, the arrest. Then you have the lawsuit filed in
12 '99, okay?
13 Janet files for divorce in October of 2001,
14 right before the settlement. The settlement checks
15 are received, and ten days later she wants emergency
16 welfare assistance.
17 And as I said to you before, this provides a
18 lens through which you can look at this case,
19 because the sexual assault claims evolved later on.
20 That's why her lawyer was so shocked at the
21 deposition.
22 Janet Arvizo versus David Arvizo. 9-29-01,
23 she tells the Los Angeles Police Department her
24 husband assaulted her. Later on, as things evolve,
25 she claims false imprisonment and child molestation
26 on Davellin, where Davellin says she doesn't
27 remember it. Her mother told her about it.
28 Now, I'm not saying David is some prize
1 character. Apparently he's not. Sounds bad news to
2 me and probably to you. But did he really molest
3 Davellin? Or did Janet concoct it? And would Janet
4 concoct false claims of sexual touching? Ask
5 yourselves that question.
6 Here's the lawsuit developing against
7 Michael Jackson.
8 February 21st, she meets with Attorney Bill
9 Dickerman at The Laugh Factory. They have a number
10 of meetings with Masada. She meets Attorney Larry
11 Feldman April 3rd. He has her meet with Stan Katz,
12 his business associate, on May 15th. Feldman goes
13 to the police in June. Gavin's first interview is
14 July. And all the while she's having meetings with
15 Masada, Dickerman, Feldman and Katz, and the claims
16 get bigger and bigger and bigger.
17 Remember the correspondence that Dickerman
18 sent Geragos? Nothing about false imprisonment,
19 nothing about alcohol, nothing about molestation.
20 Begins with, "Make sure nobody has the rights to our
21 film footage. Give us our stored materials back.
22 Stop harassing us." Evolves, evolves, evolves.
23 And you got to ask yourself this question:
24 Gavin says he never told his mother, and he went to
25 the police and finally said, "I was molested" in
26 July. Why did they go to Feldman in April? Why
27 does anybody go to Feldman in a situation like this?
28 Do any of you really think they didn't have in mind
1 a molestation case when they went to Feldman?
2 And you know something? Three lawyers in
3 this courtroom, Feldman, Dickerman and a lawyer for
4 Blanca Francia, all told you Gavin, Star, Davellin,
5 they have till the age of 18 before the clock starts
6 ticking on a civil suit. Feldman told you there's
7 still time for Janet to sue Michael Jackson. And he
8 told you he filed a Notice of Claim against Los
9 Angeles County, and there's still time for Star and
10 Gavin to file a claim against Los Angeles County.
11 And Janet on the stand tried to hesitate
12 about whether he still represents her. They were
13 playing all these games. But the fact is, he'd been
14 on the phone with her recently, he'd been on the
15 phone with Jay Jackson, he had been helping her with
16 subpoenas. What do you think is going on?
17 If the time hasn't run to file a civil case,
18 and if a conviction here allows you to automatically
19 win it, and the lawyer's still in touch with these
20 alleged victims, what do you think is going on?
21 And by the way, remember in the J.C. Penney
22 case, in her deposition Janet said, "Initially I
23 only wanted an apology, and I said there would be no
24 civil suit." Do you remember that?
25 Did she keep her word? Did she file a civil
26 suit eventually when she realized, "I can get some
27 money out of this deal?" Did sexual assault claims
28 then evolve later on?
1 Yes. Same pattern. Same motives. Same
2 lies.
3 Just like here. Just like here. She just
4 needs one more thing: You to convict Michael. All
5 this group wants. Masada, Dickerman, Feldman, Katz
6 and the Arvizos. That's all they need. And you
7 have that power in your hands to make them rich, and
8 they'll never have to work a day in their life. You
9 have the power.
10 I talked about the questionable timing of
11 this so-called molestation. February 6th, airing of
12 the Bashir documentary. There's a suspected child
13 abuse report filed with DCFS February 10th. You
14 have the rebuttal taping and the DCFS interview on
15 the 19th and 20th. You got all these things going
16 on.
17 Look when they say the alleged molestation
18 takes place. Does it make sense to any of you? How
19 can it?
20 Their problem was what they did on the 19th
21 and 20th.
22 Ladies and gentlemen, remember when Janet
23 was asked questions about the Brad Miller interview
24 on the 16th of February where she praised Michael
25 Jackson as a father figure, someone who came into
26 their life, mentored her children, kind,
27 considerate, and she said it was all true. I'll
28 show you the transcript. She said it was all true.
1 But then she got there on the 20th and said
2 it was all scripted, and she said essentially the
3 same things.
4 They had to allege molestation after the
5 20th because of all the statements they'd been
6 making before that date. It's purely a manipulative
7 gesture. And you're going to see through it, I
8 believe.
9 At this point I'd like to go into some of
10 the trial testimony of Gavin Arvizo, because I think
11 you'll find it quite revealing, especially in light
12 of what Mr. Zonen said to you today.
13 "Did you ever go down there and drink any
14 alcohol without Mr. Jackson being present?
15 "No."
16 Under oath.
17 "And did you have -- don't tell us what she
18 said, just tell us - I want to know - did you
19 have any conversations with her?
20 "Yes.
21 "Did you have any conversation with her
22 about leaving?
23 "Yes.
24 "Did you want to leave, you personally?
25 "Not really, because I was kinda having
26 fun."
27 This is about leaving Neverland.
28 Remember the police interview they showed
1 you at the end of their case?
2 "I was scared. I wanted to leave."
3 He's asked about the Bashir documentary
4 where, as you know, he said nothing bad happens in
5 Mr. Jackson's bed. Remember that?
6 Well, as I said before, when all the furor
7 starts and all the pressures from every side begin
8 and the storm starts building is when they now claim
9 molestation happens.
10 He's asked about Mr. Jackson:
11 "Did Mr. Jackson ever say anything to you
12 about going to Brazil?
13 "Yeah.
14 "What did he say?
15 "He said that we were going to go to Brazil,
16 that we were going to have a good time.
17 "Do you remember anything else Mr. Jackson
18 said to you about the trip?
19 "That he was going to come a week later
20 after we got there."
21 Now, assuming that's true and assuming they
22 are planning a trip to Brazil, all of them, why
23 can't you cancel it? And wasn't it cancelled? The
24 tickets weren't purchased. The trip was cancelled.
25 Nobody went out of the country. The Arvizos went
26 home.
27 Where's the crime? Please tell me. Where's
28 the crime? Is it a crime to plan a trip abroad and
1 cancel it?
2 If you listen to the prosecution, it was a
3 crime when Mr. Jackson thought of having a press
4 conference in Florida and then cancelled it. Big
5 nefarious part of a conspiracy. Nonsense.
6 "We would only drink with Michael."
7 "So -- all right. So when you came back
8 from Calabasas and Mr. Jackson was there, did you
9 drink with him?
10 "Yes."
11 He keeps saying they only drank with
12 Michael, but the witnesses have proven that's a lie.
13 A lie under oath. Repeatedly he says it.
14 Why? Because it's to their advantage to say
15 it. And you're supposed to believe him beyond a
16 reasonable doubt on alcohol. He's the only alleged
17 victim with alcohol.
18 This is Mr. Sneddon's questions:
19 "And where were you when you saw Mr. Jackson
20 coming up the stairs?"
21 Do you remember the testimony of Star and
22 Gavin about Mr. Jackson coming up the stairs of his
23 room naked? I'd like you to look carefully what
24 happens here.
25 Mr. Sneddon: "And where were you when you
26 saw Mr. Jackson coming up the stairs?
27 "Me and my brother were laying on the bed.
28 "Q. And what were you doing?
1 "I think we were just laying there.
2 "Q. All right. And Mr. Jackson came up
3 the stairs. Did you notice anything?
4 "Yeah, he was naked.
5 "Q. When you say 'naked,' what do you mean
6 by that?
7 "A. Like not clothes on.
8 "Q. Did Mr. Jackson do or say anything at
9 that point in time?
10 "No, he just ran up and just got something
11 and went back down."
12 "Q. By Mr. Sneddon: I'm sorry?
13 "A. I think he just ran up there and got
14 something and went back downstairs.
15 "Q. Do you recall him saying anything at
16 that point?
17 "A. No.
18 "Q. And what was your reaction to what you
19 saw?
20 "A. Nothing. It was just kind of like --
21 me and my brother were kind of like, 'Eeuuww,'
22 you know what I mean.
23 "Q. Kind of like what?
24 "'Eeuuww,' like we never really saw a grown
25 man, like, naked before."
26 Which, of course, is baloney, but....
27 Here we go again. At some point -- now,
28 they're trying to make that look like some kind of a
1 molester or something, that Mr. Jackson was in his
2 room, came out of the bathroom, came up the stairs,
3 saw them, and ran back down again. Nothing
4 nefarious happened at all.
5 "Q. At some point did you tell somebody
6 else that you'd been drinking alcohol in
7 connection with the fact that you had to collect
8 your pee in that bottle?
9 "Yes."
10 Now -- keep going.
11 "Who was that?
12 "It was my mom."
13 I want to present something to you.
14 He admits at 4:00 in the morning telling his
15 mother that he had wine. His mother admits on the
16 stand that that happened, that she knew he had wine.
17 They have an appointment at Kaiser Hospital that
18 morning. Janet takes possession of the urine
19 sample. Vinnie's driving.
20 Now, does Gavin want that test if he's been
21 drinking wine? Does Janet want that test if she
22 knows he's been drinking wine? Do they really want
23 to go to Kaiser and have him fail that test?
24 What she came in here and said to you was,
25 "I noticed suddenly urine was missing and we never
26 had the test."
27 Do you believe her? Do you believe Gavin?
28 Should you believe them? Is it possible the two of
1 them didn't want to have the test? They wanted to
2 make their appointment, because this was their
3 treating physician. Do you necessarily believe
4 Vinnie had something to do with this?
5 Think about their lack of credibility, their
6 lies under oath, their manipulative scams and
7 schemes. Are you sure they're victims when it comes
8 to this urine sample and lack of test? What do you
9 think?
10 Let me go back:
11 "What did you say to your mother?
12 "Well, I called her and I told her, 'Well,
13 Mom, you know how Jesus drank juice? I mean,
14 Jesus drank wine?'
15 "And then she told me -- I don't know. I
16 don't remember what exactly she said. She said
17 like, 'Yeah.'
18 "And then, like, I just tried to tell her
19 that -- I'm not really too sure what happened in
20 that conversation. I know I called my mom and I
21 told her."
22 Their assumption is you must believe
23 everything Janet said about suddenly finding urine
24 missing, that they're victims. Why should you
25 believe it?
26 I know this: Michael Jackson's nowhere near
27 any of this.
28 I actually thought this was going to appear
1 a little earlier, but we're back on that subject of
2 Mr. Jackson going up naked, seeing them and running
3 down the stairs. This is Mr. Sneddon:
4 "And the time you said he was naked --
5 "Yes.
6 "-- and I asked you whether or not he said
7 anything to you at that particular point in
8 time --
9 "Uh-huh."
10 "--and you said you didn't recall anything?
11 "I do not.
12 "Do you recall testifying at the grand
13 jury?
14 "Yes.
15 "You testified there a couple of times, did
16 you not?
17 "Yes.
18 "One time that I asked you questions and one
19 time Mr. Zonen did?
20 "Yes.
21 "Would it refresh your recollection if I
22 showed you what you said to the grand jury about
23 that incident?
24 "Probably."
25 And in other words, Mr. Sneddon didn't like
26 the answer when he said nothing happened.
27 Mr. Jackson did nothing untoward or
28 improper. Mr. Jackson ran up the stairs, saw them,
1 and ran down. That wasn't enough for Mr. Sneddon,
2 so he wanted to give a transcript to his own witness
3 to remind him of what he should say.
4 Okay. So he does it. He does it, right in
5 front of you:
6 "Gavin, with regard to that portion of your
7 testimony when you indicated to this jury just a
8 little while ago that you had no recollection of
9 what Mr. Jackson said when he walked in front of
10 you naked; do you recall that?
11 "Yes, well, he didn't really walk. He just
12 came up the stairs.
13 "He came up the stairs?
14 "Yes.
15 "And you saw that he was naked?
16 "Yes.
17 "And I asked you if you recall whether he
18 said anything to you, do you recall that, in
19 front of this jury here?
20 "Yes.
21 "And you said you did not?
22 "Yes."
23 And it goes on and on. It's the story of
24 this case. Anything to win.
25 THE COURT: All right. We'll stop for the
26 afternoon. See you tomorrow morning at 8:30.
27 (The proceedings adjourned at 2:30 p.m.) 1 Santa Maria, California
2 Friday, June 3, 2005
3 8:30 a.m.
4
5 THE COURT: Good morning, everyone.
6 COUNSEL AT COUNSEL TABLE: (In unison)
7 Good morning, Your Honor.
8 THE COURT: Mr. Mesereau?
9 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.
10 Good morning.
11 THE JURY: (In unison) Good morning.
12 MR. MESEREAU: Ladies and gentlemen,
13 yesterday I summed up for you a history of con
14 artists, actors and liars in the Arvizo family. I
15 talked about welfare fraud. I talked about perjury.
16 I talked about the J.C. Penney case. I talked about
17 fake disability claims. Fake food stamp claims.
