Larry King kept off stand in Jackson trial
Mood:  surprised
Topic: Main News
Judge: Talk show host's testimony isn't relevant

The Associated Press
Updated: 1:47 p.m. ET May 19, 2005


SANTA MARIA, Calif. - The judge in Michael Jackson?s child molestation trial ruled Thursday against allowing CNN host Larry King to testify for the defense, saying his statements would be irrelevant.

Judge Rodney S. Melville ruled after listening to King?s account of a conversation with an attorney, Larry Feldman, who represented the accuser?s family.

Without the jury present, King said that Feldman told him the accuser?s mother was out for money and referred to her as ?wacko.?

Testifying earlier for the prosecution, Feldman denied making such statements about his clients, saying, ?It is absolutely privileged, and if anybody tells you that, they are absolutely lying.?


After listening to an account by King and another man who heard the conversation, the judge ruled them out on grounds they would not impeach Feldman?s testimony because neither could say the attorney directly quoted the accuser?s mother.

The defense then moved on, calling Azja Pryor, the mother of comedian Chris Tucker?s son. She wept as she recalled meeting the accuser and his family when the boy had cancer.

Feldman was contacted by the accuser?s family members after they left Jackson?s Neverland estate for the last time in 2003. He referred them to Stan Katz, a psychologist who reported suspicions of child molestation to authorities after interviewing the family members.


On the stand and without jurors present, King said he spoke to Feldman at a Beverly Hills restaurant before the trial began. He said he and a producer were trying to get Feldman to appear on ?Larry King Live.?

He said Feldman told him he didn?t take the mother?s case because he didn?t find her credible and thought she was only after money.

?The mother was a ?wacko? was the term he used,? King said.

?He said he thinks she wants money. ... He said ?wacko? a couple of times and he said ?she?s in this for the money,?? King told the judge.

Jackson defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. asked King if he asked Feldman to clarify what he meant by ?wacko.?

?No, I think that?s self-explanatory,? King said.

There had been speculation that King might try to avoid testifying by invoking a state shield law that protects journalists from testifying in many circumstances. But the matter was not raised before the testimony was ruled out.

The judge also ruled against testimony by a publisher, Michael Viner, who was present during King?s meeting with Feldman.

Without the jury present, Viner told the judge that Feldman said ?he had met with them (the family) and felt that their statements, their case, didn?t hold up to scrutiny and he didn?t believe them.?

Accuser's behavior
On Wednesday, Jackson?s 12-year-old cousin testified that he saw Jackson?s accuser steal wine and money and secretly watch pornography on television while fondling himself.

Rijo Jackson said the accuser?s brother ? a key prosecution witness ? also took part in the misbehavior during visits to Neverland.


The defense elicited the testimony in an apparent effort to show that the accuser engaged in sexual activity and drank alcohol without Jackson?s involvement.

Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting a 13-year-old boy in February or March 2003 and plying him with wine. He is also charged with conspiring to hold the boy?s family captive to get them to rebut a damaging documentary in which Jackson said he let children sleep in his bed but that it was non-sexual.

Feldman testified in early April. The prosecution had called him as part of its explanation to the jury of how the alleged molestation came to the attention of authorities. But the defense used his appearance to pursue its contention that the accuser and his family were out to get money from Jackson.

Feldman had acknowledged under cross-examination that the boy, now 15, has until he turns 20 to file a civil lawsuit against Jackson.

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/7910923/

Jackson's cousin says saw accuser masturbating
Mood:  surprised
Topic: Main News
Wed May 18, 3:53 PM ET


Michael Jackson's 12-year-old cousin testified on Wednesday that he saw the boy who has accused the singer of molestation masturbating with his younger brother as they watched naked women on television.

Rio Jackson, who was 10 at the time he visited Jackson's Neverland Valley Ranch in February and March of 2003, said one night he stayed in the same guest unit as the then 13-year-old accuser and his 11-year-old brother.

"I saw them go to the TV, turn to a channel that had naked girls, and they did nasty stuff," Rio Jackson told the jury. Asked by lead defense attorney Tom Mesereau what he meant by "nasty stuff," the boy replied that he saw the pair masturbating.

"They said why didn't I do that, and I said I didn't want to because it was nasty," he added.

Rio Jackson, wearing a long pony tail almost to his waist and dressed in a gray suit and pink tie, said during his visit to Neverland he saw the accuser and his brother steal money from a chef and with items from a ranch manager's office.

He also said he saw the boys take wine by themselves to the sleeping-area in Jackson's bedroom. Rio's elder sister, Simone Jackson, in testimony on Tuesday, said she saw the boys steal wine from a refrigerator.

In earlier testimony, the accuser said Jackson introduced him to wine and pornography. He and his brother denied drinking when he was not around.

Prosecutors have charged Jackson, 46, with furnishing his accuser, a recovering cancer patient, with alcohol in order to abuse the boy.

Jackson is also charged with four counts of molesting the boy in early 2003, and conspiring to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion. He faces more than 20 years in prison if convicted on all 10 counts.

Jackson's defense team is attempting to diffuse prosecution testimony from the accuser and his family by painting the mother as a grifter out to get money from the entertainer and the boys as youngsters who drank, stole and ran wild while they were at Neverland.

Wednesday's testimony from Rio Jackson was the first time the jury had heard of the accuser and his brother masturbating.

But under cross examination by prosecuting attorneys, Rio Jackson admitted that on the occasion of the alleged wine stealing he ended up going to bed with Jackson.

It was the singer's practice of sleeping with young boys, which he admitted in a now infamous documentary aired in Britain and the United States, that led to him being charged with child molestation.

Jackson appeared in the video holding hands with his accuser and talking about how he liked to sleep with young boys, although he insisted that the practice was innocent.

The younger Jackson also conceded that he did not know if the accuser and his brother meant to steal or simply borrow some plastic crystals and a deck of cards that he saw them take from the ranch manager's office.

He also conceded that he did not see the brothers stealing wine directly from Jackson's two-storey bedroom. He said he and the brothers and Jackson were in the bedroom when Jackson ordered in some wine.

Jackson was the in the bathroom when the wine arrived and the brothers took it to the sleeping section of the bedroom and then left. Some of the wine of the wine was missing from the bottle, the boy said, suggesting the boys had stolen a drink.

It was after that that Jackson and his young cousin went to bed together, he said.



Copyright ? 2005 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.


Copyright ? 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
Back to Story - Help
Jackson's cousin says saw accuser masturbating Wed May 18, 3:53 PM ET



Michael Jackson's 12-year-old cousin testified on Wednesday that he saw the boy who has accused the singer of molestation masturbating with his younger brother as they watched naked women on television.

Rio Jackson, who was 10 at the time he visited Jackson's Neverland Valley Ranch in February and March of 2003, said one night he stayed in the same guest unit as the then 13-year-old accuser and his 11-year-old brother.

"I saw them go to the TV, turn to a channel that had naked girls, and they did nasty stuff," Rio Jackson told the jury. Asked by lead defense attorney Tom Mesereau what he meant by "nasty stuff," the boy replied that he saw the pair masturbating.

"They said why didn't I do that, and I said I didn't want to because it was nasty," he added.

Rio Jackson, wearing a long pony tail almost to his waist and dressed in a gray suit and pink tie, said during his visit to Neverland he saw the accuser and his brother steal money from a chef and with items from a ranch manager's office.

He also said he saw the boys take wine by themselves to the sleeping-area in Jackson's bedroom. Rio's elder sister, Simone Jackson, in testimony on Tuesday, said she saw the boys steal wine from a refrigerator.

In earlier testimony, the accuser said Jackson introduced him to wine and pornography. He and his brother denied drinking when he was not around.

Prosecutors have charged Jackson, 46, with furnishing his accuser, a recovering cancer patient, with alcohol in order to abuse the boy.

Jackson is also charged with four counts of molesting the boy in early 2003, and conspiring to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion. He faces more than 20 years in prison if convicted on all 10 counts.

Jackson's defense team is attempting to diffuse prosecution testimony from the accuser and his family by painting the mother as a grifter out to get money from the entertainer and the boys as youngsters who drank, stole and ran wild while they were at Neverland.

Wednesday's testimony from Rio Jackson was the first time the jury had heard of the accuser and his brother masturbating.

But under cross examination by prosecuting attorneys, Rio Jackson admitted that on the occasion of the alleged wine stealing he ended up going to bed with Jackson.

It was the singer's practice of sleeping with young boys, which he admitted in a now infamous documentary aired in Britain and the United States, that led to him being charged with child molestation.

Jackson appeared in the video holding hands with his accuser and talking about how he liked to sleep with young boys, although he insisted that the practice was innocent.

The younger Jackson also conceded that he did not know if the accuser and his brother meant to steal or simply borrow some plastic crystals and a deck of cards that he saw them take from the ranch manager's office.

He also conceded that he did not see the brothers stealing wine directly from Jackson's two-storey bedroom. He said he and the brothers and Jackson were in the bedroom when Jackson ordered in some wine.

Jackson was the in the bathroom when the wine arrived and the brothers took it to the sleeping section of the bedroom and then left. Some of the wine of the wine was missing from the bottle, the boy said, suggesting the boys had stolen a drink.

It was after that that Jackson and his young cousin went to bed together, he said.



Copyright ? 2005 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.


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

Jackson Trial in Family Way
Mood:  sharp
Topic: Main News

By Joal Ryan
19 minutes ago



She isn't Janet--or even LaToya. But she is a real, live member of the Jackson family.


Simone Jackson, a 16-year-old cousin of Michael Jackson, took the stand Tuesday in the pop star's child-molestation trial--the first member of the show-biz clan to appear on behalf the defense team.


Elsewhere, two Los Angeles social workers gave new takes on an old subject at the trial: the welfare-check interview in which Jackson's young accuser denied ever being molested by the pop star and the accuser's mother denied having anything but love for Jackson.


On the stand, Simone Jackson offered testimony to another now familiar topic--the accuser and alcohol.


The adolescent Jackson said that one late night at Neverland Ranch in March 2003 she saw the boy, then 13, and his younger brother each grab a bottle of wine from the estate's kitchen. The brother also snatched a wine glass.


"After they saw me...I told them that [they] weren't allowed--they weren't supposed to do that," Simone Jackson testified. "And they told me to be quiet and not to say anything."


The prosecution contends it was Michael Jackson who introduced the boys to the bubbly; the defense contends the boys were way ahead of the entertainer.


Later, Simone Jackson said the accuser's sister told her "out of the blue" one day that "she had to go to Brazil and I probably wouldn't see her again."


According to Simone Jackson, the sister noted that, while the girl was unhappy about the trip, "her mom wanted to go."


The prosecution contends Jackson and his henchmen were planning to force the accuser's family on a South American excursion; the defense contends that, no, they weren't--forcing them to go, that is.


Under almost-breathless questioning by defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr., Simone Jackson also gave jurors an insider's look at a birthday party, Neverland-style.


"Was food served?" Mesereau asked.


"Yes," Simone Jackson said.


"Did everyone sit at a table?"


"Yeah."


"And were there presents?"


"Yes."


Simone Jackson's appearance comes as trial watchers have noted a decided lack of Jacksons in the Santa Maria, California, courthouse--save for the star defendant and his parents, Joe and Katherine.

The Jackson family has denied distancing itself from its most famed member. Joe Jackson is said to have insisted that he and his wife be the brood's designated courtroom observers.

Irene Peters and Karen Walker, meanwhile, told jurors of meeting the accuser's family on Feb. 20, 2003, as part of their investigation into possible child neglect.

Both women are employed by L.A. County's Department of Children & Family Services.

On the stand, Peters said her office received a complaint on Feb. 14, 2003--a complaint spurred by Martin Bashir's Living with Michael Jackson, which had debuted on ABC eight days earlier.

The accuser, then 13, was seen holding Jackson's hand in the Bashir special while the fortysomething entertainer talked about sharing his bed with children.

Peters said she was directed to look into both the accuser's mother and Jackson. The Santa Barbara County-based pop star, however, was out of her jurisdiction, so the investigation centered on the L.A.-based mother.

On Feb. 20, 2003, Peters, Walker and a third social worker met the accuser's family at the Los Angeles apartment of the mother's future husband, Peters said.

The mother immediately asked Peters to watch a video of "Michael Jackson and [her eldest son, the accuser] walking around Neverland looking at the swans," the woman said.

Then, Peters said, the mother proceeded to talk about how she made s'mores with Chris Tucker around Neverland's fireplace.

Later, once the social workers had cleared the apartment of ancillary personnel--Tucker's girlfriend, a couple of Michael Jackson associates--the interview began, as did the denials, Peters said.

The mother denied neglecting her children and declared she was "very upset" that Jackson's good name was being besmirched, as well, Peters said.

For the umpteenth time, jurors heard a witness--in this case, Peters--say the mother praised the pop star and hailed him as a father figure to her children.

When the mother was asked if she knew if Jackson ever slept in the same bed as her children, the woman said, "No, that never happened," Peters said.

When the accuser was asked if he'd ever been touched sexually by Jackson, the boy "became a little upset," Peters said.

"He [said], 'Everybody thinks that Michael Jackson sexually abused me. He's never touched me,' " Peters testified.

Jurors have heard the mother and the accuser talk about this confab themselves--the mother said she and hers had been kept up the night before shooting footage for a Jackson rebuttal documentary; the boy said he told the social workers that Jackson had never touched him because he hadn't--yet.