18 Fake unemployment claims. Signing documents under
19 penalty of perjury that are false. I talked about
20 fake bank accounts.
21 I talked about Janet Arvizo putting her
22 children on stage to do plays about their poverty.
23 I talked about Gavin being an actor.
24 Chris Tucker telling you that he was cunning
25 and smart; that he didn't trust him; that he warned
26 Michael Jackson, "Stay away. Something is wrong
27 with these people."
28 And unfortunately, Michael didn't listen.
1 With respect to the issue of actors, please
2 consider, additionally, the following:
3 Gavin Arvizo testified that when he went to
4 Neverland to do the Bashir documentary, he thought
5 it was an audition. Janet Arvizo in the rebuttal
6 video testified her children wanted to be in movies.
7 There is evidence that Star wanted to be in a
8 documentary and that's why Michael Jackson did the
9 Neverland documentary that Star narrated.
10 These people wanted to be actors. They
11 wanted to be around celebrities. They are actors.
12 And Paralegal Mary Holzer told you that Janet
13 admitted to her that Gavin knew his lines, Star had
14 trouble, and she was coaching these kids in the J.C.
15 Penney case.
16 I told you that the J.C. Penney case had two
17 primary players, Janet and Gavin. It began with
18 Gavin shoplifting, and his testimony under oath at a
19 very young age buttressed Janet's fraudulent claims.
20 You can't just look at the Arvizo family in
21 terms of Janet's misdeeds. You've got to look at
22 the whole group. You've got to look at broad scams.
23 David, as I said yesterday, was more like a
24 bull in a china shop. He just comes out and says,
25 "Give me money."
26 Janet's much more sophisticated. She gets
27 to know you. She hugs you. She loves you. You're
28 part of her family. And then she tells you a tale
1 of woe and she gets money.
2 Hamid was the classic example. She tells
3 him her tales of woe, and he writes her a $2,000
4 check, and he hardly knows her.
5 Now, Mr. Zonen yesterday made a broad
6 statement to you, and you have to take his broad
7 statements and put them under a microscope in the
8 jury room. He said, "Michael Jackson shows adult
9 material to kids."
10 My question to you is, who?
11 Macaulay Culkin never said he showed him
12 anything. Wade Robson never said he showed him
13 anything. Brett Barnes never said he showed him
14 anything. Jordie Chandler didn't testify. And even
15 Jason Francia, who said he was improperly tickled,
16 never testified that Mr. Jackson showed him any
17 adult material.
18 The only people who have come before you to
19 say they were shown adult material by Mr. Jackson
20 are con artists, actors and liars.
21 And the only forensic evidence they had to
22 hang their hat on are fingerprints on some girlie
23 magazines that were owned by Michael Jackson. And
24 you know that everywhere the Arvizo children went,
25 they would rummage through drawers, rummage through
26 the house. They did it at the dentist's office.
27 They did it in Vernee Watson Johnson's home. This
28 is the way they behave.
1 And unfortunately, Michael was rather lax
2 and generous, as Kiki Fournier said, too generous in
3 letting people run through his room, run through his
4 house, run through Neverland. And he's paying a
5 price for it right now.
6 But it's not a crime.
7 There is a piece of evidence lacking in the
8 prosecution's case that is very significant,
9 particularly with allegations like this. And let me
10 explain what I'm talking about.
11 Typically, in a sex-crimes-type
12 investigation -- and let's face it, in this case,
13 you've had at least 70 officers running everywhere
14 trying to find anything they can on Michael Jackson
15 because he's a mega celebrity.
16 But typically in this kind of investigation,
17 you have what is called a pretext phone call.
18 Typically, the police will get the alleged victim,
19 they will sit with the alleged victim, and they will
20 talk about making a phone call to the person who's
21 suspected of committing the crime. And I'm sure
22 you're familiar with this from television. They
23 will make the phone call. The so-called victim
24 makes the call, and the so-called victim is told to
25 ask certain questions that are incriminating in
26 nature.
27 For example, Gavin could have called Michael
28 Jackson and said, "Why did you improperly touch me?
1 Why did you do that to me in bed? Why did you touch
2 me that day we were together? Why, when we were in
3 the wine cellar drinking, did you do this or do
4 that?" And typically the police are listening in,
5 and they're recording it, and that becomes their
6 primary evidence.
7 Now, particularly in a case like this, where
8 you have no independent witnesses, with credibility,
9 watching the alleged molestation, and you have no
10 forensic evidence to support it, you would think, if
11 they did anything, it would have been a phone call
12 like that.
13 You know why they didn't do it?
14 Look at that police interview. Gavin
15 refuses. Doesn't want to make a call to Michael
16 Jackson. And Gavin is someone who has been schooled
17 by his parents to very effortlessly call
18 celebrities, one after another, after another, after
19 another. He's not shy about phone calls. He's not
20 shy about contacting Jay Leno, Chris Tucker, Michael
21 Jackson, Suli McCullough, you name it.
22 Why no recorded phone conversation with an
23 incriminating statement from Michael Jackson?
24 Because he knew if he did that, he wouldn't get an
25 incriminating statement, because it didn't happen.
26 Now, they'll probably tell you he was
27 terrified, he was scared, he was traumatized to be
28 on the phone. That's a bunch of baloney.
1 I'm going to show you Gavin testified on the
2 witness stand that Michael is a nice person, even in
3 this courtroom. He's not afraid of Michael. He's
4 angry that Michael abandoned his family and didn't
5 take care of them for the rest of their life.
6 And as I said yesterday, they put demeanor
7 in issue. The only time you ever saw him get angry
8 was when we talked about what Michael really had
9 done for he and his family and what had happened.
10 And his anger came out when he made the false
11 statement that Michael had done nothing for his
12 family.
13 Remember, he started using this scripted
14 phrase, "In my 11-year-old mind, I believed George
15 Lopez had done more, because he went to the hospital
16 and bought me clothes. In my 11-year-old mind, I
17 thought others had done more because they were at
18 the hospital. In my 11-year-old mind, Michael
19 Jackson hadn't done much for me at all."
20 And I went through all the things he had
21 done. The visits to Neverland, the plane flights,
22 the hotel, the truck, all the blood drives, you name
23 it. The gifts, the watch, the jacket. I've
24 probably forgotten half of them.
25 Michael did all sorts of things for this
26 family. The problem was, they wanted it to
27 continue, and they realized at some point it would
28 not continue. Michael was not going to be their
1 benefactor for the rest of their life, and that's
2 when all the trouble started.
3 In that police interview, where the
4 prosecution says you watch the demeanor of a victim,
5 you see a victim of molestation act in an
6 inappropriate way, the way you would expect, you
7 will also see someone who's an actor. You see
8 someone who is acting. And you see someone who's
9 hesitant about condemning Michael Jackson, who
10 fundamentally he likes, because he said he liked him
11 right on the witness stand. I'm going to show you.
12 So you've got to look at that tape with
13 skepticism. You've got to look at it and be very
14 careful with what conclusions you draw, because as I
15 said before, Mr. Robel had already decided he wanted
16 a criminal case. He already decided the Arvizos
17 were victims. He knew nothing about their
18 background as con artists, actors and liars.
19 I also said to you, when asked, "What's a
20 bad thing?" Gavin never said, "Lie." Never said,
21 "Cheat." Never said, "Steal." He had to struggle.
22 And he talked about killing people, he talked about
23 breaking things. I went back to the transcript. He
24 talks about breaking a window. He talks about
25 staying awake at night.
26 Now, isn't it normal for a child, when
27 pressed to that extent, "Tell me something else
28 that's wrong. Tell me something else that's wrong.
1 Tell me something else that's wrong," to say, "Not
2 tell the truth? To lie"?
3 He can't say it, because that's the way he's
4 been raised. And even when he was asked, "How did
5 you learn right from wrong?" he never really had an
6 answer to that. He said, "I kind of figured it out
7 myself." Just look at the tape.
8 Gavin, as Chris Tucker said, cunning, smart.
9 He worried him.
10 And he and Star tried to make it look as if
11 they were innocent little lambs and Michael taught
12 them everything about sex. They didn't know what an
13 erection was until they met Michael. They didn't
14 know what ejaculation was until they met Michael.
15 It's all Michael, Michael, Michael.
16 And I said yesterday, if you convict him of
17 anything, they are going to be multi-millionaires
18 through Attorneys Feldman and Dickerman. It's all
19 set up. They're just waiting. Waiting to
20 celebrate. Waiting to walk into court. Waiting for
21 the biggest con of their careers, right here. They
22 just need you to help them. That's all.
23 You have to look at the changing stories.
24 You have to look at the inconsistent statements by
25 Gavin and Star, because they're the only witnesses
26 to this so-called molestation.
27 And as I said to you yesterday, look at that
28 tape. Gavin says he's being molested after they get
1 back from Florida. That only changes when they
2 realize what the import, what the effect of the
3 rebuttal tape and the DCFS interview is, where they
4 praise Michael to the hilt, where they say he's
5 wonderful, he never would touch them.
6 They don't change the dates till they
7 realize they told the social workers, in Jay
8 Jackson's apartment, from the DCFS that they were
9 angry about these accusations. Gavin said he was
10 angry about this claim that Michael had touched him.
11 It's only when they realized what this all does that
12 the dates change.
13 He says in that police interview, "I think
14 he touched me five times." He says here it was
15 twice. Everything starts changing.
16 And I'm about to show you some transcript
17 testimony of him which I think will raise even more
18 red flags:
19 "Q. You went to two lawyers and a
20 psychologist, who Larry Feldman referred you to,
21 before you went to any police officer, right?
22 "Yes.
23 "Now, these weren't the first attorneys you
24 ever talked to, correct?
25 "I've talked to other people, other
26 attorneys before."
27 This is a 15-year-old alleged victim whose
28 family has been swimming around lawyers and swimming
1 around manipulations and swimming around false
2 claims for years.
3 Officer Robel said that Gavin told him that
4 his grandmother made the statement of, "If men don't
5 masturbate, they'll rape a female." But he came
6 into court and said, "Michael Jackson told that to
7 me." He was confronted with that lie. And what was
8 his explanation?
9 "Q. But your grandmother said to you, 'If
10 men don't do it, men might get to a point where
11 they might go ahead and rape a woman,' correct?
12 "Yes. Michael also told me that."
13 Now, what are the chances of his grandmother
14 and Michael telling him, word for word, that
15 identical statement? He's a liar, he's a
16 perjurer, and that's an excuse.
17 This is where he has the discussion with the
18 teacher, where he says, "Michael never touched me,"
19 okay? And I want you not just to look at what he
20 says, okay? I want you to envision and recall how
21 he tried to finesse it on the witness stand:
22 "Okay. And the purpose of the discussion
23 was what, if you know?
24 "A. It was probably about Michael.
25 "Q. Okay. You say 'probably about
26 Michael'?
27 "Uh-huh.
28 "But you're not sure?
1 "A. I'm not sure that the whole
2 conversation was about...."
3 "Okay. But sometime in that conversation,
4 Dean Albert looked at you in the eye and said,
5 'Are these allegations that Mr. Jackson sexually
6 abused you true,' right?
7 "Uh-huh.
8 "And you said they were not true, right?
9 "Yeah. I told them that Michael didn't do
10 anything to me.
11 "And the second time he asked you, you said
12 to him, 'No, he did not touch me in any sexually
13 inappropriate way,' correct?
14 "A. I don't know.
15 "You don't know?
16 "A. I'm pretty sure I told him that.
17 "Okay.
18 "But, I mean, I don't know how exactly it
19 happened."
20 That's Gavin, in this courtroom on the
21 witness stand, fudging around, finessing how he's
22 going to handle the fact that he went to a teacher
23 and twice said, "Michael Jackson never touched me."
24 Okay. Now, I only put this statement up
25 here because you may recall Davellin got up and
26 said, "All my brother ever did in class was talk
27 when he shouldn't have," okay?
28 And what they were trying to do, because
1 they've all been scripted by their attorneys, they
2 want you to think that he's a molestation victim,
3 and suddenly became aggressive, and combative, and
4 had disciplinary problems because of the
5 molestation.
6 And Davellin kept saying, "The only problem
7 he had at school was speaking when he shouldn't."
8 We went through a litany of problems with
9 all these teachers. Getting up and singing in the
10 middle of class. Fighting. Remember, he said, "One
11 teacher, I lost respect for him. He sunk down to my
12 level."
13 This is a very precocious disciplinary
14 problem, this person Gavin, not the little lamb they
15 want you to think he is.
16 "Okay. And in summary, you've had some
17 disciplinary problems with Mr. Geraldt, right?
18 "A. I had a lot of disciplinary problems.
19 "Q. What disciplinary problems did you
20 have?
21 "A. I would get into fights sometimes at
22 school."
23 I only put that there because Davellin
24 testified under oath he never got in fights.
25 You know what's interesting? Do you
26 remember, every Arvizo witness said they've never
27 discussed the case with each other. All these
28 Arvizo witnesses said, "We don't talk about Bashir
1 together."
2 And I looked at Davellin and I said, "Well,
3 how come on that rebuttal video your mother looks at
4 Gavin and says, 'Let's hold hands like you did in
5 Bashir'? How could that happen if she didn't look
6 at the Bashir documentary?"
7 And she had no answer.
8 "Q. Do you remember telling the Santa
9 Barbara sheriffs that Michael Jackson first
10 touched you inappropriately during your last days
11 at Neverland?
12 "Yes."
13 But hasn't he made statements that he was
14 inappropriately touched right after the Miami trip?
15 When did this change? I just told you when
16 it changed. When they realized that these
17 statements were going to haunt them: Brad Miller,
18 the rebuttal video, and the DCFS interview.
19 "Okay. Were you ever personally threatened
20 by anyone associated with Mr. Jackson?
21 "No.
22 That's testimony in this courtroom. Look at
23 the police interview they showed you last week. He
24 says Frank said his mother would be killed.
25 He flip-flops all over the place, because
26 he's a liar.
27 "Q. Do you recall telling them the
28 following, 'We didn't drink a lot'?
1 "A. No.
2 "Would it refresh your recollection if I
3 show you a transcript from that interview?
4 "Yes."
5 I'm talking about the police interview.
6 Gavin and the Santa Barbara sheriffs.
7 "Q. Mr. Arvizo, have you had a chance to
8 look at that page?
9 "A. Yes.
10 "Q. Does it refresh your recollection
11 about what you told the Santa Barbara sheriffs?
12 "A. Not really.
13 "Q. You told them, "We didn't drink a
14 lot,' right?
15 "A. I don't know. It says it on there."
16 Didn't he tell you they drank night after
17 night after night? How many lies does this guy have
18 to tell for you to see what's really going on?
19 "Q. You initially told them you didn't
20 drink a lot?
21 "A. That's true.
22 "Q. So you are saying that at different
23 times you gave Mr. Sneddon different accounts of
24 when the molestation supposedly happened?
25 Witness: "Yes."
26 That's Gavin admitting all the flip-flops,
27 the different stories, the fabrications, the
28 inconsistent ways of describing what happened. He's
1 not truthful.
2 And as I said yesterday, if you don't
3 believe him beyond a reasonable doubt, if you don't
4 believe Star beyond a reasonable doubt - and wait
5 till you see what's coming up on Star - they're out
6 of the box. It's over.
7 "Q. Until you realized that you were not
8 going to be part of Michael Jackson's family, you
9 never made any allegation of child molestation,
10 correct?
11 "A. I didn't want to be part of his family.
12 I just saw him as a father figure.
13 "Q. Until you left Neverland for the last
14 time, you never made any allegation of child
15 molestation, correct?
16 "A. I didn't tell anyone until I left for
17 the last time, correct.
18 "Q. And you never called the police until
19 after you'd seen two lawyers, right?
20 Witness: "Yes, it wasn't until I saw two
21 lawyers until I told the police what really
22 happened."
23 When you're molested, when your family
24 thinks you're molested, when parents think their
25 child is molested, who do they go to? The police or
26 lawyers?
27 "Q. Let me ask you what you're talking
28 about. Do you think when your mother said
1 Michael Jackson was honest and told the truth
2 that she was being truthful?
3 "A. Yes. He's a nice man."
4 He said Michael's a nice man right in the
5 courtroom to you under oath.
6 "Q. Mr. Arvizo, you were caught
7 masturbating at Neverland when Michael Jackson
8 wasn't even around, weren't you?
9 "A. No.
10 "Q. You were caught masturbating in a
11 guest quarters, weren't you?
12 "A. No.
13 "Q. No one ever saw you do that?
14 "No.
15 "No one ever talked to you about that?
16 "No one ever talked to me about it."
17 That's false. Rijo didn't come in here and
18 lie under oath. Rijo told the truth.
19 "Q. Was Rijo ever in a guest room with you
20 when you were watching T.V. at Neverland?
21 "A. Um, no. I don't remember really. I
22 mean, I might have hung out with him in a guest
23 room for a minute, but, I mean, I don't remember
24 watching T.V. with him."
25 Lying.
26 "You don't?
27 "No.
28 "Are you saying you don't remember or are
1 you saying it just didn't happen?
2 "A. I don't think it happened.
3 "Q. Okay. Do you recall ever telling Rijo
4 you wanted to look at adult movies on television
5 at Neverland?
6 "No, I don't remember that.
7 "Ever remember stealing alcohol from Michael
8 Jackson's bedroom when Rijo was present?
9 "No.
10 "Ever remember masturbating in front of
11 Rijo?
12 "No.
13 "Now, earlier in your testimony, you said
14 the only time you ever tasted wine was in
15 church. Do you remember that?
16 "Yes."
17 Does anybody believe that? Do you think he
18 never had had wine except in church? Based upon
19 what you've seen about this family and what they
20 say, and what they do, and how they change their
21 stories, and how they lie under oath with no respect
22 for the oath whatsoever, do you believe that?
23 "Q. Are you telling the jury the only time
24 you tasted wine before you went to Neverland was
25 in a church?
26 "Yes.
27 "Did you ever tell Rijo or anyone else at
28 Neverland that you knew what wine tasted like?
1 "No, I don't remember telling them that."
2 Does Rijo have a history of fraud and acting
3 and lying? No.
4 Does Gavin Arvizo? You bet.
5 "Q. Mr. Arvizo, when you claim you were
6 inappropriately touched by Mr. Jackson, you claim
7 there were no witnesses watching, correct?
8 "Yes."
9 And I identified that problem yesterday.
10 You got a lying witness, no independent witness
11 supporting it, and no forensics.
12 And by the way, they want you to think these
13 fingerprints on a couple of magazines are bombshell
14 forensic evidence.
15 What are they evidence of? That he looked
16 at Michael's magazines.
17 Are they evidence of any of these crimes?
18 No.
19 No DNA, no semen, no hair, no fiber.
20 Nothing.
21 "Q. Never knew an employee named Shane
22 Meridith at Neverland?
23 "A. If I did, I don't remember that.
24 "Q. He caught you with an open bottle of
25 alcohol at Neverland, didn't he, when Michael
26 Jackson wasn't even around?
27 "A. No."
28 Do you trust him or do you trust Shane
1 Meridith, who was an impeccable witness? He works
2 at Lompoc. He was a truthful witness, and he had no
3 reason to come in and lie. He doesn't even work at
4 Neverland anymore.
5 "Q. Do you remember ever telling Chris
6 Tucker that you didn't make any money from the
7 fund-raiser?
8 "A. No. Well, what fund-raising?"
9 Look at that.
10 "Q. A fund-raiser for you at The Laugh
11 Factory.
12 "No, no, because we did make money at the
13 Laugh Factory.
14 "Q. Yes. So you never told Chris Tucker,
15 'We didn't make any money from the fund-raiser'?
16 "A. Why would I say that when we did? No,
17 I never said that.
18 "Okay. Do you recall yourself asking Chris
19 Tucker for money?
20 "No."
21 Who do you believe, Chris Tucker or Gavin
22 Arvizo? Why would Chris Tucker come in here to
23 testify and lie? He's one of the most successful
24 actors in the world. He is flying high. He is
25 popular all over the planet. Why does he need to
26 come in here and testify and lie?
27 Do you believe him or do you believe Gavin?
28 Because you got to make a choice.
1 Now, I want you to watch all of this. This
2 is Star's testimony from the courtroom in front of
3 you, under oath, about these claims:
4 "Okay. Before you testified yesterday, had
5 you ever discussed what you were going to say
6 with your mom?
7 "No.
8 "Before you testified yesterday, had you
9 ever discussed with Gavin what you're going to
10 say?
11 "No.
12 "Before you testified yesterday, had you
13 ever discussed with your sister Davellin what you
14 were going to say?
15 "No.
16 "Have you ever discussed this case with your
17 mom?
18 "No.
19 "Ever discussed this case with Gavin?
20 "No.
21 "Have you ever discussed this case with
22 Davellin?
23 "No.
24 "Never discussed it with your mom before you
25 went" --
26 This is about the J.C. Penney case, by the
27 way.
28 "Never discussed it with your mom before you
1 went into the deposition, right?
2 "Yes.
3 "Just like you've never discussed the facts
4 of this case with your mom at any time, right?
5 "Yes.
6 "And didn't you say under oath that your
7 mother and dad never fight? That's in the J.C.
8 Penney deposition.
9 "Yes.
10 "Was that true?
11 "Um, I really don't -- sometimes.
12 "I'm sorry. I didn't understand your
13 answer. When you told -- excuse me, let me
14 rephrase. When you stated under oath in the J.C.
15 Penney deposition in the year 2000 that your mom
16 and dad never fight, were you telling the truth?
17 "No.
18 "Did someone tell you to lie in that
19 deposition?
20 "A. I don't remember.
21 "Q. You don't remember at all?
22 "No, it happened a long time ago."
23 Now, this kid's lying at the age of what,
24 nine, ten? He never discussed it with his mother?
25 Nobody told him to lie? Nobody told him what the
26 case is about? It starts with him shoplifting.
27 "Q. You also said in that deposition,
28 under oath, that your dad never hit you. Do you
1 remember that?
2 "A. Not really.
3 "Q. Would it refresh your recollection if
4 I show you that page?
5 "Sure.
6 "You were asked if your dad ever hit you,
7 and you said, 'Never,' right?
8 "Yes.
9 "Was that the truth?
10 "No.
11 "Did someone ever tell you to lie about that
12 under oath in your deposition in the J.C. Penney
13 case?
14 "A. I really don't remember.
15 "Q. Don't remember at all?
16 "A. No. I don't remember nothing from
17 there."
18 Is he telling you the truth? Do you trust
19 him? Do you trust him beyond a reasonable doubt?
20 Do you trust him to the point where you're going to
21 convict Michael Jackson, take away his freedom and
22 reputation? I don't think so, ladies and gentlemen.
23 These are terrible witnesses.
24 "Q. Have your -- excuse me. Did your
25 father ever coach you about what to say in the
26 J.C. Penney deposition?
27 "No.
28 "Did your mother ever coach you about what
1 to say in the J.C. Penney deposition?
2 "No."
3 Then who told them to lie? Who told them to
4 lie to get money from J.C. Penney? He's a young
5 kid.
6 "Please tell the jury why you lied under
7 oath.
8 "I don't remember. It was like five years
9 ago. I don't remember nothing.
10 "By the way, do you remember yesterday when
11 you told the jury that on that plane you looked
12 at a soda can that Michael Jackson had, and you
13 saw a red ring around it?
14 "A. Yes."
15 Remember that testimony?
16 "Q. You told that to the police in one of
17 your interviews also, didn't you?
18 "I think so.
19 "Q. You also told the police that you
20 looked in the can and saw white wine, correct?
21 "A. When?
22 "Q. When you told them there was a red
23 ring around the can, you then told them that you
24 looked in the can and saw white wine, remember?
25 "A. I don't remember saying that.
26 "Would it refresh your recollection if I
27 show you a transcript from a police interview?
28 "Sure."
1 Look what he says:
2 "The lady might have misheard me.
3 "Excuse me, what did you just say?
4 "A. I never looked into the can.
5 "Q. You said a lady might have misheard
6 you?
7 "A. The -- I don't know what her -- what
8 the --
9 "The court reporter?
10 "Yes.
11 "Oh, you think the court reporter made a
12 mistake?
13 "Yes."
14 Any of you believe that?
15 "Q. Do you recall ever being caught in the
16 wine cellar?
17 "A. The wine cellar doesn't have a
18 combination lock."
19 Look at that answer.
20 "Do you recall ever being caught in the wine
21 cellar drinking wine when Michael Jackson wasn't
22 present?
23 "A. Never."
24 Flat-out lie. Shane Meridith caught them.
25 "Q. Never happened?
26 "A. It -- it's always locked, and it
27 always -- it -- to unlock it, you need a key.
28 There's no combination to get in there.
1 "Let me repeat my question. Do you recall
2 ever being caught in the wine cellar at Neverland
3 with Gavin drinking wine when Michael Jackson
4 wasn't even there?
5 "No.
6 "Are you saying that never happened?
7 "Yes.
8 "Do you recall ever being caught at any
9 other location in Neverland drinking wine when
10 Michael Jackson wasn't there?
11 "No."
12 And you already heard the witnesses that
13 contradict them. Lies under oath about a
14 fundamental issue in this case. Reasonable doubt
15 all over the place when lying witnesses come in and
16 make these claims.
17 "Okay. That never happened?
18 "A. Yes.
19 "Okay. Now, you just told the jury
20 voluntarily where the key is to get in the wine
21 cellar, right?
22 "A. No, I said that the door -- the wine
23 cellar needed a key to get in there.
24 "And you knew where the key was, correct?
25 "I knew it was in the lounge.
26 "You knew where it was hanging in the
27 lounge, right?
28 "Not exactly. I didn't know where it was
1 hanging. I just knew it was in the lounge."
2 He always has an out.
3 These kids knew exactly how to get in the
4 wine cellar, and they were caught repeatedly all
5 around Neverland getting into everything.
6 Okay. Another subject:
7 "Had you ever seen any girlie magazines in
8 your life before you say Michael Jackson showed
9 them to you?