Indeed, the prosecution timeline fits quite nicely--for the prosecution--with the apparently conflicting statements of the social-worker interview. The prosecution alleges Jackson molested the boy "on or about and between" Feb. 20, 2003, and Mar. 12, 2003. In short, per the state, if the boy on the morning of Feb. 20, 2003, says he wasn't molested, despite frequent stays at Neverland and a cross-country trip to Miami with the pop star, that's because he wasn't--yet.

Prosecutor Tom Sneddon made no mention of how events stacked up for his side. He just hammered away at how it was unlikely that a teen boy, such as the accuser, would admit to abuse in the presence of women, such as Peters and the boy's mother.

Under questioning by Mesereau, Peters said she had had boys tell her they'd been abused, although the number was "very few."

Peters also said it wasn't just the boy's words, but his demeanor that she judged. To her, she said, he didn't show any signs of having been molested.

The part of the social workers interview that doesn't fit nicely into the prosecution's timeline is the contention that Jackson and his henchmen were holding the family against their will during much of February and March of 2003.

Peters said no one in the accuser's family told her they were captives of Jackson--the mother even suggested the interview be conducted at Neverland.

About a week after the interview, the L.A. social workers deigned that allegations of neglect against the mother and allegations of abuse against Jackson were "unfounded."

In an odd anecdote, both Peters and Walker testified of running into the accuser's mother and her children at a Fatburger in April 2003, shortly after the clan's final alleged escape from Neverland.

Even odder, Mesereau prodded Peters and Walker into talk about how the mother told them Jackson wanted to send her family to Brazil.

"Did she say the words to the effect, 'I don't want to go to that dump...?" Mesereau asked Peters.

Peters said that was correct.

Under questioning by Sneddon, Walker confirmed that the mother said her final days at Neverland had been "horrible."

Also on the stand: Angel Vivanco, the former Neverland chef's assistant, who wrapped his second day of testimony.

Something of a washout for the defense--Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville ruled Vivanco couldn't talk about potentially salacious conversations with the accuser's sister--Vivanco's most pointed testimony, that the accuser's younger brother pulled a nine-inch knife on him in the Neverland kitchen, was blunted by the prosecution.

When asked by prosecutor Ronald J. Zonen, if Vivanco thought the boy was joking, Vivanco said he did.

In March, the prosecution pulled a similar ploy on its own witness, former Neverland housekeeper Kiki Fournier, who under questioning by the defense revealed that she, too, had a knife pulled on her by the younger brother. With Fournier's help, the prosecution was able to suggest that that move was all for play.

The defense didn't let Vivanco's story go down without a fight. Jackson attorney Robert M. Sanger asked Vivanco if he thought the boy's joke was funny. "Not really," Vivanco said.

Then Sanger asked if the knife was dull or sharp. "It was sharp," Vivanco said.

Jackson, 46, is charged with molestation, administering alcohol to a minor and conspiracy. He has pleaded innocent to all charges.




Copyright ? 2005 E! Online, Inc.


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

Mom praised Jackson for helping ailing son-witness
Mood:  surprised
Topic: Main News
By Dan Whitcomb
Tue May 17, 3:55 PM ET



A social worker testified on Tuesday that the mother of the boy who says he was molested by Michael Jackson told her she believed the singer helped her son survive cancer.

Child services worker Irene Peters said she interviewed the accuser and his family shortly after the February 2003 U.S. broadcast of a television documentary in which Jackson held hands with the then-13-year-old boy as the entertainer talked about sharing his bed with young boys.

The broadcast created a media furor and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services was asked to look into the case.

Peters said the mother told her that Jackson had been like a father to her children, saying at one point she thought Jackson was "responsible for helping (the boy) survive his cancer."

Peters said when she interviewed the boy, "I asked him very point blankly did he ever sleep in bed with Michael Jackson. He told me no. He became a little upset. He said, 'Everybody's saying Michael Jackson sexually abused me. He never touched me."'

The social worker said the interview took place on Feb. 20, 2003. The incident in which Jackson allegedly fondled the boy took place after that date. Jackson has denied the charge.

Peters said the boy's mother also told her she was very vigilant at Jackson's Neverland Valley Ranch in central California, and knew that her children spent time in Jackson's bedroom, "because the kids all play in the room."

"I did ask her if she was aware of her kids ever sleeping in bed with Michael Jackson. She said no, that never happened."

In testimony last month, the mother said she and her family had been pressured to paint Jackson in a good light in the interview with the social worker.

She said an aide "told me if I put Michael in a bad light, that they knew where my parents lived."

The mother also said during her testimony for the prosecution that Jackson aides attempted to sit in on the interview to make sure her answers were favorable to Jackson.

Peters said other people were initially present in the room she told them to leave.

She said the family did not seem to be giving scripted answers or be under pressure. Their answers to her questions, she said, seemed spontaneous and natural.

Jackson's lawyers are attempting to convince jurors that the family fabricated claims of molestation and false imprisonment at Neverland so they could extort money from the 46-year-old entertainer, who faces more than two decades in prison if convicted on all charges.

Jackson is accused of molesting the boy, plying him with alcohol in order to abuse him and conspiring to commit false imprisonment, child abduction and extortion. He has said he is innocent on all counts.




Copyright ? 2005 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.


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

Social Worker: Boy Denied Abuse by Jackson
Mood:  a-ok
Topic: Main News

By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent
Tue May 17, 6:15 PM ET



A social worker testified Tuesday at Michael Jackson's child molestation trial that she met privately with the accuser and his family during the time they claim they were Jackson's captives, and they praised the singer and denied any sexual abuse.

Irene Lavern Peters, a 30-year veteran of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, said she met with the mother and her three children on Feb. 20, 2003, after the airing of a documentary that drew attention to Jackson's relationship with the boy who is now his accuser.

"I asked him if he had ever been sexually abused by Michael Jackson and he became upset. He said, 'Everybody thinks Michael Jackson sexually abused me. He never touched me,'" Peters testified. She said the accuser told her Jackson "was very kind to him and treated him like a father."

Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting the then-13-year-old boy between Feb. 20 and March 12, 2003, plying him with wine and conspiring to hold the family captive to get them to make a video to rebut the documentary "Living With Michael Jackson," which aired in the U.S. on Feb. 6, 2003.

The boy, a cancer survivor, appeared with Jackson in the documentary. Jackson told interviewer Martin Bashir that he let children sleep in his bed but that it was non-sexual.

Prosecutors first charged Jackson with committing lewd acts with the boy between Feb. 7 and March 10, 2003. A superseding grand jury indictment pushed back the time period to between Feb. 20 and March 12.

Peters said when she interviewed the mother, the boy, his younger brother and older sister on Feb. 20, all of them praised Jackson. She said the mother, who was present at each child's individual interview, even gave Jackson credit for curing her son.

Rather than wanting to flee Jackson's Neverland ranch, the mother initially asked if the social worker could do her interview at the pop star's estate, Peters said.

Peters said, however, that she wanted to see where they were living, so she was invited to the home of the mother's boyfriend, who is now her husband.

"She denied all allegations of general neglect," Peters said. "I asked her about the relationship with Michael Jackson. She went on to say he was like a father to her children and she felt he was responsible for helping (the boy) to survive his cancer, for his cancer to go into remission.

"I asked her if the kids ever slept in Michael Jackson's room and she said no, that never happened."

Under questioning by defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr., Peters said the family members never mentioned being held against their will.

The interview took place the morning after the family made the rebuttal video, which they later claimed they were forced to do by Jackson's associates.

Peters' testimony touched on an element of the prosecution's conspiracy case when she noted that she ran into the boy's mother in April 2003 at a restaurant.

Peters said the mother told her that "Michael wanted to send them to Brazil and she didn't want to go." Peters said the mother referred to Brazil as "that dump."

The prosecution claims that Jackson and associates wanted to send the family on a one-way trip to Brazil after the documentary aired. A travel planner has testified that she arranged a March 1, 2003, flight but the trip was abruptly canceled.

___

Associated Press Writer Tim Molloy 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

Larry King to testify at Jackson trial Tue May 17, 4:38 AM ET
Mood:  surprised

US television host Larry King was set to testify this week at Michael Jackson's trial, as the defense team argues that the accuser's mother made up the child-sex charges to extort the pop star.

The CNN host was scheduled to take the witness stand on Thursday, according to Jackson's spokeswoman, Raymone Bain.

The defense was expected to ask King about a claim that a lawyer who once represented the young accuser and his mother told him he didn't believe their claims against Jackson.

Jackson is charged with fondling the then 13-year-old boy, plying him with alcohol and conspiring to kidnap him and his family two years ago.

The defense has claimed in a memo to the court that publisher Michael Viner heard attorney Larry Feldman make the comments about the boy and his mother during a 2004 breakfast meeting at a Los Angeles cafe.

In earlier testimony, Feldman denied ever making the comments and said he had never met Viner, who claims he sat with King and Feldman at the breakfast meeting.

But the defense memo said that in an interview with an investigator "Viner recalled that Feldman had referred to the mother as 'a flake' and said he did not believe the boy."

"Feldman added that he did not believe them and they were into this case for one reason, 'money'."

The defense is seeking to portray the accuser as a liar whose mother is scheming to get Jackson convicted at the criminal trial so she can then make millions in a civil case.

On Monday the star's attorneys focused largely on shooting down the claim Jackson and his aides held the family captive in order to silence them.

Jurors heard how the mother never called for help when she took her two boys to an orthodontist or when she went for a full-body waxing at a time she claims she and her children were held captive at Jackson's Neverland ranch.

And Maria Gomez, who has worked as a maid at Neverland for 10 years, said the woman told her at the time that Jackson had "been a blessing for us and that he was like a father to our children."

But a little later, apparently in February or March 2003, the mother talked "about being held there against her will" and asked "that we help her leave," the housekeeper said.

At the same time, the mother complained that Jackson's aides were "interfering" in her relationship with the star and keeping her away from him, the witness said.

The defense also suffered a setback when a policeman mentioned a 1994 meeting he had with two former Neverland guards who told him they might have information about the star "kissing, fondling and sucking on the penis of a young boy."

But Detective Russell Birchim said the two indicated they feared for their safety and did not volunteer further information.

One of the former guards, Ralph Chacon, told jurors in April that he saw Jackson in the early 1990s performing oral sex on a 12- or 13-year-old boy who later won a multi-million-dollar settlement from the star.

While Jackson is only on trial for the alleged 2003 acts, the prosecution has mentioned five uncharged claims dating back to the 1990s in a bid to demonstrate he has a history of sexually abusing young boys.

Jackson, who could face up to 20 years behind bars if convicted, has pleaded innocent to all 10 charges against him.



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


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

Accuser's mom wanted kids to call Jackson 'Dad'
Mood:  irritated
Topic: Main News

By Dan Whitcomb
Mon May 16, 4:43 PM ET

A housekeeper at Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch on Monday told the jury in the singer's sex molestation trial that the accuser's mother praised Jackson and said she wanted her children to call him "Dad."

The housekeeper, Maria Gomez, said she was present at the ranch during February and March 2003, when the mother claims she and her children were held at Neverland against their will.

Gomez said that during one conversation, the mother said, "that Mr Jackson was like a father to her children and she wanted them to call him 'Dad."'

The mother told her that Jackson "had been a blessing" to the family, she testified.

Gomez, who has worked for Jackson for 10 years, said a week after that conversation the mother started to talk about being there against her will. "That we should help her leave," she said.

Gomez also said that while cleaning a guest room shared by the accuser's brother and sister she found a backpack full of pornographic magazine, which she assumed belonged to the brother.

The brother had earlier testified he had never seen pornography until Jackson showed it to him.

Jackson is charged with molesting the then-13-year-old boy at his Neverland Valley Ranch, plying the young cancer patient with alcohol in order to abuse him and conspiring to commit false imprisonment, child abduction and extortion.

'FATHER FIGURE'

The self-styled King of Pop, who has pleaded innocent, faces more than two decades in prison if convicted.

Another witness, Neverland administrative worker Kate Bernard, testified on Monday that the accuser's mother had asked to be taken to a day spa.

Bernard drove her to the spa and picked her up an hour later. The visit to the spa occurred during the time period the mother previously testified she and her family were being held against their will.

Jackson's defense is trying to show that the family was free to leave whenever they wanted.

During the drive to and from the spa, Bernard said, the mother praised Jackson. "She talked about how well Michael had been treating her, how he was a father figure to her kids," Bernard said.

Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville was expected to hear arguments from Monday over the testimony of celebrity lawyer Mark Geragos, who represented Jackson for more than a year until Jackson's indictment in April 2004.

Geragos testified on Friday that Jackson had assured him that nothing improper had happened with the teenaged accuser.

Though lawyers in California are barred from discussing private conversations they have had with clients, Jackson agreed to waive that attorney-client privilege so that Geragos could testify in his defense.

But the judge halted Geragos' testimony and sent jurors home when Jackson's current lead defense lawyer, Tom Mesereau, disclosed that Jackson had only agreed to let Geragos testify about events leading up to the singer's arrest in November of 2003 -- limiting cross-examination by prosecutors.



Copyright ? 2005 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.


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

Jackson witnesses portray family as rude, greedy
Mood:  irritated
Topic: Main News

May 16, 9:07 PM (ET)



By Dan Whitcomb

SANTA MARIA, Calif. (Reuters) - Michael Jackson's accuser drank alcohol, his younger brother secreted a stash of porn magazines and his mother drove off for a body wax at the singer's expense at the time the family claims they were being held at Neverland, defense witnesses told jurors on Monday.

Jackson's lawyers called a series of witnesses designed to tear down the credibility of the pop star's teenage accuser and his family, portraying them as rude, dishonest, greedy, and, in one case, violent.