10 "Um, no.
11 "Never?
12 "Well, I was only like 11 or 12.
13 "Weren't you caught at Neverland looking in
14 girlie magazines?
15 "I said no.
16 "No one ever caught you and your brother
17 looking at girlie magazines at Neverland?
18 "Never."
19 He was caught by Julio Avila with a girlie
20 magazine in his backpack and said it was from his
21 own home.
22 "Okay. Okay. And your testimony is, until
23 you got to Neverland, you and your brother had
24 never looked at girlie magazines at any time; is
25 that right?
26 "Yes."
27 Flat-out lies. Con artists, actors, liars.
28 Look at this, Star's testimony here:
1 "You told the police in your first interview
2 you looked at www.pussy.com?
3 "No, I was making an example that I was
4 trying to say. That wasn't the exact site. I'm
5 just saying I was just making an example.
6 "Okay. You also told the police you might
7 have looked at www.teenpussy.com, right?
8 "A. No, I never said that.
9 "You never said that to the sheriffs?"
10 All right. But this is a guy who never
11 learned anything about sex until he met Michael
12 Jackson. You're supposed to buy that beyond a
13 reasonable doubt.
14 This is that stairwell incident, okay?
15 Now, do you remember Gavin said Michael
16 Jackson came out of the bathroom, ran up the stairs,
17 saw the two of them there and ran down and nothing
18 happened? And that's what Mr. Sneddon kept trying
19 to get him to say, something bad happened, and he
20 couldn't remember anything bad happening. He said
21 he barely saw Michael Jackson.
22 But this is what Star says:
23 "And you claim you went up the stairwell" --
24 Excuse me, this is the -- pardon me. This
25 is when he says he saw molestation. This is when he
26 says he saw molestation, and he's the only witness
27 to it, there's nobody else. And he sees his brother
28 touched in bed, and his brother doesn't know what's
1 going on because he's asleep, remember?
2 "And you claim you went up the stairwell and
3 saw Mr. Jackson and your brother on that bed on
4 two occasions, right?
5 "Yes.
6 "You also told the jury that those lights
7 were off, correct?
8 "Yes.
9 "You told the jury there was a light in the
10 stairwell that was on, but those lights over the
11 bed were off.
12 "Yes.
13 "You've also told the grand jury that you
14 only watched for a couple seconds.
15 "Yes.
16 "So those lights are off. A light on the
17 stairwell is on. You see it for a few seconds,
18 and you run, correct?
19 "A. Yes.
20 "Okay. Both occasions?
21 "Yes."
22 All right. You have a lying witness. He
23 says there's no lighting in the bedroom. He says it
24 happened for a few seconds, and he ran. Nobody
25 corroborates it. And no forensics prove it. And
26 you're supposed to convict Michael Jackson of
27 serious felonies beyond a reasonable doubt on the
28 basis of this guy alone. It's ridiculous.
1 "Q. Do you remember telling the Santa
2 Barbara Grand Jury when you were asked the
3 question, 'Star, while you were at the ranch, did
4 you have any discussions with your mother
5 about the subject of her wanting to leave the
6 ranch,' and your answer was, 'No'?
7 "A. I remember her saying it to me.
8 Probably don't even remember -- probably didn't
9 even remember at that time.
10 "Would it refresh your recollection if I
11 show you what you told the Santa Barbara Grand
12 Jury?
13 "A. You told me what I said.
14 "Q. Would it refresh your recollection to
15 show you the transcript?
16 "Okay.
17 "May I approach, Your Honor?"
18 And I do.
19 "Does it refresh your recollection about
20 what you told the Santa Barbara Grand Jury under
21 oath?
22 "Yes.
23 "Your answer to the question was, 'No,'
24 correct?
25 "Yes, but probably at the time I didn't
26 remember.
27 "At that time you didn't remember?
28 "Yes. Probably, yes.
1 "Did you ever talk to your brother or sister
2 about leaving the ranch?
3 "No."
4 Now, they have this conspiracy claim, which
5 I submit is ridiculous. The mother is claiming she
6 was held against her will, the family was falsely
7 imprisoned, they were extorted, they were abducted,
8 they were kidnapped, it was a conspiracy engineered
9 by Michael Jackson. And Star tells the grand jury,
10 "She never talked about anything like that to me,"
11 and then comes into court and tries to tell you the
12 opposite.
13 Why? Do you believe him?
14 Remember this?
15 "You don't recall threatening Kiki with a
16 knife when she confronted you in the kitchen?
17 "No.
18 "Never happened?
19 "No."
20 He pulled a knife on Kiki, and he pulled a
21 knife on Angel Vivanco.
22 Lies under oath.
23 "Now, Prosecutor Sneddon asked you what you
24 meant when you told the grand jury you hadn't
25 seen Michael Jackson touch Gavin's genitals or
26 penis. Do you remember that?
27 "Yes.
28 "And your response to Mr. Sneddon was,
1 'Well, I was just talking about the dinner
2 table,' right?
3 "Yes.
4 "How come you never mentioned 'dinner table'
5 to the grand jury when you made that statement?
6 "I don't know if they asked me.
7 "Q. Well, let me just go through what you
8 said, okay?
9 "Okay.
10 "'Q. What kind of things?
11 "'Fix his shirt.
12 "'What else?
13 "'He looked like from -- if you are standing
14 in front him, it looked like he's trying to
15 fix his shirt.'"
16 He is talking about Michael Jackson.
17 "'But it's hard to explain. But he would
18 fix it, like he would touch -- well, it was
19 weird.
20 "He would be touching him a lot?
21 "'Yeah.
22 "Not his genitals, not his penis?
23 "'I never saw that, but I saw it in the
24 paper.'
25 "A. I don't know what I meant by 'paper,'
26 but I was trying to say that I didn't see it that
27 time.
28 "But you never mentioned any kitchen table,
1 right?
2 "But it wasn't the kitchen table.
3 "But you never mentioned any table at all,
4 correct?
5 "I know."
6 So he says, "I've never seen Michael Jackson
7 touch his genitals or penis." He gets caught. He
8 makes up a story that, "I was only talking about the
9 dinner table," and then he contradicts that story.
10 Are you going to believe this guy?
11 "Q. And in none of your police interviews
12 do you limit that statement about not seeing
13 genitals or penis touched at any table,
14 right?
15 "No.
16 "Q. Today is the first time you ever
17 limited that statement to what you saw at
18 a table, correct?
19 "I don't -- yes.
20 "Q. Now, you've indicated the first time
21 you ever discussed any alleged inappropriate
22 touching by Michael Jackson was with
23 Psychologist Stanley Katz, right?
24 "Yes.
25 "And you have admitted that you gave Stanley
26 Katz a different description than you've given in
27 this courtroom, right?
28 "Yes."
1 He admits to inconsistent statements about
2 what happened. And of course he went to Stanley
3 Katz because they first went to Larry Feldman to try
4 and build a molestation case against Michael
5 Jackson, because Larry Feldman had done it many
6 years ago.
7 Now we have Davellin:
8 "Okay. Have you discussed what you were
9 going to say in court with your mother?
10 "No.
11 "Not at all?
12 "A. Not at all.
13 "Did you ever discuss what you were going to
14 say before the Santa Barbara Grand Jury with your
15 mother?
16 "Never.
17 "Never talked about it once?
18 "Never.
19 "Did you discuss what you were going to say
20 in court with either of your brothers?
21 "No.
22 "Just didn't talk to one of them?
23 "No.
24 "At any time?
25 "No.
26 Do you believe any of this?
27 "Did you ever discuss what you were going to
28 say before the Santa Barbara Grand Jury with any
1 of your brothers?
2 "No.
3 "Not once?
4 "Never.
5 "Did your mother ever call you to talk about
6 what you were going to say?
7 "No.
8 "So are you in contact with your brothers?
9 "Yes.
10 "Regular contact?
11 "Of course.
12 "Are you in contact with your mother?
13 "Of course.
14 "Is it regular contact?
15 "Yes, of course.
16 "And yet during all of this regular contact,
17 nobody has even discussed what was going to
18 happen in this courtroom?
19 "What's more important to us is our feelings
20 and if we're okay. That's what's important to
21 us.
22 "So no one ever has even discussed it, right?
23 "No.
24 "Not once?
25 "Never.
26 "How often do you talk to your mom?
27 "Every day. More than -- probably like
28 every hour. We talk a lot.
1 "Every hour?
2 "Yeah, we talk a lot. We're very close.
3 "Okay. Would it be accurate to say you talk
4 to her maybe 12 to 15 times a day?
5 "Probably a little less, but yeah."
6 Do any of you believe she's never discussed
7 the facts of this case with her mother or her
8 brothers? Do any of you buy that for a second?
9 Does it make any sense whatsoever? It does not.
10 "Ever discuss this case with your mother?
11 "No.
12 "Ever discuss this case with Gavin?
13 "No.
14 "Ever discuss this case with Star?
15 "No. At the home that you share with your
16 mom, Gavin and Star, have you ever seen any
17 documents about this case?
18 "No.
19 "None?
20 "Well, just what was given to us for us to
21 think, but we've never seen them. We just saw
22 what they came in, but we've never read through
23 each other's stuff.
24 "Okay. Let me just explore that, if I can.
25 You saw documents come in some type of package;
26 is that correct?
27 "We all got separate packages, yes.
28 "Okay. Now, did you testify before that no
1 one in your family watched the Bashir
2 documentary?
3 "Yes.
4 "Do you recall in the videotape your mother
5 talking about her holding her hand with Gavin
6 like they did in the Bashir documentary?
7 "Yes.
8 "She must have learned that by watching the
9 Bashir documentary, right?
10 "A. No.
11 Do you believe any of this?
12 "Do you know for sure your mother's never
13 seen it?
14 "I don't think so. I'm with my mom always.
15 "Well, there are times you've lived
16 separately from your mother, right?
17 "Yeah, but I would visit almost every day.
18 "Have you ever discussed the Bashir
19 documentary with your mom?
20 "No.
21 "Ever discussed the Bashir documentary with
22 Gavin?
23 "No.
24 "Ever discussed the Bashir documentary with
25 Star?
26 "No.
27 Do any of you believe this? If you lie
28 under oath about something like that, you cannot be
1 trusted.
2 There is a jury instruction about willfully
3 false testimony that I will show you in a little
4 while. It was read to you yesterday by Judge
5 Melville. And it says, basically, someone who will
6 lie about something significant can be totally
7 discounted in a trial.
8 Okay. Now, this has to do with the
9 molestation claim that Janet Arvizo made against
10 David Arvizo when she told the police, not
11 initially, that David Arvizo molested Davellin:
12 "Okay. Okay. But were you present when
13 your mother told the LAPD that your father had
14 molested you?
15 "A. No, but I had heard when he had asked
16 her, 'If you want to get anything off your
17 chest,' and she said, 'Yes,' and that's when
18 they went to the kitchen area of the East L.A.
19 apartment.
20 "Q. But when you were interviewed by the
21 police, you never told them your father had
22 molested you, did you?
23 "A. Because they weren't asking me about
24 that, and I didn't know. I was very young.
25 "Okay. Okay. Have you ever discussed with
26 your mother what your father did to you?"
27 "They were both present that day.
28 "Okay. He had -- she had said, 'Well, I
1 never told Davellin that.' And he says,
2 'Well' -- he said, 'Well, she doesn't need to
3 know anyways.' It was just a horrible experience
4 for me to find out that he did that to me when I
5 was young.
6 "And you found that out through your mother?
7 "From both of them, because he had agreed to
8 it when I was standing right there, because they
9 were having an argument, and my mom screamed it
10 out at him.
11 "And your father agreed he had done that?
12 "Yeah.
13 "Do you want a second?
14 "I'm fine."
15 I've already told you that Gavin told the
16 DCFS in the 1990s his mother had abused him, so what
17 I'm pointing out to you is, there is a history,
18 proven history, of making molestation and abuse
19 allegations against all kinds of people by this
20 family.
21 We're talking about the Brazil trip:
22 "And your position is that you've never told
23 any other witness that your mother wanted to go
24 to Brazil, but your brothers wanted to stay,
25 right?
26 "My brothers wanted to stay and be with
27 Michael, yes.
28 Didn't Gavin, in that police interview, say
1 he was scared at Neverland and wanted to leave?
2 He flip-flops all over the place, depending
3 on what he wants to accomplish.
4 Now, before we move further, the photo on
5 your left, that's Janet's booking photo, where she
6 says she was beaten up all over the place by J.C.
7 Penney guards. That's the booking photo.
8 Look at her face and look at her hair. And
9 you already know that all the booking documents
10 indicate there's no medical problem. There's no
11 injury. She doesn't need medical attention. And
12 Mary Holzer told you that Janet confided in her that
13 after she got released, she was beaten by David
14 before she went to the hospital. And of course they
15 had photos taken weeks later and blamed it all on
16 J.C. Penney and Tower Records' employees to get
17 money.
18 And remember some of the testimony about
19 what's been said about J.C. Penney? Janet told Azja
20 Pryor some white boys beat them up in the mall.
21 Janet told Mrs. Kennedy that black guys beat them up
22 in an alley.
23 You trust her?
24 "Q. You were investigated by the
25 Department of Children & Family Services in the
26 1990s when Gavin alleged you had abused him.
27 Remember that?
28 "Yes, I do.
1 "Okay. Did you have a good relationship
2 with the Department of Children & Family Services
3 at that time?
4 "Yes, I did."
5 So she confirms Gavin. How old could Gavin