Several witnesses painted the mother, who the defense claims is a grifter who saw celebrities as fat targets, as desperate to attach herself to Jackson and eager to flaunt her newfound status as a guest in his home.

"(The mother) said that Michael Jackson was like a father figure to her children and she wanted them to call him Dad," Neverland housekeeper Maria Gomez said. "She said that he had been a blessing to them and that he was like a father to her children."

The testimony was a bid by Jackson's lawyers to destroy the family's credibility and convince jurors that they fabricated claims of molestation and false imprisonment at Neverland so they could extort money from the 46-year-old entertainer.

Gomez said that while cleaning a guest room assigned to the accuser's brother and sister she found a backpack full of pornographic magazines that she assumed belonged to the boy.

Prosecutors say it was Jackson who showed the brothers pornography. On cross-examination Deputy District Attorney Gordon Auchincloss tried unsuccessfully to get Gomez to say Jackson might have given them the magazines.

BATTLE OVER BODY WAX

Administrative assistant Katie Bernerd said the mother would routinely call her with requests, once demanding to be taken into town for a body wax within the hour.

On the way there, Bernerd said, "She was telling me how well Michael had been treating her and how he was a father figure to her kids. She was pretty much praising Michael."

Though the trip to the day spa came on Feb. 11, 2003, at a time when the family claims they were being held against their will at Neverland, Bernerd said she dropped the mother there for an hour and that the woman made no effort to leave. Bernerd said Jackson paid for the treatment.

The trip to the day spa has become an odd point of contention in the trial, with lead defense attorney Tom Mesereau raising it in his opening statement. The mother angrily insisted during her testimony that she got only a hair-removing leg wax -- not a full body wax -- and claimed Jackson did not really pay for it because his aides had lost an equivalent amount of her luggage.

The bill for the cosmetic treatment was displayed in court on Monday and included a brow wax, lip wax, face wax and bikini wax for a total of $140.

Jurors also heard from Neverland security guard Shane Meridith, who said he caught Jackson's accuser and his brother drinking in the superstar's wine cellar and assistant chef Angel Vivanco, who testified that the younger boy once ordered him to add alcohol to a milkshake or he would have him fired.

Vivanco said the younger boy once held a large knife up to his neck for no apparent reason, which made him "nervous."

Defense attorneys say Vivanco had a brief romance with the now 19-year-old sister of Jackson's accuser, who they say confided in him that her mother was "psycho."

Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville has not yet decided if the young man can testify about that conversation.

Ex-employee saw boys with wine
Mood:  surprised
Topic: Main News
By Quintin Cushner/Staff Writer


A former security guard at Neverland Valley Ranch testified Monday that he once caught Michael Jackson's teenage accuser and the boy's brother with an open wine bottle.

Shane Meridith, testifying in Superior Court in Santa Maria, said that during a night patrol in early 2003, he discovered the accuser, then 13, and his younger brother in the estate's wine cellar.


Defense witness Carole McCoy arrives at Michael Jackson's child molestation trial Monday at the Santa Maria Courts Complex. Damian Dovarganes/Pool

"They were with an open bottle of alcohol ... " Meridith said. "I took a closer look at the bottle and some of the contents were missing."

Meridith, who now works as a corrections officer at the Lompoc Federal Penitentiary, said Jackson was not in the cellar. The witness recalled scolding the boys for being in the cellar without permission.

"They were pretty shaken," he said.

Under cross-examination, Meridith admitted that although he told his supervisor that the two were drinking, he was not absolutely certain they were.

Prosecutors allege Jackson plied his accuser with alcohol, then molested him on four occasions in 2003. The accuser earlier said that the only time he drank alcohol outside Jackson's presence was at church.

Angel Vivanco, a former assistant chef at Neverland, testified Monday that the accuser's brother threatened to have him fired if he didn't mix liquor into a milkshake. Vivanco also recalled the accuser making rude demands at the ranch.

"Give me the (expletive) Cheetos," Vivanco recalled the accuser saying.

Vivanco, who has claimed a former romantic relationship with the accuser's sister, had difficulty Monday placing when and where certain events had occurred. He was expected to continue his testimony today.

Also Monday, two Santa Ynez Valley business people who waxed legs and removed braces for the accuser's family said the clan did not appear to be captives. The family has alleged that Jackson and others falsely imprisoned them at Neverland during February and March 2003.

Dr. Jean Seamount, a Solvang orthodontist, testified that she saw members of the family on Feb. 24, 2003, after an employee at Neverland scheduled an appointment for the accuser and his brother, who wanted their braces removed.

Seamount testified that the family did not say that they were in trouble, that they were scared, or that they needed to escape.

Los Olivos aesthetician Carole McCoy testified she gave the accuser's mother a leg, face and bikini wax on Feb. 11, 2003. The mother earlier had insisted that she only received a leg wax during the visit.

McCoy testified that the mother never said that she was being held captive during the procedure.

Neverland housekeeper Maria Gomez testified Monday that the mother of Jackson's accuser did complain she was being held captive at the ranch in early 2003, but not by Jackson.

Instead, the mother told the housekeeper that three of Jackson's associates were "interfering" with her relationship with Jackson and that she wished to leave, Gomez said.

Gomez also recalled finding an open backpack with adult magazines in the guestroom occupied by the accuser's brother. The boy earlier testified they he had not seen adult magazines outside of Jackson's presence.

The defense may call talk-show host Larry King as a witness as early as Thursday, according to Jackson spokeswoman Raymone Bain. King may testify about whether he ever heard Larry Feldman, the accuser's lawyer, say the molestation claims were fabricated by the boy's mother.

Jackson, 46, has pleaded not guilty to four counts of molesting the 13-year-old boy and four counts of administering alcohol to help him with the alleged lewd acts. He also has pleaded not guilty to the conspiracy charge involving abduction, false imprisonment and extortion and a count of attempted child molestation.

The Santa Maria Times, following its established policy, is not identifying those who allege they were abused by Jackson, even though they are being named in court.

* Staff writer Quintin Cushner can be reached at (805)739-2217 or qcushner@pulitzer.net.

May 17, 2005

Jackson guard says he caught accuser with wine
Mood:  surprised
Topic: Main News
By Associated Press


SANTA MARIA, Calif. (AP) — A security guard at Michael Jackson’s Neverland ranch testified Monday that he caught the pop star’s teenage accuser and his brother with a bottle of wine, and a maid told the jury that she saw adult magazines in the brother’s backpack.

Defense attorneys in Jackson’s child molestation trial called the Neverland employees to challenge prosecution claims that it was Jackson who exposed the children to alcohol and adult materials — suggesting instead that the boys found the items on their own.

The defense also attacked the family’s claims of being held against their will, calling witnesses who said there was no hint of captivity when the mother went to a spa.


Copyright ? 2005 The Quad-City Times



Close Window

Jackson guard says he caught accuser with wine
By Associated Press


SANTA MARIA, Calif. (AP) — A security guard at Michael Jackson’s Neverland ranch testified Monday that he caught the pop star’s teenage accuser and his brother with a bottle of wine, and a maid told the jury that she saw adult magazines in the brother’s backpack.

Defense attorneys in Jackson’s child molestation trial called the Neverland employees to challenge prosecution claims that it was Jackson who exposed the children to alcohol and adult materials — suggesting instead that the boys found the items on their own.

The defense also attacked the family’s claims of being held against their will, calling witnesses who said there was no hint of captivity when the mother went to a spa.


Copyright ? 2005 The Quad-City Times



Close Window

Motions on Witnesses Loom in Jackson Case
Mood:  blue
Topic: Main News
By TIM MOLLOY, Associated Press Writer
Mon May 16, 5:09 AM ET


Attorneys for Michael Jackson are awaiting key rulings as they proceed with defending the entertainer against child molestation charges.

The defense lawyers hope to call an employee at Jackson's Neverland ranch who they said would testify that he was told by the sister of Jackson's accuser that her mother and the mother's boyfriend were planning "something big" involving Jackson.

Prosecutors say the statements are hearsay and should not be admitted.

The defense also hopes to call Vince Amen, a former Jackson associate who received special immunity from prosecutors in exchange for his cooperation. The government, however, decided not to call Amen when his account conflicted with that of the accuser's family.

Jackson's attorneys asked the judge to clarify whether Amen's immunity would apply even if he testifies on their client's behalf. Under the "use immunity" agreement, Amen's words cannot be used against him if he is charged.

Prosecutors have named Amen as an unindicted coconspirator in an alleged plot to hold the accuser's family captive and get them to praise Jackson in an interview.

It was unclear when the judge would rule on the motions. The defense has not said who will testify Monday.

On Friday, Jackson's former attorney, Mark Geragos, defended Jackson from the witness stand, telling jurors that the singer had once denied to him that anything inappropriate happened with the accuser.

Geragos said he believed before charges were filed against Jackson that the boy's family was plotting to "shake (Jackson) down."

Geragos was scheduled to return to the stand this Friday.

Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting a 13-year-old cancer patient in February or March 2003 and plying him with wine.

He is also accused of conspiring to hold the boy's family captive to get them to make a video rebutting a documentary in which the boy appeared with him and in which Jackson told an interviewer that he let children sleep in his bed, a practice he described as nonsexual.


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

Celebrities Aid Jackson Defense
Mood:  energetic
Topic: Main News
By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent
Sun May 15, 1:49 PM ET



In the grand theater that is the Michael Jackson courtroom, a celebrity cast is lining up in defense of the pop singer, testing whether star power can help persuade jurors.

Actor Macaulay Culkin of "Home Alone" fame was first among the famous witnesses, followed a few days later by celebrity lawyer Mark Geragos. Elizabeth Taylor is on the list of possible witnesses along with Jay Leno, Chris Tucker and many others.

But there is no greater star in this tableau than Jackson himself.

An intensely personal, three-hour video interview of the singer shown to jurors has been the showstopper so far in his child molestation trial and may have supplanted the need for him to take the witness stand.

On a big screen, jurors watched Jackson in scenes left out of "Living With Michael Jackson," the Martin Bashir documentary that aired on ABC in which Jackson and the alleged victim appeared holding hands and the pop star acknowledged having innocent, nonsexual sleepovers with children.

In what can only be described as a stroke of luck, Jackson decided to have his own videographer record a backup of the interview. While Bashir's edited version brought a firestorm of bad publicity, the outtakes show Jackson as a man hurt by criticism of his lifestyle.

In the footage, Jackson occasionally powdered his famous nose or was tended to by a makeup artist. But mostly he just sat and talked. And talked.

He described his lonely childhood, his ascent to the pinnacle of superstardom and his realization that once he got to the top it was even more lonely.

He spoke of creating his Neverland ranch fantasy world as an escape to childhood.

"It's like stepping into Oz," he said. "Once you come in the gates, the outside world does not exist."

"When I was under contract to Motown," Jackson recalled in the interview, "I had to go make these albums. Across the street from the studio was a ball park. I could hear the kids playing ball and sometimes I wanted so passionately to go over there and play and I couldn't. It made me sad, very sad."

At another point, he said, "I wanted to know what it's like to have a slumber party or a buddy or a birthday party. That's why I do it now."

Jackson also talked about his bond with former child stars.

Of Taylor, he said, "We've been through the same things. She's a little girl inside. She's a wonderful person. ... It's like when I met Shirley Temple for the first time. She said, 'You're one of us, aren't you?' And I said yes."

The video was buttressed by the testimony of three young men, including Culkin, who said they visited Neverland many times and slept in Jackson's room. But it was all innocent, they said, insisting under harsh cross-examination by a prosecutor that Jackson never touched them inappropriately.

Culkin, who was 10 when he met the pop star, told of forming a special bond with Jackson that exists only among current and former child stars. Culkin said he knew he and Jackson were "part of a unique group" and it was "a very comforting thing."

Geragos also provided Jackson support, saying he discussed with his former client his practice of having children sleep in his bedroom.

"He said nothing happened. He said he didn't do anything untoward or sexual and if anyone spent the night in his room it was unconditional love," Geragos said.

Loyola Law School Professor Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor, said the Culkin testimony followed by the video was like a one-two punch.

"Michael Jackson is no dummy," she said. "He knows the courtroom is his theater. No one would pay to see (prosecutor) Tom Sneddon on Broadway."

Levenson said celebrity witnesses have an advantage in that they are great communicators. Jurors will always say they are not influenced by celebrities, but certain stars can outshine others on the witness stand, she said.

"Elizabeth Taylor is a legend," she said. "If you call a legend to the stand, well, it's like calling Elvis."



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

Jackson lawyers admit he slept with children, but say it was love, not sex
Mood:  a-ok
Topic: Main News
Sat May 14, 9:55 PM ET



After 11 weeks of trial, even Michael Jackson's lawyers don't deny their client slept with young boys, though they insist it entailed love and no sex.

Jackson himself has admitted in the past he liked sharing his bed with children, making it all the more difficult for his defense team to convince jurors at his child sex trial that he is innocent.

The lawyers hope the 12 jurors will eventually believe that the "King of Pop" is a misunderstood genius whose love for children is pure and innocent, and who, at age 46 is still like a child himself.

A criminal lawyer who worked for Jackson in 2003 testified on Friday that Jackson did indeed tell him at the time he shared his bed with children, but that it was out of "unconditional love."

Mark Geragos testified that Jackson had told him "nothing untoward, nothing sexual" happened during the sleepovers.

The prosecutors have portrayed the entertainer as a sexual predator who used porn and booze to lure young boys into his bed.

Jackson could face 20 years behind bars if he is found guilty of the 10 charges of molesting a 13-year-old cancer survivor, serving him alcohol and conspiring to kidnap him and his family two years ago.

The prosecutors also claim Jackson molested at least five young boys in the 1990s, though none of those allegations figure in the charges against him

One of those boys testified that Jackson fondled him on several occasions, but three others, including actor Macaulay Culkin, have denied claims the pop star ever behaved inappropriately when they spent time with him as young boys.

The defense argues that the current charges and the prior, uncharged claims were cooked up by money-grubbers eager to get hold of some of the entertainer's cash.

Geragos said Friday that when he started working for Jackson in February 2003, he rapidly grew suspicious of the young boy now accusing the famed father of three.

He said he hired a private investigator to engage in background searches and surveillance of the boy and his mother. "I was trying to prevent a crime against my client. I thought they were going to try to shake him down," Geragos told jurors.

The defense has maintained throughout the trial that the boy was a pawn in his mother's devious scheme to extort money from Jackson.

Jackson's lawyers have also ridiculed claims that their client had conspired with his aides to hold the boy and his family captive in a bid to force them to clear the entertainer's name amid a mounting outcry over a documentary about Jackson.

Prosecutors claim the film caused major panic in the Jackson camp amid worries it could further damage the star's fading career and dwindling finances.

Jackson's lawyers claim British journalist Martin Bashir misrepresented the pop singer, who was seen in the documentary holding hands with his future accuser and saying he enjoys sharing his bed with children.

Jurors were shown footage taken during the filming, in which Jackson is heard proclaiming his pure love for children while Bashir lavishes praise on him.

Asked whether that would be as close as jurors will get to hearing Jackson testify, his spokeswoman Raymone Bain insisted lead lawyer Thomas Mesereau has yet to decide whether to put his client on the witness stand.

Jackson, who has attended all the proceedings since the trial started with jury selection on January 31, is upbeat, said Bain.

"He feels he will be vindicated," she said.

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


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

Judge asked to strike Michael Jackson?s ex-wife?s testimony
Mood:  surprised
Topic: Main News
1 May 2005


Filed under: Hollywood News— ankit @ 9:45 am


Michael Jackson’s defense today asked the judge in his child molestation trial to strike the testimony of ex-wife Deborah Rowe but did not reveal the reason in open court.

Superior court judge Rodney S Melville told defense Attorney Robert Sanger he wanted to hear more testimony from Rowe before deciding on the request.

“She hasn’t testified long enough for me to hear what she’s going to say,” the judge said. “I understand what she said yesterday, but I don’t really know what she has to say today.”

Rowe, a prosecution witness, gave testimony on Wednesday that was favorable to Jackson but contradicted what the prosecution had promised the jury she would say about the making of a video on the pop star’s behalf.

Rowe also testified that she had not been truthful about everything in her videotaped interview but said she could not remember specific areas where she had been dishonest.

She had returned to the stand on Thursday morning when attorneys went into chambers for a private meeting. When they returned to open court, the judge discussed the motion without revealing the basis for it. Rowe then resumed testifying.

Debbie Rowe has defended the singer, while attacking his aides as “vultures” who were trying to exploit him.

Jackson is accused of molesting a 13-year-old boy in February or March 2003 and conspiring to hold the accuser’s family captive to get them to rebut the documentary that showed the singer saying he lets children sleep in his bed.

Lawyer: Jackson Said Nothing Happened
Mood:  happy
Topic: Main News
By TIM MOLLOY, Associated Press Writer
Sat May 14, 5:24 AM ET



SANTA MARIA, Calif. ? Michael Jackson's former attorney took the stand in the pop star's child molestation trial, testifying he investigated the accuser's family and became "gravely concerned" about them as a threat to his client.

Mark Geragos told jurors Friday that he had both researched the family himself and hired a private investigator to check their background. The findings, Geragos said, disturbed him.

"Michael should have nothing to do with them," he said. "It was a pending disaster."

Geragos testified under cross-examination that he had asked Jackson if the boy slept in his bed and the entertainer had answered yes.

"He said he didn't do anything untoward or sexual and if anyone spent the night in his room it was unconditional love," Geragos said.

Geragos said an initial visit to Jackson's Neverland Ranch made him worry that his client would be a prey for possible allegations.

"When I was there what I saw was a gentleman who was almost childlike in his love for kids. I didn't see anyone doing anything nefarious or criminal. I saw someone who was ripe as a target," he said.

Geragos said he was hired about the time of the February 2003 airing of a documentary in which Jackson appeared with his now-accuser. In the documentary, Jackson said that he let children sleep in his bed but that it was non-sexual.

Under questioning by Jackson attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr., Geragos said he was concerned about allegations spawned by the documentary and was particularly concerned that the boy or his family might take advantage of them.

He said he conducted database searches to see if the family had a "litigious history" and was disturbed to find they had sued J.C. Penney over allegations they were beaten by security guards. The family received a $150,000 settlement.

"I was gravely concerned," Geragos said.

Geragos said he hired a private investigator to look into the family, and the results led him to believe the family was bad news.

"Michael should have nothing to do with them," he said. "It was a pending disaster."

Mesereau asked Geragos if he was aware of any crime committed against the family. Geragos said no.

"I was trying to prevent a crime against my client," he said. "I thought that they were going to shake him down."

Geragos worked for Jackson until he was replaced in April 2004.

At one point, Geragos declined to answer a prosecution question on grounds that Jackson only waived attorney-client privilege concerning events before his arrest in November 2003, surprising Judge Rodney S. Melville and prosecutors.

The judge sent the jury out of the room to address "the misrepresentation Mr. Mesereau has made to the court and counsel." The judge said he believed it was a total waiver of the privilege.

Mesereau apologized, saying he did not think events after Jackson's arrest were relevant.

Geragos did not complete his testimony before court recessed for the weekend. The judge scheduled him to return on May 20.

Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting a 13-year-old cancer patient in February or March 2003 and plying him with wine. He is also accused of conspiring to hold the boy's family captive to get them to make a video rebutting the documentary.

Late Friday, both sides filed documents concerning potentially important testimony by a Neverland employee who claims the accuser's sister confided to him that her mother and the mother's boyfriend were planning "something big" regarding Jackson.

The witness, Angel Vivanco, whom prosecutors described as having a "quasi-sexual relationship" with the sister while she was at Neverland, would testify that the girl referred to her mother as "Psycho Mom" and said she was "not OK in the head."

Among statements he attributed to the sister were that the mother was "making her do something" and that "something bad is going to happen."

The prosecution seeks to bar the statements from the trial as hearsay. The defense says they support the theory that the family planned to allege molestation to get money from Jackson.

The mother and sister testified that the family was held against their will at Neverland.

___

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

Culkin says molestation claims ?absolutely ridiculous?
Mood:  celebratory
Topic: Main News


Child star testifies that prosecutors never spoke to him about allegations

The Associated Press
Updated: 12:04 p.m. ET May 11, 2005


SANTA MARIA, Calif. - Actor Macaulay Culkin took the stand at Michael Jackson?s child molestation trial Wednesday and denied he was molested, saying the accusations against the pop star were ?absolutely ridiculous.?

Jackson attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. asked Culkin what he thought of the charges against Jackson.

?I think they?re absolutely ridiculous,? Culkin said.

He said prosecutors never approached him about whether he had been molested and he only learned of the allegations that he had been molested by watching news coverage of the trial.

?Somebody told me you should probably check out CNN because they?re saying something about you,? Culkin said. ?I just couldn?t believe it. ... It was amazing to me that nobody even approached me and asked if these allegations were true.?

Prosecution witnesses testified earlier that Jackson inappropriately touched Culkin, who was a frequent childhood guest of Jackson. That testimony was used to allege that Jackson has a pattern of inappropriate behavior with boys.

During testimony Tuesday, the manager of Jackson?s Neverland ranch acknowledged he lied to law enforcement officials in 2003 when he said he had no knowledge of Jackson sharing his bed with children.

The testimony by Joe Marcus came during cross-examination by prosecutors, who sought to show he had lied to protect Jackson. At one point, prosecutor Gordon Auchincloss said, ?You keep looking at Mr. Jackson. Why is that??

Marcus appeared startled and didn?t answer, and a defense objection was sustained.

Auchincloss then asked Marcus if he was loyal to Jackson. He answered, ?Yes.?

Marcus acknowledged he lied when he told authorities during a November 2003 search of Neverland that he did not know about children sleeping in the singer?s bedroom.

He later added the events of that day were chaotic and ?I was overwhelmed.?

The defense called Marcus to the stand Monday to testify that he never instructed anyone to hold Jackson?s accuser and the boy?s family against their will. He suggested Tuesday no such captivity happened.

The captivity claim is part of the conspiracy portion of the case against the pop star, who is alleged to have molested a 13-year-old boy in 2003.

Prosecutors claim the singer conspired to hold the family to get them to rebut a damaging TV documentary in which the boy appeared with Jackson. They also claim Jackson associates planned to send the family on a one-way trip to Brazil.

Marcus, an 18-year employee, testified Tuesday that the family of Jackson?s accuser never objected when there were discussions about them going to Brazil. He said the only thing the boy?s family wanted to know was where to go to have passport pictures taken.

?Did you ever receive any instructions from anyone to hold the (family) against their will?? Jackson attorney Robert Sanger asked.

?No,? Marcus said.

Also Tuesday, the prosecution tried to show Jackson has more ?special friends? who are boys than girls or women.

Marcus said there were also females who were close to the star, but when asked to name them off the top of his head he could only come up with Elizabeth Taylor, Liza Minnelli, a granddaughter of Marlon Brando and Karlee Barnes, the sister of a boy who spent time at Neverland.

Auchincloss also asked whether Marcus knew Jackson had adult materials at the ranch. Marcus said no, but acknowledged that dolls in bondage attire were kept on Jackson?s desk. He called them ?artwork.?

?Do you think it?s appropriate for children to be exposed to these?? Auchincloss asked.

Marcus paused and quietly said no.

? 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
? 2005 MSNBC.com

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7816771/

Legal Analysis of Michael Jackson Trial
Mood:  sharp
Topic: Main News
CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Legal Analysis of Michael Jackson Trial

Aired May 9, 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, Michael Jackson's defense has began in his molestation trial and continues on with his friend, Macaulay Culkin, expected to testify this week. Will Jackson himself also take the stand?
We'll have the latest with Jane Velez-Mitchell of "Celebrity Justice," inside that courtroom today, as was defense attorney Michael Cardoza. Also with us is Stacey Honowitz, assistant Florida state attorney who specializes in sex crime and child abuse cases. Defense attorney Trent Copeland. Former prosecutor Chuck Smith. And Michael Jackson's spokesperson, Raymone Bain. All next on LARRY KING LIVE.

Before we start, the usual quick disclosure. Yes, I've been subpoenaed by the defense in the Michael Jackson case, and no, I cannot talk about it, covered by the judge's gag order in the trial.

Let's get on with the show. Jane Mitchell, what happened today?

JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, CELEBRITY JUSTICE: Well, Larry, a parade of Neverland employees took the stand and scored some big points for Michael Jackson. First of all, they said they never saw any inappropriate activity between the superstar and young boys. They also said that this accusing family had many, many opportunities to leave Neverland despite the fact that they said they were being held against their will. They used examples like shopping trips and a trip to the dentist's office. And finally, they painted a very, very unflattering portrait of this accusing family, saying the boys were very, very disruptive, did graffiti and things of that nature at Neverland. And they also said the mother tried to get a job as a housekeeper at Neverland, saying she needed money.

KING: Stacey Honowitz, how damaging to the prosecution all of this?

STACEY HONOWITZ, ASSISTANT FLORIDA STATE ATTORNEY, SPECIALIZES IN SEX-CRIME AND CHILD-ABUSE: Well, Larry, let me tell you something, I mean, what else could you possibly expect from Michael Jackson's people but to now come into court and say all these horrible, nasty things about the accuser and the family? The prosecution was able to cross-examine these witnesses and was able to figure out what kind of motive or bias that they might have. I mean, that's really the basis of -- that's why you call a witness. You investigate the other side to find out what kind of dirt you have on them. And that's what the prosecution did.

There was some dirt on these people. One had been fired by Michael Jackson, one had been trespassing. And it's interesting to me that one of the biggest witnesses to come forward was someone who said that these kids ran wild, they were destructive. But Jackson himself is the first one to tell you, come to my ranch, do whatever you want, you have carte blanche, and then he's upset when they're destructive and they act like boys. So I don't think the defense had such a great day in court.

KING: Michael Cardoza, it's really up to what 12 people think. Right? So we're just surmising from our own viewpoints.

MICHAEL CARDOZA, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I'll tell you, yeah, it is up to the 12 people. And remember who has the burden of proof here. It's the prosecution.

Today was an interesting day. I'll tell you, it was one of the most boring days I spent in this trial. The defense is very tediously going through their evidence. And you know, it's their case to lose right now from what happened in the prosecution's side of the case. And I'll tell you, it took almost all day to get to maybe three points.

I think one of the salient points was when the manager of Neverland got on the stand and he said, remember that note in the book up front that said, don't let the accuser off Neverland? Well, they said, look, the reason that note was up front was because he was messing around with the golf carts and we didn't want him to go off the property. And that actually came from the head of the security there.

But in fairness to the district attorney, the head of security, when asked, would you bring your children to Neverland and let her partake of this? She said, no, I wouldn't bring my children here, not to let them do what was going on at Neverland. That hurt the defense today.

KING: Chuck Smith, what do you do with the dilemma -- and there will be judge's instructions -- what if, as a member of the jury, you think Michael Jackson has harmed children, but you're not sure they've proven this case?