6 have been? He was like a little kid. These kids
7 are being raised to make allegations.
8 Now, I'm not saying that a kid can't make a
9 true allegation. But put it all together. Look
10 what's going on. Allegations come easily and
11 quickly to authorities.
12 All right. Mr. Zonen talked about Janet's
13 conversations with Frank Tyson:
14 "Q. You say here, 'I know we're family,
15 Frank. Me, you, me, my kids are family. You,
16 Marie Nicole, my kids, Baby Rubba are family.
17 Michael, Marie Nicole, Frank Cascio, you, me,
18 are family, and my parents. That's all I got.
19 So that's why when these German people,' and
20 then it's inaudible. Do you see that?
21 "That's correct."
22 Now, the point I'm making is this: They had
23 decided Michael is their family. And Prosecutor
24 Zonen said to you yesterday, there was a year period
25 where there was no contact between Gavin and
26 Michael, and that's baloney. There were cards going
27 everywhere. Every member of the family is sending
28 cards calling him "Daddy." "We love you. We're
1 family."
2 They do this with everybody. They did it
3 with Chris Tucker. "You're our brother. We're your
4 family." This is one of their MOs. And before
5 Janet really starts telling you about her poverty,
6 she tells you you're her family.
7 Now, Mr. Sneddon, in his opening statement,
8 tried to neutralize that by saying this is an overly
9 affectionate family.
10 They're affectionate all right.
11 "Now, this conversation is taking place
12 after you say you escaped from Neverland with
13 Jesus, true?
14 "Correct.
15 "You are still calling Michael your family,
16 correct?
17 "That's correct.
18 If she had to escape false imprisonment at
19 Neverland, and if Michael is the leader of this big
20 scheme to abduct and kidnap, why is she still
21 calling him family?
22 What is her goal?
23 Her goal is to be with Michael. And all the
24 legal stuff, and all the talk with the police, all
25 of it follows her conclusion, "We're out. We're not
26 going to be part of his family anymore."
27 "How many times did you escape from
28 Neverland, Miss Arvizo?
1 "With Jesus, with Chris, and then the last
2 time, and that's the best I can remember."
3 Three escapes from Neverland. What does
4 that sound like to you?
5 And they always go back. And in the end,
6 they go home.
7 "In the J.C. Penney case, you waited till
8 after a criminal investigation was over to file
9 your civil claims, true?
10 Doesn't want to answer it.
11 She says, "I want an apology."
12 "Q. You wanted over 100,000, didn't you?
13 "A. I didn't get over 100,000.
14 "Q. You got 152,000 in the settlement,
15 Miss Arvizo, didn't you?
16 "A. In my hand? I did not get 150,000."
17 Now, look at these answers.
18 "The Witness: In my hand I received only
19 $32,000. That's it. In my hand. And that's my
20 best approximation.
21 "Miss Arvizo, what did Gavin get in his hand
22 from that settlement?
23 "A. I don't remember, because it's been
24 put away where it's to be untouched by me.
25 "What did Star get in his hand in that
26 settlement?
27 Still nothing.
28 "I don't know, because it's -- it's something
1 that's untouched by me. It's for them."
2 Do you think she really doesn't know the
3 amounts? She's under oath in this courtroom making
4 these statements.
5 "Q. The total was over 152,000 that your
6 family was given in a settlement, true?
7 "That you have to ask my civil attorneys.
8 And I think this statement may be correct.
9 "Q. During the time you had your
10 deposition taken in the J.C. Penney lawsuit --
11 "Yes.
12 "-- did you consider David to be an honest
13 person?
14 "No.
15 "Do you remember testifying under oath in
16 the J.C. Penney lawsuit that David is extremely
17 honest, he's too honest?
18 "A. If that's on there, then that's
19 correct. Whatever is on the deposition is
20 correct.
21 "Q. How many lies under oath do you think
22 you told in your depositions in the J.C. Penney
23 case?"
24 She was deposed twice.
25 "Like I said, I tried -- after David was
26 arrested, I went to the Rothstein office, and I
27 pointed out to them prior to a settlement
28 agreement that I would like to correct the
1 statements that were inaccurate, because finally
2 David was arrested. Finally we and my children
3 could speak. And Rothstein, including with Mary
4 Holzer, said, 'Don't worry. We'll take care of
5 it.' And they didn't, so I considered their firm
6 liars."
7 She's always blaming someone else.
8 "The lawyers are liars. The lawyers made me
9 do it."
10 Has she turned over the money? Has she gone
11 to J.C. Penney or Tower Records and said, "What we
12 did was wrong. We lied under oath. We collected
13 money that we are not entitled to. My injuries were
14 fake. I had Gavin lie under oath. I had Star lie
15 under oath. David lied under oath"? No.
16 Do you remember in the rebuttal video they
17 talk about gang signs, and she's acting very
18 spontaneously and she's laughing? And it's not a
19 rehearsed, memorized type of response. It's
20 spontaneous, and she's having fun.
21 "Q. So when you said about Gavin he was
22 doing gang signs, that was what he was doing,
23 he's -- he showed out to his friends on the west
24 side, was that all scripted?
25 "Everything. Everything was scripted."
26 Now, you've seen that video four times. Was
27 everything memorized, rehearsed, to the word? Was
28 she ever spontaneous? Did she ever seem to be
1 enjoying herself? Did she seem like she liked being
2 on camera? Remember she looked at it, and she said,
3 "Oh, my God, we're on camera," and she had a big
4 grin on her face?
5 And now it's part of some evil plot by
6 Michael Jackson. And yet everything they said, they
7 had said before, particularly to Brad Miller, when
8 she says she was talking honestly about Michael
9 Jackson.
10 Everybody's a liar but Janet Arvizo. Have
11 you noticed that? The social workers are liars.
12 The lawyers are liars. Everybody's a liar but her.
13 "Did you ever ask Azja Pryor for the keys to
14 Chris Tucker's car?
15 "No.
16 "To your knowledge, did Davellin ever do
17 that?
18 "No.
19 "Do you recall ever being in a call with
20 Davellin where you and Davellin asked Azja Pryor
21 for the keys to Chris Tucker's automobile?
22 "No."
23 Now Azja's a liar.
24 "Do you recall discussing going to Brazil
25 with Azja Pryor?
26 "Like I had told you, remember those
27 conversations that I would have and try to slip
28 something in? So at the end of the -- all of
1 these people could put this puzzle together as
2 to where me and my children were finally at.
3 "Do you recall telling Azja Pryor that you
4 were excited to go to Brazil?
5 "No.
6 "Do you recall inviting Azja Pryor to go
7 to Carnivale in Brazil with you?
8 "No.
9 Who do you trust based on what you saw on
10 this witness stand? Janet Arvizo or Azja Pryor?
11 "Did you ever tell Azja Pryor that your
12 family was being held against their will?
13 She says, "Yes."
14 "When was this?
15 "I think -- I think it was during the hotel
16 period. That's the best I can remember. I --
17 I tried to reach different people."
18 Azja Pryor told you that she never said
19 anything like that. She wanted to go to Brazil;
20 that she invited Azja to go to Carnivale and that
21 she was excited. And Azja was as honest as you can
22 be.
23 "And you specifically remember telling her
24 that you were being held against your will?
25 "Yes.
26 "Do you remember ever asking her to call the
27 police?
28 "No, that was another thing I slipped in.
1 And I was always hoping that these people would
2 call themselves. This way the call didn't come
3 from me."
4 What is that supposed to mean?
5 She's staying at Jay Jackson's. She's in
6 hotels. She's in shopping centers. You can call
7 9-1-1 at Neverland. She has a million different
8 places she can get a phone and call 9-1-1 if a crime
9 was being committed against she and her children.
10 The dentist's office, the salon, you name it.
11 Nothing.
12 "Q. Do you remember telling Azja Pryor
13 that you had learned that Michael Jackson was not
14 going on the Brazil trip?
15 "A. No.
16 "Do you remember ever telling Azja Pryor
17 that once you learned Michael Jackson was not
18 going on the Brazil trip, you didn't want to go?
19 "No.
20 "It's your testimony you never discussed the
21 Brazil trip at any time with Azja?
22 "I'm -- like I said to different people in
23 the midst of the conversation, I tried to slip
24 something in as to what was happening.
25 "Do you recall complaining to Azja Pryor
26 that Michael Jackson was making money on the
27 Maury Povich show and your family was getting
28 nothing?
1 "Never.
2 "Do you recall commenting to Miss Pryor that
3 a college fund was being set up for Gavin by
4 Michael Jackson?
5 "No.
6 "Do you remember telling Azja Pryor, 'What
7 good will a college fund do for my son? He may
8 not be alive in ten years'? Do you remember
9 saying that?
10 "No. All of that --
11 "And did you ever discuss the rebuttal
12 video with Azja Pryor?
13 "No."
14 All of that directly contradicted by Azja
15 Pryor, who, I repeat, was a very honest witness.
16 Are you going to believe Janet or are you
17 going to believe Azja? I think I know who you're
18 going to believe when you put all this stuff
19 together, ladies and gentlemen.
20 She is a complete liar and fabricator. She
21 is a con artist. She's conned people for years.
22 This is a great one:
23 "Miss Arvizo, did you ever tell anyone that
24 you were living in a stable with hay and horses
25 in Bakersfield?
26 "No.
27 "Ever say anything to that effect to
28 anyone?
1 "No.
2 "Did you ever hear or learn that you were
3 quoted as saying that?
4 "Yeah, I came to find out a lot of things.
5 "When did you find out that you were quoted
6 as saying that you and your family were so poor
7 you were living in a stable with hay in
8 Bakersfield?
9 "Just recently. I've never lived in
10 Bakersfield."
11 Did somebody make that up?
12 Remember, she said she was homeless to get
13 free lessons at the dance school for her kids.
14 She'll say anything. Absolutely anything.
15 "You claim you first learned about any
16 alleged molestation in September of 2003,
17 correct?
18 "A. I don't understand what he's saying,
19 but I was becoming aware of things through
20 Gavin and Star little by little.
21 "Q. You claim that you learned about any
22 alleged molestation in September of 2003 from
23 Prosecutor Sneddon, Sheriff Klapakis and Sheriff
24 Robel, right?
25 "Yes."
26 Then my question to you is, why did they go
27 to Larry Feldman? Why?
28 Moving along:
1 "Okay. Did you learn at some point about
2 some fund-raisers that went on at The Laugh
3 Factory for the benefit of Gavin?
4 "A. I came to find out everything
5 afterwards.
6 "Q. Did you know those fund-raisers were
7 going on when they actually happened?
8 "A. I don't think so. We're talking five
9 years ago."
10 Do you really think, based on everything you
11 know about Janet Arvizo, that she didn't know
12 fund-raisers were going on?
13 This is under oath in front of you. Put it
14 all together.
15 "Q. So you're not sure whether you knew
16 they were even going when they happened, right?
17 "No, I would find out afterwards.
18 "Now, were you in touch with Jamie Masada at
19 this point in time?
20 "Just a little bit."
21 They're trying to raise money for her son's
22 illness. They're going everywhere they can to raise
23 money. Do you think she doesn't know?
24 "Q. Were you ever standing in the background
25 during a phone call that Gavin made to Jay Leno?
26 "A. No.
27 "Have you ever spoken to Jay Leno?
28 "I've never spoken to Jay Leno.
1 "Were you aware of Gavin making any attempt
2 to contact celebrities by phone?
3 "No."
4 Do you believe that for a second?
5 Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, it only takes
6 one lie under oath to throw this case out of court
7 by you. Just one.
8 You can't count the number of lies under
9 oath by all of the Arvizo witnesses. You can't
10 count them. They lie directly. They lie to your
11 face. They lie under oath. They exaggerate. They
12 give run-around answers to try to avoid the
13 question. How many does it take to let you know
14 this case is a fraud?
15 They are trying to take advantage of Michael
16 Jackson. They are trying to profit from Michael
17 Jackson. They think they've pulled it off. They're
18 just waiting for one thing, and that is your
19 verdict.
20 At this point, I'd like to talk to you a
21 little bit about some jury instructions, some of the
22 instructions that were read to you yesterday.
23 Now, we've talked about reasonable doubt.
24 You've heard me mention that a lot. And as I have
25 been saying throughout my closing argument, if you
26 have a reasonable doubt about the Arvizos, the case
27 is over, because the whole case hinges on them.
28 They have come together. They have compared
1 notes. They have made up stories. They've lied
2 under oath, like they've done for years, and they've
3 been caught at it. You have caught them at it.
4 The instruction reads as follows:
5 "A defendant in a criminal action is
6 presumed to be innocent until the contrary is
7 proved. And in a case of reasonable doubt whether
8 his guilt is satisfactorily shown, he is entitled to
9 a verdict of not guilty. This presumption places
10 upon the People the burden of proving him guilty
11 beyond a reasonable doubt."
12 Why the standard of proof called "reasonable
13 doubt"? Why?
14 Many legal systems around the world don't
15 have it. Many legal systems around the world don't
16 use juries. They use judges. One, two, three, or
17 more. But our country has a philosophy, and that is
18 we cannot convict people who are innocent. We
19 cannot run the risk, because what happens to them is