CHUCK SMITH, FORMER PROSECUTOR: You know, Larry, that's always a copout when I hear jurors say, well, I think he did it, but it just wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The truth is, and what the prosecutor has to hone in on with the jury is, if you think he did it, that's because he did do it. And you must have the courage to say those words "guilty." And that's the way it must happen.

If I can make also this point about this trash-the-victim testimony we heard today. The prosecution can turn that around on the defense. The prosecution can say, you know, in some ways Michael Jackson chose his victims well. He chose his victims because they are flawed people, because they are not the normal, well-adjusted children with the normal, well-adjusted mother who would never put her child in that situation. So you can defuse the attacks on her, the attacks on her children in that fashion by arguing that they are, in some ways, the perfect victims.

KING: Trent Copeland, what do you do if you sincerely as a juror believe that Michael Jackson is a threat to children, but they haven't proven this case. What do you do?

TRENT COPELAND, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, you know, look, I disagree with Chuck. I don't think it's a copout to say the prosecution hasn't proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that's honoring our judicial system.

I mean, look, they may think that Michael Jackson might have molested this young -- this young victim. They may think that Michael Jackson has engaged in inappropriate behavior and conduct with these other alleged victims. But if the prosecution doesn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, then you honor the justice system by saying...

KING: What if in your mind, they've proven it with regard to the previous cases, but not this one?

COPELAND: That's an excellent question. I think, again, you've got to really listen to the judge's instructions. He's going to tell this jury, listen, the fact that you may believe that the prosecution proved their case by way of the 1108 evidence, that is those previously alleged victims, the fact that you may believe that he committed molestation against those doesn't necessarily mean that he committed it against these boys. It makes it easier for you to believe that, but it isn't solid evidence that he committed this crime against this particular victim. So again, I think the prosecution -- they're going to have a tough time with this. I think it continues to be a defense case, as Mike Cardoza indicated a moment ago. It is still the prosecution's case to lose. I think the defense can win this case.

KING: Jane Velez-Mitchell, when do we expect Macaulay Culkin to testify?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, first reports were that he was going to testify today. And of course, he did not show up today.

Our sources are telling us that it's still possibly up in the air. With this case, nobody can predict what's going to happen from moment to moment. And some sources are saying that he may be getting cold feet because he saw what happened with the two other young men who testified, kicking off the defense case last week. And yes, they said nothing happened inappropriate between me and Michael Jackson, but in the process they had to talk about how many times they slept with Michael Jackson. And it was many, many times, too many times to count.

And that in itself was disturbing enough. And then they were grilled by prosecutors, shown adult material that was seized from Neverland and asked questions like, would you allow an adult man to sleep with a young boy who possessed these kinds of material? And so it was extremely uncomfortable. Why would Macaulay Culkin want to put himself through that? That is a question he may be asking himself tonight. So we'll have to see. He may show up Wednesday -- then again, he may not.

KING: Michael Cardoza, is he under subpoena, or is he just a voluntary witness?

CARDOZA: I understand he's under subpoena. And if he's under subpoena, he has to be there. But you've got to be careful with that, especially on the defense side. Because if you tell someone, all right, I've got you under subpoena, be here -- boy, they can turn on you like a snake in that courtroom, and it could come to bite them. So they've got to be very, very careful.

Now, getting back to what Chuck was talking about -- you know, Larry, and I've said this time and again, therein is the problem with this case. Because you know there have got to be some jurors that look at that 1108 testimony -- and remember how that works, the jury looks at that and decides by the preponderance of the evidence -- not beyond a reasonable doubt, but by a preponderance -- do they believe that. If they believe that 1108 evidence, then they have to ask themselves from that, can they draw an inference that Michael Jackson has a proclivity to commit child molestation? If they draw that inference, then they take that inference and put it with all the other evidence in the case, and then they decide beyond a reasonable doubt.

But I'll tell you, when I prosecuted and talked to jurors after, and through my life as an attorney, there are people out there that might come to the conclusion Michael Jackson's a child molester, because they believe the 1108 evidence, and they'll be darned if they're going to put him back on the street to molest another child. They will to themselves think, you know, they didn't prove it here, but I don't care about that, and that is the dilemma that the defense faces in this case. And it's a tough one.

KING: We'll take a break and be back with more. We'll also be including your phone calls. Don't go away.

(MUSIC)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back. Raymone Bain, we've now made connections with her, Michael Jackson's spokesperson in Santa Maria. The defense is under way. She told us many times, once this started, we will see the other side. How's it going from your point of view, Raymone?

RAYMONE BAIN, MICHAEL JACKSON'S SPOKESPERSON: Well, I think it's going as expected, Larry. Several people have indicated how boring it was today, and I think Tom Mesereau is strategically putting his witnesses together. In fact, I told him, I said, I'm sure I'm going to be asked, tonight, a long list of questions. And he said, well, Raymone, tell them I appreciate that, but just let me have this case in the courtroom, and I don't want to give all of my strategy out to the whole world.

But I think, Larry, that things are going well. Michael feels good about where things are right now, and we're just looking forward to Tom presenting his entire case.

KING: Does Michael have bad days?

BAIN: Well, he had a bad one today, actually. He wasn't feeling well at all.

KING: Oh.

BAIN: He showed a lot of discomfort in court, and during the break, I asked him if he were okay, and he told me he was not. He wasn't -- this was not a good day for him, physically, at all.

KING: Stacey Honowitz, can any witness for the defense be asked if they would let their children stay over at Michael Jackson's place?

HONOWITZ: Well, sure they can. I mean, it was actually asked in court today. Well, I don't know if it was actually today. But they did ask witnesses about having people stay at Michael Jackson's house. I mean, this is really a big issue in the case. It's been brought out in court already that all these kids slept over, and really, the theory of the defense is, just because he let boys sleep in his bed, doesn't mean that he ever molested them. So, certainly you should be able to ask somebody if you would allow Michael Jackson -- or you would allow your child to sleep in a bed with Michael Jackson.

KING: Do you agree, Trent?

COPELAND: No, I disagree. I don't think it's a relevant question. I think those people that Stacey's referring to who testified to that, were people who had percipient knowledge as to the environment at Neverland Ranch. Look, you know, the mother of the two Australian boys understood what happened at Neverland Ranch. They were percipient witnesses to what went on there. The maid who testified today was also asked that same question. It's because they were there.

Look, when you testify, for example, in this case, I don't think it's a fair or relevant question to ask you whether or not you'd allow your children to testify there. It's simply an irrelevant question to...

HONOWITZ: I'm not saying that they wouldn't object.

SMITH: I disagree, Trent.

HONOWITZ: I'm not saying that they wouldn't object that it's irrelevant. I'm not saying an objection wouldn't come in. But I think, because of all the issues that surround this case, and what's come out so far, I think this judge would let that question in.

COPELAND: It is not an appropriate question.

SMITH: I agree.

COPELAND: I don't think it's an appropriate question. I don't think it's a relevant question, as to whether or not, someone who's not a percipient witness to the environment at Neverland Ranch can be asked to testify as to whether they would let their own children stay there.

KING: Chuck Smith, what do you think?

SMITH: But -- I think Trent's wrong, because if these people, like Elizabeth Taylor come in, Macaulay Culkin, you know, these other witnesses, and if they say anything at all positive about Michael Jackson's character, and, certainly, we expect them to do that, that makes it fair game for the prosecution to ask them that precise question.

(CROSSTALK)

COPELAND: Well, then, I agree with you. But that's a character issue, Chuck. It is not a percipient, factual issue.

SMITH: But what else are these -- what else are witnesses testifying about?

COPELAND: It's only if -- it's only if the defense opens the door to these character issues. It's not a question as to factually percipient issues. It just isn't.

SMITH: I think it's (INAUDIBLE).

KING: Michael Cardoza, where do you stand?

CARDOZA: Well, I'll tell you what, today that evidence did come in with the head of security. I don't think it should have and in fact, the defense objected. The judge sustained it. The D.A. asked the question a little bit different way, and I've seen attorneys do that a lot. You know, the judge sustains one question. Well, let me change it up a little and ask it another way. And the D.A. did, and there it went, boom, right in.

I didn't think it was relevant either. I absolutely agree with Trent. I agree with Chuck -- if character's opened up, but it wasn't opened up here, Chuck. It wasn't opened up. But, you know, right or wrong, it's before this jury now, and I don't think it will come in with any other witnesses because they're not going to open up that character evidence. Earlier I said, you know -- I'm sorry.

KING: Go ahead, Michael.

CARDOZA: What I was saying was, earlier, I said, today was really boring, and the problem with a boring day like this, for the defense is, they had about four or five really salient points to get out in front of the jury. But I'm telling you, they were putting people to sleep in the courtroom, and when they bring out those points, it slides over the head of the jurors. I was watching those jurors. They were nodding off, as was half the audience. I tell you what, the defense better step it up and get to their points a whole lot more quickly tomorrow.

HONOWITZ: Michael, that's why it's all going to come down to closing argument in this case. You know that. These testimony's gone on...

CARDOZA: I agree with that.

HONOWITZ: ...for so long, the points are so tedious, they're not going to remember things. This whole case is going to come down to how persuasive the prosecution or the defense is in closing arguments.

KING: Raymone, do you know when...

CARDOZA: I absolutely agree with you.

KING: Raymone, do you know when Macaulay Culkin's going to testify?

BAIN: I don't know, Larry. I know he is going to, but I don't know yet when. I posed that question to Tom, and he said that, right now, he is trying to bring out more information in court, but that, at the appropriate time, Mr. Macaulay Culkin would be coming in. So, I don't think it's a issue of whether or not he is, I think it just depends now on when Tom Mesereau feels it is the right time for him to come in.

KING: Jane, will that be a big media day?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh, it's going to be huge. Macaulay Culkin is a big star, obviously. And also, I think he's going to be able to connect with the jury in ways that perhaps these first two young men were not able to. He's a communicator. He's charismatic. He knows how to make a point. So, I think it's going to be a huge day in a lot of ways.

KING: We'll take a break and be back with more. We'll be including your phone calls in a while. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KING: If you were a character witness, would you appear?

MACAULAY CULKIN, ACTOR: I guess so, but I don't -- probably not. I mean, like I said, it's crazy. And I don't really want to be a part of it, you know.

KING: But you like him.

CULKIN: I like him and he's a friend of mine. I'm not saying I wouldn't do something like that, it just hasn't been brought up, you know, brought up to me. And I don't think he would want me to either, just because, like I said, you know, if the same thing was happening to me, I wouldn't want him to do it.

KING: What reaction has happened to you from all of this?

CULKIN: What do you mean?

KING: I mean, people, how do -- do people inquire of you a lot about it?

CULKIN: Sometimes, yeah. I mean, you know, people always have like their opinions, and they always, you know, it's -- I mean, people always talk to me about him, because, you know, I'm one of these people who will tell you anything about my life, really, if you get me going, you know. And so, yeah, I mean, I freely and openly talk about him and stuff like that. But overall, he's just a good friend of mine.

KING: But you wish him well?

CULKIN: Yes, of course I do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Jane Velez-Mitchell, what's the makeup of this jury? Tell me about Santa Maria.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, Santa Maria is a rural agricultural community. This is not a place where you're going to see people with a lot of purple hair and nose rings and that sort of thing. I mean, these are farmers. These are really salt-of-the-earth people, and that's the jury that we're seeing here. Most of them are parents. There are several Latinos. There is one African-American alternate juror. These are, I think, very conscientious people. They show up every day, they've been on time. Nobody has called in sick. I think they're giving it their all. And boy, they've been asked to do a lot. This is no easy task.

KING: Trent, is that a prosecution-oriented concept that she just described that group?

COPELAND: It is. And it is a prosecution-oriented panel. Look, I mean, Vandenberg Air Force base is very near there. You know, a lot of these jurors work for the military or have family that work for the military.

KING: So you've got to be correct.

COPELAND: Really -- you know, and Jane is right. I mean, you know, I've watched this jury, and they are hard-working jurors. I don't know that I've ever seen a group of jurors that take more notes than this jury. And you know, this is a prosecution-oriented panel, I think. A very, very agrarian and rural salt-of-the-earth people.

KING: Raymone, does that concern Michael and his defense team?

BAIN: You know, it does not, Larry, because Tom Mesereau has indicated that he couldn't find what he thinks is a better group of people to judge Michael. And Michael is from around these areas. And everywhere I have gone and everywhere he's gone, Larry, people have said, oh, we love you, tell Michael hello. They tell him the same thing. There are some good people here. And he and Tom Mesereau are just looking for them to look at the facts and to make a determination based on all of the facts. And he feels that when they do that, they're going to find him innocent of the charges. But no, he is not fearful at all. This is home for him. He doesn't live far from here. So he's very accustomed to being in this area.

KING: Chuck, as a prosecutor, do you like the makeup of this jury?

SMITH: Oh, I absolutely would. And everything that I've heard certainly indicates, and my experience tells me, that's a very prosecution-oriented part of our state. I've tried cases down in Santa Maria. I chuckled a bit when I listened to Raymone put the positive spin on it, and of course, she has to and the defense has to look at it that way.

But the fascinating thing about jury trials is, it's not the community. It's those 12 people. And none of us can read those 12 people. You don't get a running scoreboard in a jury trial which confounds us trial lawyers. We may think we're far ahead, and we're not. It really comes down to those 12 folks. But what Trent said, what Michael said about that jurisdiction is just very, very true. That does not bode well for Michael Jackson. Is's not Los Angeles, it's not Oakland, it's not San Francisco. It's not where he would want to be.

KING: But Michael, you cannot forecast the jury...

BAIN: Larry?

KING: Hold it. Raymone, what were you going to say?