20 so harmful, so brutal, so devastating.
21 And what they're trying to do to Michael
22 Jackson is so harmful, so brutal, so potentially
23 devastating to him, that we have a very high
24 standard. It's higher than you find in civil cases
25 where you have disputes over money or over property.
26 If you have any reasonable doubt about this
27 case, about the testimony, about the double-talk,
28 the lies, about their past, about their motives,
1 it's over. You must acquit Michael Jackson to
2 follow the law. It's that strict.
3 And you know something? Our system still
4 isn't perfect. You still have examples where, years
5 later, DNA exonerates people who were convicted.
6 They've added up like 130 people the last ten years
7 who were actually convicted, by juries who meant
8 well, wrongfully, because DNA exonerated them.
9 But nevertheless, we have to have a system.
10 It's the best system in the world. It can't be
11 perfect, because human beings aren't perfect. But
12 it's the best system in the world.
13 And ladies and gentlemen, I'm begging you to
14 honor that principle. Honor that principle of proof
15 beyond a reasonable doubt. He must be acquitted
16 under that standard, with all the problems and
17 falsehoods and issues that I have addressed.
18 They can't overcome them. They can
19 exaggerate. They can dirty up Michael's background.
20 They can fling dirt everywhere. They can expose the
21 fact that he's a human being who has had his
22 problems. They can do whatever they want. But they
23 can't prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt, and
24 they never should have brought it to begin with once
25 they learned who the Arvizos were.
26 These are what we call burdens of proof in
27 our legal system.
28 In a civil case, which is a dispute over
1 money or property, if one side proves by a
2 preponderance of the evidence, that's the standard,
3 that they should prevail, and it's often described
4 in very simple terms. If you have a scale of
5 justice and one side is stronger, is heavier, that
6 side wins. It's called a mere preponderance of
7 evidence.
8 That's enough to bankrupt somebody. That's
9 enough to take away their business. That's enough
10 to leave them penniless. But it's not enough to
11 convict of a crime.
12 We have a higher standard called clear and
13 convincing evidence.
14 I'll give you an example: In some custody
15 disputes, you can take a child away from a parent
16 if you prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that
17 that parent should not have custody, that they have
18 not met the standards our legal system requires for
19 parenting.
20 Clear and convincing evidence alone is not
21 enough to convict in our system.
22 And let me ask you this: Do you think
23 you've seen clear and convincing evidence that the
24 Arvizos are truthful? Are believable? Are honest?
25 Are honorable? Don't have financial motives in this
26 case? Are to be believed and trusted?
27 No. They can't even meet that standard, let
28 alone the highest in our legal system, which is
1 beyond a reasonable doubt. They're not even close.
2 The case shouldn't have been brought.
3 This is just an illustrative aid to further
4 explain reasonable doubt to you and what a high
5 standard it is. If you think somebody may be
6 guilty, it's not enough. If you think perhaps
7 they're guilty, it's not enough. If you suspect
8 they might be guilty, it's not enough. Possibly
9 guilty is not enough. Probably guilty, not enough.
10 Guilty likely, not enough. Guilt highly likely, not
11 enough. It's got to be guilty beyond any reasonable
12 doubt.
13 And ladies and gentlemen, when you get in
14 the jury room, ask yourselves, "Do we have any
15 reasonable doubts about this family and this case?"
16 Any. All it takes is one.
17 The prosecutor has talked to you about
18 circumstantial evidence, okay? There's what is
19 called direct evidence, someone actually watches
20 something. And there's circumstantial evidence,
21 where you're to put the circumstances together and
22 decide what you can infer from the circumstances.
23 Of course, I'm coming to you and saying the
24 same thing. Look at the circumstances of the
25 Arvizos and their past history and their lies and
26 their motives, and I'm saying put those
27 circumstances together to find a reasonable doubt in
28 this case.
1 So what does the instruction say? "A
2 finding of guilt as to any crime may not be based on
3 circumstantial evidence unless the proved
4 circumstances are not only, one, consistent with the
5 theory that the defendant is guilty of the crime,
6 but, two, cannot be reconciled with any other
7 rational conclusion."
8 Can any of you imagine, within reason, the
9 Arvizos doing what I've told you they're trying to
10 do here? Does it seem rational to you? Does it
11 seem realistic? Is it plausible? Is it likely?
12 Of course it is.
13 Would it be rational to assume, based on all
14 you've heard, that this is a scam by them, and that
15 they are, in fact, con artists, actors and liars?
16 The answer is yes. And if you agree with what I
17 just told you, out the door.
18 "If the circumstantial evidence as to any
19 particular count permits two reasonable
20 interpretations, one of which points to the
21 defendant's guilt and the other to his innocence,
22 you must adopt that interpretation that points to
23 the defendant's innocence and reject that
24 interpretation that points to his guilt."
25 This all works in tandem with the proof
26 beyond a reasonable doubt standard. It all works in
27 tandem with the proof beyond a reasonable doubt
28 objective of our system that we protect freedom and
1 liberty and reputation more than we protect money,
2 more than we protect property. It's a strict system
3 of values built into the system, and you must, under
4 this legal standard, throw this case where it
5 belongs: Out the door.
6 Now, you were instructed that these alleged
7 crimes by Michael Jackson require that they prove
8 what is called specific intent. In plain language,
9 that he specifically intended to commit certain
10 crimes. I'm going to show you some conspiracy
11 instructions where he has to specifically intend,
12 and they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
13 he specifically intended, one, to enter into a
14 conspiracy agreement, and, two, to commit false
15 imprisonment, child abduction or extortion on the
16 Arvizos. Okay? So that's what this idea of
17 specific intent essentially means.
18 This is a similar instruction to the ones
19 you just saw: "You may not find the defendant
20 guilty of the crimes charged unless the proved
21 circumstances are not only, one, consistent with the
22 theory that the defendant had the required specific
23 intent or mental state, but, two, cannot be
24 reconciled with any other rational conclusion."
25 It's a protective mechanism to protect our
26 freedom and our liberty and our reputation from
27 false claims.
28 You've been instructed by Judge Melville.
1 You must follow this to the T. You cannot run
2 roughshod over these instructions. You cannot treat
3 them lightly. If you have another rational
4 explanation for what these people are doing based on
5 their past and their behavior, it's out, all of it.
6 Michael Jackson goes home - where he belongs. Not
7 here.
8 "Evidence as to any specific intent or
9 mental state, if it permits two reasonable
10 interpretations, one of which points to the
11 existence of a specific intent or mental state and
12 the other to its absence, you must adopt that
13 interpretation which points to its absence."
14 And as I said to you yesterday, show me any
15 evidence anywhere that Michael Jackson wanted to be
16 in a conspiracy with other alleged felons, none of
17 whom have been charged. None. With all they tell
18 you about Schaffel, Konitzer, Dieter, Geragos,
19 whatever it is, have any of them been charged with
20 anything? Even a misdemeanor? If not, why did they
21 bring this case against him? Why? Where is the
22 justice? Where is the fairness? Where is it?
23 With these instructions that you're bound to
24 follow, with the instruction that you have another
25 rational explanation, another rational conclusion as
26 to why someone acted a certain way that goes against
27 the concept of guilt, the concept of convicting
28 someone of a crime, with these instructions, which
1 they know about - they know about them - why did
2 they bring this case against Michael Jackson?
3 Because he's a mega celebrity, and they hope
4 they can get away with it. They only have one
5 obstacle left: You. They're hoping you won't
6 follow these instructions, you won't understand
7 these instructions, they won't have any meaning in
8 the jury room, you just won't get it. I don't know
9 what they're thinking.
10 How, with these instructions on the table,
11 in your hands -- you've already gotten packets of
12 them. How, if you look at these carefully and look
13 at this evidence, can you convict Michael Jackson of
14 anything?
15 Ladies and gentlemen, you can't. You just
16 can't. The witnesses are preposterous. The perjury
17 is everywhere. The claims are preposterous. None
18 of it works. The only thing they have left is
19 throwing dirt all over the place to see if something
20 sticks.
21 Girlie magazines. He's had problems in his
22 personal life. He's been immature, and naive,
23 childlike. But remember, their basic claims are
24 that he's akin to a monster, that he would take a
25 cancer-stricken child and look at that person as a
26 target and ply him with alcohol so he can molest
27 him.
28 From what you've seen about Michael Jackson
1 in this trial, does that make sense? If you look
2 deep into your heart, do you think it's even
3 remotely possible that Michael Jackson is
4 constructed that way, is evil in that particular
5 way? Has no conscience? Has no feeling for
6 children? Has no idealism? Isn't childlike? He's
7 really just -- it's all -- Neverland's a ruse for
8 criminal activity? Does what you've seen in this
9 trial reflect that? Is it even possible?
10 It's not. It really is not.
11 And no matter what Mr. Zonen throws around
12 the courtroom, you know what I'm saying is true.
13 And I'm sure it will be a real topic of discussion
14 in the jury room. What is Neverland? Why the
15 music? Why the Disney-like environment? Why the
16 animals? Why do children come from the inner city?
17 Why do sick children come by bus? What goes on?
18 What are his goals? What did he want to accomplish?
19 Is it all just a lure for criminal conduct, a
20 veneer, a big fantasy to lure people in because he's
21 a monster?
22 No. Not even close.
23 Might be a good time to stop, Your Honor.
24 Is that all right?
25 THE COURT: All right. We'll a break.
26 (Recess taken.)
27 THE COURT: Mr. Mesereau?
28 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.
1 Ladies and gentlemen, I have two more
2 instructions to show you. I can't show you every
3 one, they're pretty voluminous, but I'd like you to
4 just give careful consideration to these particular
5 instructions, particularly this "Witness Willfully
6 False" instruction:
7 It says, "A witness who is willfully false
8 in one material part of his or her testimony is to
9 be distrusted in others. You may reject the whole
10 testimony of a witness who willfully has testified
11 falsely as to a material point unless, from all the
12 evidence, you believe the probability of truth
13 favors his or her testimony in other particulars."
14 And when you go into the jury room and talk
15 about the Arvizos, please give careful consideration
16 to this instruction.
17 This is the last one I'm going to point out:
18 It says, "Association alone does not prove
19 membership in a conspiracy. Evidence that a person
20 was in the company of, or associated with, one or
21 more other persons alleged or proved to have been
22 members of a conspiracy is not, in itself,
23 sufficient to prove that person was a member of the
24 alleged conspiracy."
25 So when the prosecutor gets up and tries to
26 tell you that somehow knowing Marc Schaffel or
27 knowing Konitzer or Dieter is proof that Michael
28 Jackson engineered -- remember, they're saying he
1 engineered a criminal conspiracy as a response to
2 the Bashir documentary. If they try and suggest
3 that through documents showing people are in
4 business together, or associated together, or might
5 be seen together, that's not proof.
6 They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
7 that Michael Jackson, one, specifically intended to
8 form an agreement to conspire, and, two, wanted to
9 falsely prison, abduct kids, or commit extortion.
10 And it's nonsense.
11 Now, ladies and gentlemen, the prosecution
12 claims that Mr. Jackson had a response to the Bashir
13 documentary, and the response was to commit crimes.
14 And the prosecutor wants you to think that after
15 February 20th, through all those interviews, that
16 somehow molestation began. And now I want to show
17 you what was available at the time.
18 MR. SANGER: "Input 4," please, Your Honor.
19 (Whereupon, portions of DVDs, People's
20 Exhibit 2 and Defendant's Exhibits 5000-A, B and C,
21 were played for the Court and jury.)
22 MR. MESEREAU: Ladies and gentlemen, this
23 has been a nightmare for Mr. Jackson. He has been
24 lax with his money. He has let the wrong people
25 sometimes associate around him. He was naive to
26 allow the Arvizos anywhere near him. But under the
27 law and the facts in this courtroom, you must return
28 a verdict of not guilty on all counts. It's the
1 only right verdict.
2 Thank you.
3 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Mesereau.

Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 12:01 AM JST
Updated: Sun, Jun 12 2005 2:46 AM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Fri, Jun 10 2005
Jackson Jury at 22 Hours and Counting
Mood:  blue
Topic: Main News


By TIM MOLLOY, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 11 minutes ago

Fans outside the courthouse gates chanted "Michael's innocent" as jurors wrapped up another day of deliberations in the Michael Jackson child molestation case. The jury put in only 2 1/2 hours Thursday. The reason for the abbreviated day was not released by the court, but Judge Rodney S. Melville noted last week that some jurors had school graduation ceremonies to attend.

Since receiving the case on June 3, the eight women and four men have met for more than 22 hours over five days.

Jackson is charged with molesting a 13-year-old boy in 2003, plying him with wine and conspiring to hold him and his family captive to get them to rebut the TV documentary "Living With Michael Jackson." The documentary showed the boy holding hands with Jackson and the pop star saying he let children into his bed for innocent, nonsexual sleepovers.

During the trial, the prosecution portrayed Jackson as a pedophile who has preyed on boys for years. The defense sought to show he is a victim of a family of con artists who target celebrities. Jackson, who has made several trips to emergency rooms during the trial, went to a hospital again Wednesday for treatment of back problems, according to his spokeswoman, Raymone K. Bain.