BAIN: But it's his home, and this is his community. And he's said on several occasions, he loves the people here and he loves living around here. And I think that they'll find out at the end of the day how things are going to work out.

HONOWITZ: But Larry, he might be a member of the community, but he's different from these people. He's different from a lot of people. But especially a jury like this. It is a prosecution- oriented jury. But he's celebrity. He's worldwide. He's well-known. These people come to the courthouse, there's throngs of people outside. So Raymone can say as much as she wants this is his home, but these aren't his people. And as Chuck said before, with a jury trial, lawyers, we never know. We can be standing in front of a jury during closing argument, they're nodding their head up and down, and 15 minutes later they come back with a not guilty. So we can try to read it as much as we want and just hope that they listen to the facts, listen to the evidence, and apply the law and, you know, come out with a fair and just verdict.

KING: Every trial lawyer worth his salt, Michael Cardoza, every trial lawyer worth his salt has always told me you can never forecast a jury verdict.

CARDOZA: I tell you what, I've been doing this for 30 years. I bet I've tried over 250 jury trials. There is no way you know what a juror is thinking. I'll tell you one thing that surprised me -- and maybe it didn't surprise me. One of the jurors I've talked to -- juries I've talked to after I got a verdict, two of them were standing there, and they said, you know, I thought -- to each other -- I know I thought you were thinking this during the whole trial. We go into the jury room, and you said the exact opposite of what I thought you were thinking.

So even the jurors don't know what the other jurors are saying. You know, but what's interesting here is, I don't know if everybody knows this, they have three 20-year-olds on this panel, not -- between 20 and 30, only one 30-year-old, three 40-year-olds, and then it goes two 50-year-olds, two 60-year-olds and one 70-year-old. So certainly, they go across the board in age. And I'm wondering how all those age groups -- because remember, they all think differently, they come from different generations, especially those three that are between the 20 and 30 age group. It's going to be interesting to see if they can work together.

KING: Trent, this could be hung, couldn't it?

COPELAND: Yeah. I mean, you know, look, if there was a case that was, you know, tailor-made for a hung jury, with these jurors, you know, albeit working very hard, very diligently trying to reach a verdict, could not reach a consensus, this is that case. I mean, there are so many pieces of evidence that could cut either way. And the judge is going to tell this jury, look, I want you to work as hard as you can, but if you can't reach a decision, you cannot reach a consensus, then, you know, you let me know then. I think, you know, this could very well be that kind of case.

KING: What concerns -- Raymone, what concerns you the most?

BAIN: Well, what concerns all of us is the fact that, you know, we're hoping that people will just be patient and let all of the facts come out. The defense has been arguing its case now for about three days. And so we're confident, Larry, that when all of the facts come out...

KING: I know that. But what are you concerned about?

BAIN: ... it won't be a hung jury.

KING: What are you most concerned about?

BAIN: Well, most concerned about the physical wear and tear that it's having on Michael. It is -- his schedule is pretty vigorous. And I'm just hoping that his back and his health will hold up throughout the trial because he was not...

KING: Any danger it might not?

BAIN: Well, no. I mean, you know, back pains are excruciating sometimes, and today he was not feeling well.

KING: We'll take a break, and when we come back we'll include your phone calls. We'll re-introduce our panel as well. You're watching LARRY KING LIVE.

You know, "Everybody Loves Raymond," one of the great sitcoms in the history of this media is in its waning days, its last year. Voluntarily, by the way, not because of ratings. The cast will be on tomorrow night. We'll be right back.

(MUSIC)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Reintroduce our panel. In Santa Maria, Jane Velez- Mitchell, correspondent with "Celebrity Justice." She's been covering the Jackson trial.

Also in Santa Maria is Michael Cardoza, defense attorney and former Alameda County prosecutor. Both were at the trial today.

In Miami, Stacey Honowitz, assistant fraud state attorney, sex, crimes and child abuse.

In Los Angeles is Trent Copeland defense attorney.

In San Francisco is Chuck Smith. Chuck is the former San Mateo County prosecutor and currently in private practice.

And in Santa Maria is Raymone Bain, spokesperson for Michael Jackson.

And we go to Alexandria, Virginia. Hello.

CALLER: Good evening.

KING: Hi.

CALLER: My question is if Michael Jackson is convicted of these charges, what would be the likelihood of this case being overturned due to the admittance of the 1108 evidence? And if that does happen, what do your panelists think about Michael Jackson relationship would be children if the case is overturned due to the admission of the 1108 evidence.

KING: Michael, that's far down the road, but what do you think?

CARDOZA: If he is convicted and if it does go up on appeal, there's a real good chance that it might be reversed. Because that's such fertile ground on appeal, especially with some of the appellate courts here in California. And I didn't hear the second half of his question. I'm sorry.

KING: I think the second half dealt with what would happen to him if it were reversed? What would his stature in the community be if they were convicted and then reversed?

CARDOZA: I got to tell you, you know, one of the things that I thought about all through this trial, remember, Tom Sneddon, the district attorney here, is running out. He's going to run again in this county. He's been looking and he's had Michael Jackson in his crosshairs since '93/'94 when that other case settled for what the $20 million. So here we come to 2005. And I'll tell you what, I got to think at some point and Sneddon's got to be thinking, even if I lose this case I'm certainly dirtying up Michael Jackson. I'm giving a lot of people pause to think about him. Basically he could be ruining Michael Jackson. So this has a very deleterious effect on him.

KING: Stacey, would you think that way?

HONOWITZ: Well, as to the first part of the question, I agree with Michael. This 1108 evidence is the exact reason why people -- it goes up on appeal and there's good grounds to reverse. And it's very difficult evidence for the appellate court to look at. But with regard to his stature if he gets convicted, listen the waters had already been dirtied and muddied way before this case ever got to trial.

After the '93 case and the allegations that came forward afterwards, Michael Jackson's career and his life has never been the same. So even if he's acquitted on these charges, which the likelihood, I guess, is varied. You could say it's 50-50 at this point whether he'd be acquitted. His career and his situation with children should be over, because if he is acquitted, maybe she should learn a lesson from something like this. So as far as his life, his career, his music, I don't know what that's going to be like. I think that's already a problem. But as far as him taking children on tour, finding children to bring to his house, I think it's time to put an end to that.

KING: Yes, that's over.

Trent Copeland, what would you be concerned about if you were the defense here.

COPELAND: Well, look, I know that Raymone found it difficult to say anything that she'd be concerned about. But I am a defense lawyer, I am concerned, Larry. And I'm concerned not just about the evidence that coming in the case. And lawyer here on the panel will tell you, that a defense lawyer's position is not just to be concerned about what pieces of evidence come in, but also you're concerned about the psychology in the courtroom.

You want to condition this jury to understand and to believe and to accept your version of the facts. And I'm concerned, if I'm Tom Mesereau, I am concerned about the psychology in this courtroom, particularly in as much as it has been affected by those two Australian boys who had to come into the courtroom and who had conceded -- one of whom conceded that he had slept with Michael Jackson for 365 days.

Now, whether Michael Jackson molested him or not, and the facts simply in my view have not borne out that he did. The reality is that clearly must have impacted this jury. I mean, you don't leave this courtroom having heard that, that a grown man wanted to sleep with someone 365 days. I mean, sometimes traveling salesmen don't sleep with their wives for 365 days of a year. The truth is that there's a problem here. And that is a psychological problem that this jury has to face and reconcile.

KING: Chuck Smith, the great lawyer, before we talk another call, the lawyer Edward Bennett Williams was a dear friend of mine. He told me once that the trial lawyer has only one goal -- put the jury in the client's shoes. If you can put the jury in your client's shoes, you walk. Can they do that in this case?

SMITH: Well, sure, they can. And I share with you great admiration for Edward Bennett Williams. He's one of my heroes. The book about him, "The Man to See," was one of the great books. Every lawyer should read it. But that's what they have to do. But I think and we heard earlier, a couple of our panelists will say, this case will come down to closing argument, I disagree. The case, I think, will come down to Michael Jackson, who I believe is going to testify. His attorney Tom Mesereau certainly said that in his opening statement, suggested that Michael was going to testify. Michael can win it, and obviously, Michael can lose it. That's what it's going to come down to. But Michael -- if Michael comes across well, he does precisely what you described. He allows the jury to put themselves in his shoes and see from the defense standpoint, the injustice of all of this. But if he doesn't and they dislike him, very easy to convict.

KING: We'll be right back and get right back to more calls. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back. Monticello, Kentucky. Hello.

CALLER: Yes, good evening, Larry.

KING: Hi.

CALLER: Nice to hear you again. And I watch you every night. You're very informative.

KING: Thank you. What's the question?

CALLER: I would like to know what the significance of the umbrella is? And also, I would like to know if Michael has much back trouble? I have back trouble also.

KING: Yes, he has back trouble. But what's the umbrella about, Raymone?

BAIN: It's for security purposes, Larry, and I've been swarmed by his head of security that I will not say anything about that. But let me just say it's not just for the sun, but it's for security purposes.

KING: There's a gun in it or something?

BAIN: Well...

KING: That fires pellets? BAIN: Well, Michael has -- Michael has been threatened quite a bit. I don't know whether -- some has been made public, some hasn't. But the use of the umbrellas have been used as a security measure as well, Larry, but I can't get into it.

KING: Good to know. I didn't know that. Sellersburg, Indiana, hello.

CALLER: Hi. My question is for Mark Cardoza.

KING: Michael, yes, go ahead.

CALLER: The -- it was brought up in today that the maid said that the accuser's mom asked about a job. I was wondering, if they went into a time line. When was she asked about it? Was it before or after she was supposedly held against her will?

CARDOZA: It was when she first came to Neverland. She first visited Neverland with her family. She went to the head of the maid service and said, you know, I'm really looking for a job. We really need money, and the maid felt very uncomfortable. She -- the maid testified today, and said, you know, I feel real uncomfortable with this. There are really no jobs available. There's a long list. And then, the accuser's mother said, you know, I'm willing to sleep in my car. She didn't even own a car at the time.

So, I think that sort of cuts both ways. It certainly shows the accuser's mother and the family's need for money. It also shows that, you know, she's willing to work. So, you can interpret that as you will.

KING: San Diego, hello.

CALLER: Hey, how you doing?

KING: Hi.

CALLER: What is the possibility that, in the beginning, when he started Neverland, that he had good intentions, innocent intentions, and then eventually he uncovered his true feelings and what he wanted to do and maybe it is just this boy, and maybe another boy. Maybe he actually did have an innocent relationship with the other people and that's what's confusing everything in this case, and that's why he's able to hold such an innocent face and stand by his word by saying that he's innocent, because 90 percent of the time he is.

KING: Jane, you buy that? Do it with some, not with others?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, these cases, they stem way back, more than a decade. I mean, some of these earlier cases that we've been talking about. I think the fundamental question of this entire trial and, indeed of Michael Jackson's life, is why does he sleep with boys? Nobody's denying that he does that. Now, we've heard the man-child defense for wanting to play with children and run around Neverland, but we still have not gotten a good answer to that question, and that is really the big elephant in the room. And until the defense comes up with a good answer to that question, I think it's going to be dangerous territory in the courtroom for Michael Jackson, and perhaps Michael Jackson is the only one who can answer that question.

KING: You're shaking your head, Trent?

HONOWITZ: But, Jane -- seriously, Jane, what could ever be a good answer for that? I mean, you said, like, we're waiting for the good answer. What is a good answer for a man, 45 years old, sleeping with kids? I mean, you know...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Maybe there is no good answer. Maybe that's the answer. Maybe there is no answer.

BAIN: Michael Jackson has said he's not a child molester, and you ought to believe him at what he said. Michael Jackson has said he's not a child molester and his defense is going to prove that, and I think maybe we should just put some brakes on and wait for that to come out here.

KING: Trent, what did you want to talk -- hold...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But I have to interject, if he says that it's not sexual, then what is it? What's the reason?

COPELAND: Well, I, you know...

KING: Trent?

COPELAND: Larry, very quickly, what I was going to say is, with response to that question's call -- that caller's question -- no, I don't think that is possible, and that would really cut against what the prosecution's been trying to prove, and that is, you know, once a pedophile, you're always a pedophile, and it's not likely that he would have been able to sleep with these earlier boys that he slept with, and not have engaged in some inappropriate conduct because, according to the prosecution, I mean, look, pedophiles strike and they strike often.

KING: Raymone, is it a fair question to ask, why does he sleep with boys at all?

BAIN: Oh, I think it's a fair question, Larry, and I think that he has answered that. And -- Michael Jackson looks at things quite differently than we do. He looks at things far more, as I said today, with rose-colored glasses. Michael Jackson, you would have to know him to realize the innocence of Michael Jackson, and that's very humorous, I guess, to some people who don't know him.

But he doesn't look at things the way you and I might look at things sometimes. But he knows and all of us know, in his team, that he is not a child molester. Now, whether you want to question whether or not it's a proper or the ethical thing to do, with regards to him sleeping with kids, OK, that's something else. But he is not on trial for that. He is on trial for sexual molestation and he did not do that. COPELAND: You know, Raymone, even you would concede that Michael Jackson, even in that statement that he gave before the trial began, where he asked for everyone to keep an open mind, he said he'd never put himself in that position. So he's clearly, even tacitly so, acknowledged that this is probably behavior that has gotten him in pretty hot water, and he doesn't intend to engage in it again. So I don't think it's a surprise for even him that this is probably conduct that he shouldn't do.

BAIN: And you're absolutely right. In his statement that the judge approved prior to the case beginning, Michael Jackson said he would never place himself in a position like this, a vulnerable position like this. So therefore, yes, he's probably acknowledging the fact that some of the decisions that he had made in the past might not have been the wisest decisions. I don't know.

But, all I know is that we are, right now, right here, at this time, the defense is presenting its case, and whether Michael Jackson will take the stand and let the whole world know how he feels about it or answer the questions, I think we need to wait on that.

KING: All right, let me get a break in. We'll come right back with more and more calls. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Why do you think he likes young people?

CULKIN: It's because -- because the same reason why he liked me, was the fact that I didn't care who he was. That was the thing. I talked to him like he was a normal human being, and that's what -- and kids do that to him because he's not -- I mean, he's Michael Jackson the pop singer, but he's not the god of, you know, the king of pop or anything like that. He's just, you know, a guy who is actually very kid-like himself and wants to go out there and he wants to play video games with you.

KING: Did your parents encourage it?

CULKIN: Um, they weren't against it. It wasn't like they encouraged it, or really pushing me upon it. It was just kind of like, I wanted to hang out with him, and they were fine with it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CULKIN: Nothing happened. You know, nothing, really. I mean, we played video games, you know? We, you know, played at the amusement park.

KING: (INAUDIBLE) in the bed?

CULKIN: Well, the thing is -- the thing is, with that whole thing, is that, you know, they've -- oh, you slept in the same bedroom as him. It's like, I don't think you understand. Michael Jackson's bedroom is two stories and has, like, three bathrooms and this and that. So, when I slept in his bedroom, yes, but you have to understand the whole scenario.

And, the thing is, with Michael, is that he's not very good at explaining himself, and he never really has been, because he's not a very social person. I mean, he's -- you're talking about someone who has been sheltered and sheltering himself, also, for the last, like, 30 years, or, you know. And, so, he's not very good at communicating to people -- not very good at conveying what he's actually trying to say to you. And so, when he says something like that, you know, people -- you know, he doesn't quite understand why people react the way that they do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Alta Vista, Virginia. Hello.

CALLER: Hello. My question is...

KING: Hello?

CALLER: Hello?

KING: Yes, are you there?

CALLER: Yes, I am.

KING: Go ahead.

CALLER: OK, my question is to you, Larry. When Macaulay, just the part you showed right there...

KING: Yeah.

CALLER: ...OK? He never admitted to sleeping with Jackson, and I was wondering how come you didn't challenge him. (INAUDIBLE) that Michael Jackson said...

KING: He did say -- I think he did say -- what did he say? I thought he did say that.

COPELAND: Well, he said he slept with him. He said, you know..

KING: He did.

COPELAND: ...of course, not -- you know, that's not the only thing he said. He also said that his brother and sister also slept with Michael Jackson as well, so...

KING: Yes. I don't know what the viewer was watching, but I know he did say that.

Toronto, hello.

CALLER: Hello.

KING: Toronto. Yeah, go ahead.

CALLER: Hi, Larry. My question is for Raymone. When the trial is over and if Michael Jackson is found innocent, can Michael Jackson sue members of the media for slander?

BAIN: Well, I don't know whether or not Michael has thought about any of that personally. I think what he wants to do right now, frankly, is get through this case. There have been a lot of horrible things said about Michael. He has been vilified quite a bit. But you know what? He's just looking straight ahead, wanting to get through this case, and then he'll have his options later as to what he wants to do.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Stacey, if he were to sue the media, though, then he'd be open to depositions and civil -- that would be the worst thing he could do, right?

HONOWITZ: Yeah. He'd open himself up. And in order for him to prove that, he's a public figure, he'd have to show malice. He's never going to get anybody on a slander rap. Believe me, for the media coming out and talking about it. So he could try to sue, but it's never going to happen.

BAIN: (INAUDIBLE) close to it.

KING: What did you say, Raymone?

BAIN: I said there are two or three that would come very close to it, Larry.

HONOWITZ: No.

SMITH: No way, no chance.

BAIN: I'm sorry but...

KING: You don't think anybody slandered him, Michael?

SMITH: This was Chuck speaking.

CARDOZA: Do I think anybody's...

KING: Oh, I'm sorry, Chuck. You don't think anybody, any media figures have slandered Michael?

SMITH: No. And the freedom of the press overwhelms all that. Everything that's been (INAUDIBLE) reported...

BAIN: Well, I disagree about that.

SMITH: The freedom of the press will prevail, as it should prevail. The First Amendment will prevail, as it should prevail. Michael can be acquitted and Michael would be dreaming if he thinks he has got a slander suit or defamation suit against anybody.

BAIN: Well, first of all, it was a caller to ask if Michael would consider it, and I said that Michael hasn't even thought about that. That's the first thing. So don't put words in Michael's mouth. He hasn't said he's going to sue anybody.

But what I have said is that, yes, there have been definitely some people in the media who have slandered Michael Jackson. And they've known that the facts have been incorrect. But I think that when this case is over, Michael Jackson is going to want to take time with his family, his friends, his children, and he is not going to want to look at going into another court again real soon.

KING: We'll take a break and be back with more of our panel and more phone calls. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Ottawa, Canada, hello.

CALLER: A question for Trent Copeland or Michael Cardoza. Would they agree that children are good liars, since they don't have a developed conscience and that no judge or jury can really tell whether a witness is telling the truth or not? And also, what difference is there between Michael Jackson and Cub or Scout masters and Little League coaches and camp counselors, who all say they enjoy being with young children, and even sleep with them in camp sometimes, except that Michael Jackson is restricted to his property because he's a celebrity?

KING: Trent?

COPELAND: Well, that's loaded. Let me see if I can take them in order.

With respect to whether or not children are good liars, I tend to disagree with that. I think children for the most part do not possess the same kind of moxie that adults have. I don't think they've been scarred by time and circumstances. I think most children tend to tell the truth, particularly if it's in their best interests not to lie or fabricate.

Now, in terms of whether Michael Jackson is any different than a Scout master or any different than these other -- I think that's a reasonable argument the defense may make. I think the inference being that simply because you spend a lot of time with boys, simply because you enjoy doing youthful things with young boys doesn't necessarily make you a child molester. So I think that's a reasonable defense argument. I would think that the defense would probably hope that this jury becomes over time, after this systematic cross-examination of their witnesses, the prosecution's witnesses, I think they'll hope that the jury understands that.

KING: Stacey, you said earlier this case -- hold it. Stacey, you said earlier this case is 50-50. You feel like it absolutely could go either way? HONOWITZ: Absolutely, Larry. I really do think that it is going to come down to these closing arguments. I think on both sides, you have witnesses who have a lot of baggage. But I think -- I want to say something about what Trent just said. And he talked about what the defense has to do in this case is really just talk about just because you're sleeping with children or spending time with children doesn't make you a child molester. But I think the important issues that we have to look at in this case is we're not just talking about sleeping with children. We have to couple everything, factor everything in as evidence in this case.

The porno magazines, the -- all the magazines that came in, the 1108 evidence. The witnesses that saw things going on. All these taken together is enough to prove Michael Jackson, beyond to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.

So right now I think it does stand 50-50. The defense has not put on their case. And I think a lot of it is going to come down to whether or not Michael Jackson takes that stand. I think he makes a big mistake, he opens himself up to a lot. And just like in your interview with Macaulay Culkin that you kept showing through the show, he said he's not a good communicator. He's not social. And I think that's going to play a very big part if he takes the stand.

He's not a good communicator. He's shy. And under Sneddon's cross-examination, he might not hold up trying to explain away all of these prior allegations.

KING: Michael Cardoza, does he come down to the fear that if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, the jury is going to think it's a duck?

CARDOZA: You know, I got to tell you, when those 12 people walk into the jury room, which one, if not more than one says, wait a minute, he went down to Santa Monica, he spent 60 nights -- now, remember, this isn't at Jackson's Neverland. This is in a house in Santa Monica, 60 nights with Jordy Chandler in his bedroom. He spent 365 nights with one of the boys from Australia, Robson. Somebody's going to say, hey, what was he doing in the bedroom behind closed doors for all those nights? What's the answer to that?

That's a tough question. I got to think some juror is going to say, you expect me to believe nothing happened there? And there is the problem for the defense.

I analogize it to the Laci Peterson case. Remember, the body ended up in the bay where Scott Peterson went fishing. The defense did not come up with an answer to that.

The defense better come up with an answer to what's going on in that bedroom. Michael Jackson doesn't have to bring it forward. But they better have a logical, rational explanation for that, or some of those jurors are going to say, he's guilty of this.

KING: All right, thank you all very much. Jane Velez-Mitchell, Michael Cardoza, Stacey Honowitz, Trent Copeland, Chuck Smith and Raymone Bain.

Panel Discusses Michael Jackson Trial
Mood:  incredulous
Topic: Main News
CNN LARRY KING LIVE


Aired April 27, 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, high drama in Michael Jackson's molestation trial as his ex-wife, Debbie Rowe, testifies for the prosecution. Did the mother of two of his children reveal any secrets? And why did the defense move for a mistrial today before Debbie Rowe even took the stand?

We've got all the answers with CNN's Ted Rowlands, an eyewitness inside the courtroom, as was Jane Velez-Mitchell of Celebrity Justice. Plus, Michael Jackson spokesperson Raymone Bain. Stacey Honowitz, assistant Florida state attorney who specializes in sex crime and child abuses cases. And high profile defense attorney, Michael Cardoza who was also in the courtroom today. They're all next on LARRY KING LIVE.

(on camera): One note before we start. There is a President Bush press conference tomorrow. It starts at 8:30 Eastern. We'll be on following that conference with a full hour of LARRY KING LIVE. That'll be on tomorrow night following the Bush press conference which will probably be around 9:30, that it will end.

Ted Rowlands, what, what -- how long was she on the stand? What happened today?

TED ROWLANDS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: She was on the stand for 40 minutes at the end of the day. And when she got on the stand, she said things that took -- a couple things that took a lot of people by surprise.

She was expected to come on and say that the interview that she did on Michael Jackson's behalf, or this rebuttal video, which is at the center of this conspiracy charge against Jackson, was scripted. She was expected to come on and say I was told what to say for this video. That did not happen.

She came on and said that she said she had no guidance as to what to say. In fact, she even said nobody tells me what to say. She said she didn't look at the questions.

Clearly, it's a complete reversal of what Tom Sneddon said to jurors in his opening statements. In opening statements he told jurors that Debbie Rowe would come on and say that her interview was scripted just as the accuser's mother was scripted. That didn't happen.

Whether prosecutors knew she was going to do this or not, it's tough to say. But clearly she didn't go along with what she was supposed to say if you look at the opening statements. She did say that Michael Jackson called her -- or talked to her personally and asked for her involvement. That's first time Jackson has been directly involved with this video production. And she also said later that she actually lied during her testimony -- or during her videotaping at times saying that she lied. Wasn't told what to say, but she did lie when talking about Jackson's parenting skills. That's when things got cut off. She'll be back on the stand when court resumes in the morning.

KING: Jane Velez, was the prosecution -- did they look surprised?

JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, CELEBRITY JUSTICE: The media was about to keel over. The prosecution sort of acted as if and didn't reveal whether they were horribly disappointed. But we in the media were looking at each other, did we hear what they said right? Because we were led to believe she was going to talk about this scripted interview, and then she says the exact opposite. And either this is a case of a wishful thinking on the part of the prosecution team or she went south on them.

And you have to ask why. Did somebody get to her? Did somebody offer her something? Or did she get on the witness stand, take one look at Michael Jackson, her old love -- And I use that term loosely -- and melt? And I personally think that's what happened.

She's known to have had an obsession with him for years, way back when she was his nurse back in the '80s. She had her walls reportedly postered with his posters. And I think that she still has a soft spot in her heart for him. And it came out today.

KING: Would you say, Michael Cardoza, this was a big day for the defense?

MICHAEL CARDOZA, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You know, was it a big day for the defense? In part it was. It could get bigger tomorrow with more testimony from Debbie Rowe. Because, as Jane said, when she came on the stand and said no, it wasn't scripted, that took us, as Jane said, by surprise.

I don't think it took the district attorneys by surprise. If it did, I would think they would have immediately attacked her and said, wait a minute, didn't you tell us before that it was scripted? Why are you changing your mind now? And try and show maybe some Jackson influence there. They didn't do that, so they had to know.

But then going back to this morning when Moselehi testified -- he was the videographer -- I was really shocked at one small thing the district attorneys did. They asked him, whose phone number is this here? And he said, oh, that's my phone number. And I thought as an ex-district attorney, why didn't you guys know that? Aren't you preparing these witnesses before you put them on the stand? So, really, I don't know what's going on with them right now with the witnesses they put up there.

KING: Let's stay with the Debbie Rowe angle. Stacey, you're a prosecutor, did they specifically say that that's what she would testify to?

STACEY HONOWITZ, PROSECUTOR: Well Larry, as I know it, the testimony -- not the testimony, but Sneddon said in his opening statement, you're going to hear Debbie Rowe take the stand and she's going to say that this is all scripted. And that's the problem sometimes that both prosecutors and defense attorneys get in trouble with. They make promises in the opening statement that they can't deliver.

But I don't think you'd ever see the prosecutors sweat. You're not going to have a face in the jury where you can't believe what the witness said. And as Michael said, if they had any idea -- if they didn't have any idea what was going to happen, they would have attacked her. So they probably knew that she was going to testify in this manner.

KING: But didn't they brief her, Stacey?

HONOWITZ: Of course, they did. Of course they spoke to her.

But you know what, Larry? You can brief a witness all day long, all year long and the dynamics once you get in a courtroom always change.