Bain said the visit to Santa Ynez Valley Cottage Hospital had been scheduled as a follow-up to a hospital trip Sunday for what she described as a back problem exacerbated by stress. Jackson first reported the back problem in March, when he made an early morning emergency room visit on one of the days his accuser testified. Jackson rushed to the courtroom wearing pajama bottoms when the judge threatened to have him arrested if he didn't appear. Later that day, the boy testified that Jackson molested him while they were both wearing pairs of the singer's pajamas.

Copyright ? 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of

The Associated Press.
Copyright ? 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback


Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 11:32 PM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Bittersweet time for town as Jackson trial ends
Mood:  quizzical
Topic: Main News
Crowds will be gone, but so will the extra dollars

The Associated Press
Updated: 7:06 p.m. ET June 9, 2005

SANTA MARIA, Calif. - As the Michael Jackson case reaches its conclusion, some residents of this small city are ready to say good riddance to the crowds — but others will miss the windfall the trial has brought.

For the city, the extra tax money will mean new library books and money to fix potholes. For Carmen Jenkins, whose cafe near the courthouse is perpetually packed these days, the boom will mean a new BMW.

Jenkins saw the cash cow coming and moved to a bigger storefront, installed a wireless Internet connection and, to cater to the tastes of the foreign press corps, expanded her menu.

“It’s like having a party and inviting someone from every part of the world,” said Jenkins, 46, the high-energy owner of Coffee Diem. “It brought so much fresh new air to the city.”

For others in this fast-growing city of 88,000 nestled in a fertile valley up the coast from Los Angeles, the case has offered its own trials: traffic hassles, an eternal association with the lurid case, and mobs of reporters and Jackson fans who mobilize at the whiff of any development.

Kathleen DeVoe, 50, said mayhem broke out at the dental office she worked at when Jackson was admitted in February at the nearby Marian Medical Center for treatment of flu symptoms. She said “the media were extremely rude,” nabbing all the spaces in a private parking lot.

Thursday was more mellow; jurors left after deliberating most of the morning. No reason for the short day was given, but the judge noted last week that some jurors wanted to attend school graduation ceremonies.

It was the fifth day jurors debated whether Jackson molested a 13-year-old cancer survivor at his Neverland ranch in the hills surrounding Santa Maria and conspired to hold the boy and his family against their will.

Many in the city have tried to ignore the spectacle that includes scores of hard-core Jackson fans at the courthouse each day. About 2,100 journalists have credentials to cover the trial, although not all of them are at court every day.

“We’re not going to live or die on what happens to him,” said Robert Hatch, chief executive officer of the Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce. “But we’ll make people feel welcome, so next time they’ll come back. For the most part we’ve done that.”

A bed-tax boom

The longer the case continues, the more money flows to city coffers. So far, city officials estimate they have gained an extra $215,000 from extra hotel bed taxes and rental of offices and parking spaces.
Since the start of the trial, Santa Maria has gained an otherwise unexpected $79,000 from its share of the bed tax, an increase of 16 percent compared to last February, March and April, according to city figures. It’s not a huge sum for a $41.6 million annual budget, but the money will help stock library shelves and pave roads, said city spokesman Mark van de Kamp.

Just how the city will remember its role in the trial? At the Santa Maria Valley Historical Society Museum, exhibits show the rise of the community from the days when the region was inhabited by the Chumash tribe of American Indians.

The growth of the town, known as Central City before being incorporated as Santa Maria in 1905, is depicted in photos and memorabilia, including a full-size horse-drawn buggy and a miniature oil derrick.

The museum has yet to install a Michael Jackson exhibit.

? 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
? 2005 MSNBC.com
URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8161837/


Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 11:52 AM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post

Newer | Latest | Older