As Jane said, maybe she melted when she saw him. I don't think that's the case.

And quite frankly, I don't think that this testimony was so terrible. I think tomorrow you're going to see that they're going to delve more into the questioning about whether or not she was told what to say. She wasn't going to show up and say that he was this horrible person. She was getting paid and living in Beverly Hills from him.

KING: Ted Rowlands was your -- how did the jury react?

ROWLANDS: Well, they were taking notes. And whether or not jurors remember the opening statements and remember what Debbie Rowe was supposed to say is unclear. But you could be sure that in closing arguments, Thomas Mesereau will remind them and then go back and look at it. And they will see a discrepancy there.

So I don't know that the jury was flabbergasted by anything she said -- or surprised. But they were definitely intent on listening to her.

She has instant credibility. She's the ex-wife of Michael Jackson and the mother of two of his three children. So, they definitely took note to everything she said.

And she actually broke down at one point when talking about Michael. Prosecutors said, why do you want to be reacquainted with Michael Jackson? And she -- her voice quivered and she said, because he's my friend.

Clearly she showed to this jury that she has a lot of deep feelings for Michael Jackson. And looking towards tomorrow, it's very unclear which side this witness is really going to help.

KING: Jane, at this point, couldn't we say just as an observer, why was she called?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know, it beats me. Because obviously, she's a very dramatic witness. And it builds up expectations. And then when she gets on the stand and deflates them, I think it really does hurt the prosecution.

Now, she did say that she told some untruths on that rebuttal tape. And she says particularly about Michael Jackson's parenting skills. And then, like a dramatic cliffhanger, the day ended.

So she could get on tomorrow and say, I lied about this, I lied about that, I lied about this. And it could end up being a good day for prosecutors.

But I think what Ted said was very significant. When she cried was when she talked about being Michael Jackson's friend. It wasn't when she was talking about her own children. And I think that that really goes to her psychological basis, that even though she's supposedly Jackson's enemy locked in a bitter custody dispute with him in Los Angeles, there's a part of her that still wants to please Michael Jackson. And what better way than to be the unexpected heroine of this entire trial for the defense and not give the prosecution what it wants?

KING: We'll take a break and be back with more and then we'll have Stacey pick up on that. Well be including your calls later. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back. Stacey Honowitz, you were going to say something?

HONOWITZ: Yes, Larry, when Jane was talking about -- you asked her about, why it was crucial that Debbie Rowe -- or why did they even have to call her? What you have to remember is, all throughout this trial, everybody has been saying, where's the connection between Jackson and the ability to make this video? It's his associates that have been doing it, and this is the first time that you have heard that Jackson himself has been intimately involved. Because her testimony was, Michael Jackson called her directly on the phone and said, I need your help in making this video. And that's actually the first time we've actually been able to tie him in. So, it's crucial. It's important testimony.

KING: I got you.

CARDOZA: Larry?

KING: Well, Michael Cardoza, why is that incriminating? Anyone would do that in this case. It may...

CARDOZA: It's not. That's exactly what I was think thinking, Larry. I mean, if it were you or I in this situation, we'd reach out to our friends, and say, hey, help me here, will you? Reach out to the ex-wife in that situation and say, you know, I really need your help. Would you mind doing this for me? In this case, Debbie said no, and then she turns around and sort of throws it back at the D.A.s, says it wasn't scripted. So, she is helping Michael. I don't find that unusual at all. But, here's the caveat. She seems to care for Michael, like everyone has said. If she says some things to hurt Michael, that's going to make her much more believable to this jury because of that.

KING: Ted, what was Jackson's reaction while she was saying these things?

ROWLANDS: He didn't seem to have any visible reaction. It was hard to tell. A lot of times, it is hard to tell how he's reacted. When he's very angry with a witness, he'll actually shake his head and look at him, and you can tell that he disagrees with them and he's sort of sending a message to the jury that they're lying. But today, either didn't seem to be that one moment of eye contact between the two, that a lot of times does happen when a witness first gets on. So, I didn't see any clear reaction from Michael.

One thing that should be pointed out about Jackson's involvement of getting Debbie Rowe involved in this videotape -- he wasn't the one that made the first call. He didn't call her up and say, hey, Debbie, it's Michael. I'm running the show here. In fact, another associate called her first, and then, Debbie Rowe said that Jackson had to be tracked down in Europe. It took 30 minutes, and then he got on the phone for two-and-a-half minutes, giving the impression that the underling said, hey, Michael, you have to make this call. He did it and that was about it. So, did it come across as though Jackson is at the head of this conspiracy? I don't know. But it at least did bring him name into it for first time.

KING: Jane -- Jane Velez-Mitchell, what's this mistrial request? What happened?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ah, well, this isn't the first time the defense has asked for a mistrial. They've done it several times before, all obviously turned down. And it was kind of an arcane subject: the deputy D.A. brought up an issue that the judge had said was off- limits when he was questioning Havid Musalahi (ph), Michael Jackson's former videographer. But I think the bigger point is that this is the defense team's way of intimidating the prosecution team, that they have to really watch what they say, because if they cross the line, they're going to always ask for a mistrial. I think it's a psychological mind-game that the defense team plays with the prosecution team to sort of put them in a fear-based position, so that they're a little tentative, and I think it could be working.

KING: Stacey, was the videographer effective?

HONOWITZ: I mean, you know, you could look at it both ways. I mean, he was effective to a certain extent. For the most part, I don't think it really added much to the case. I don't think it really proved any material fact in evidence in this case to make it more probative that Michael Jackson was involved in all this. But it's interesting.

I just want to touch on one thing. It's not intimidating the prosecution that you're making motions for mistrial. In every criminal case, this is exactly what goes on. It's the defense's job to make sure that the prosecution watch their boundaries, watches their step. So, it's not an intimidating factor. That's what you're going to do. You're acting on the best interests of your client. You will move for a mistrial. So, it's not unusual in this case that that's what Mesereau is doing.

KING: Michael, as a defense attorney, how would you deal with Debbie Rowe?

CARDOZA: I'll tell you what -- you've got to be very careful. One thing that I did note and one thing that told me, right from the get-go, that this witness is important to the defense and they're worried about her is, when she hit that stand, Mesereau slid forward in his seat. You could see his body tighten from behind. He was very vigilant in his objections: about every other question was objected to, and he hasn't done that with any other witness, that I recall, in this case.

Now, one strategy is you're going to throw Debbie off of telling her story. But more than that, Mesereau wants to control her because even he doesn't know what she's going to say here. So he's walking a fine line, and I could just tell -- just the way he moved, just the way he objected -- he's worried about her.

KING: Does he play it rough or nice?

CARDOZA: He's playing it nice right now. Will he play -- it really depends on her. As a defense attorney, you get up and you start asking questions; if she starts coming back at you, and she turns the game into a rough game, then you can get after her that way. I think he's going to play it very nice with her, because, remember, if he's smart -- and I know he is -- he knows that she likes Michael Jackson. Why would you attack her, make her upset with you, recoil from you and get in a fight with you? Heck, you do it very gently, very nicely, and then quietly tell her, you answer my questions the right way, you're helping a guy you really like. I think that strategy would work a whole lot more for him.

KING: Ted, these people from Verizon, Pac Bell, Cingular -- do they seem to help the mother's side of the story?

ROWLANDS: Well, they didn't really help anything yet. All they did was come in as custodians of the records and get the records -- all these phone records -- into evidence. But, clearly, some of these phone records could help prosecutors do what they have been unable to do so far, and that is, maybe tie Jackson into the conspiracy, using phone records, if the number of calls were made at this time to here, here and here, Jackson had to be involved.

So, it's unclear how effective these records are going to be. Everybody had to sit through hours, though, today, of them -- getting them into evidence. KING: We'll take a break and be right back. At the bottom of the hour, we'll be including your phone calls. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As word spread of an impending wedding, Jackson returned to his hotel from his first Australian concert.

QUESTION: Michael, is it true you're planning on getting married? Are you getting married?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's been speculation for days Jackson was planning to marry his pregnant girlfriend Debbie Rowe. After last night's concert, the rumors appeared to have become fact, his production company in the United States confirming the marriage in a brief press release.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back. Raymone Bain, by the way, Michael Jackson's spokesperson will be joining us in about seven minutes at the bottom of the hour.

Ted Rowlands, there's something rather puzzling. Jane, I think, said that jurors may forget what was said in the opening remarks. But Mr. Mesereau two or three times said "Jackson will tell you." Don't you think they'll remember that?

ROWLANDS: Yes, clearly. And I think that there's a very good chance, although everybody else disagrees with me, that Michael Jackson will take the stand here. I believe that Michael Jackson could get up there, deny the molestation, deny all of these things that he's accused of and, you know, he's already been featured on this tape looking strange. And his explanation for spending time with boys was edited in the Bashir video, according to the defense. He'll get up there and give the full explanation.

So I think that there's a good chance. It's a he said case that the court here, all this conspiracy mess has been so convoluted that I think jurors are being distracted by it. And quite frankly, the conspiracy side of this case has gone nowhere. Because at the core of it was the accuser's mother, she bombed on the stand. Today Debbie Rowe did not corroborate the stories that there was a conspiracy with this videotape. I think that, for all practical purposes, that's not looking to good.

What about the child molestation part of it? The defense has to have an answer as to, A, why a grown man is hanging out with children and, b, did he or did he not molest these children?

Michael Jackson has already explained it. Whether you think that's weird or not he's explained it on tape many times. He's almost compelled to do it in front of this jury one more time and give them the explanation. KING: Stacy, over the year many lawyers, and prosecutors and the like have told me that conspiracy is one of the hardest things to prove. Why do you think they included it?

HONOWITZ: I don't think it is so hard in this case. I think you're going to be very surprised. Jurors are taking this all in. And just because we sit here and talk about the fact that you can't link Jackson to any of these things. Jurors would have to sit there through a six month trial and think to themselves that Michael Jackson had no idea what any of his associates were doing? Michael Jackson didn't put the word out that someone's got to save me after I made this horrible videotape?

Someone came to him, a handler -- somebody came to him, and said, what did you talk about? What did you say? We have to have some damage control. So, to think after all this time that he wasn't involved is ridiculous. And I think they're going to be able to tie it in.

CARDOZA: Why?

HONOWITZ: Why?

KING: Michael why -- Michael.

HONOWITZ: Why wouldn't they be able to tie it in?

CARDOZA: Why -- no. I'll tell you why, Larry because...

KING: One at a time -- Michael.

CARDOZA: I'll tell you what, I agree if they're going to prove it, they have to tie it in. This is beyond a reasonable doubt. That means you have to put some evidence in. And there's been no nexus between Jackson and this conspiracy evidence. What's wrong with the explanation, and the defense will give it, that here's Michael Jackson, the golden goose for all these people, the guy that pays them all this money. They don't want to see anything happen to Michael Jackson, so they take care of their golden goose. Remember, circumstantial evidence is susceptible to reasonable interpretation, you've got to go with the one that points to innocence. And their innocent explanations here. The D.A. has not put in one bit of evidence to connect Jackson yet to the conspiracy. Maybe he will, but not yet.

HONOWITZ: Well, the case isn't over yet. So, we'll have to see.

KING: Jane, what do you think.

CARDOZA: I agree with that.

KING: Jane?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I agree that the case isn't over yet. And the prosecution's case has not yet rested. Celebrity Justice has been saying that a star witness could be Rudy Provincio. He was a friend of Mark Schaffel, one of the alleged unindicted co-conspirators who was brought on to help with the music business. He reportedly got in very good with all the alleged unindicted co-conspirators. We are told that he took notes of this alleged conspiracy. And there were actually secretly recorded phone conversations, that could tie this entire conspiracy allegedly to Michael Jackson. If he comes in before this case rests, he would be the one to tie it all together and connect the dots. I have to believe that the prosecution has a bombshell waiting in the wings. And I believe it could be Rudy.

KING: Stacey, do you buy that?

HONOWITZ: Of course, I buy that. Of course I do. And you know, there's got to be a reason. They've investigated this case at length, ad nauseam probably almost. And they must know that in order for them to prove this charge, they have to have some kind of evidence. I'm not saying in every prosecution it goes the way that you want it, you have all the evidence the for the charge. But in this case, with the high profile nature of this case, with the celebrity in this case, they had to know that they had to do something to tie it in. And I agree with Jane, I think there's something coming down the pike that's going to tie Jackson to all of this.

CARDOZA: Maybe.

HONOWITZ: Maybe. Probably.

ROWLANDS: I think, clearly, today they started to set up Rudy a little bit today. Bringing his name up and establishing him as a player. And I think that he could be the end witness, the one that we see on Friday that really does leave this jury with an impression. And maybe he will tie in these loose ends with the conspiracy. They definitely need something to tie it in, because the mother's story cannot be the linchpin at this point. It's just too unbelievable. And now Debbie Rowe is not helping it out, by saying that she was not scripted.

KING: Jane, when will the prosecution wind up?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, they were supposed to initially wind up at the end of this week. But things were going very, very slowly today with all these phone records. Debbie Rowe could be cross-examined extensively. So, It Could be the beginning of next week. But I agree with everybody, they've got to end with some kind of dramatic finale that ties this to Michael Jackson. Now, there was that link with the phone conversation because the person that initially put Michael Jackson on the phone with Debbie Rowe was one of the alleged unindicted co-conspirator, and there was another alleged unidicted co- conspirator on that conference call. So they did tie them. But I don't think they tied him enough. They've really got to link him to some of these 28 overt acts in this conspiracy.

KING: We'll take a break. And when we come back, Raymone Bain, Michael Jackson's spokesperson will join us. And we'll start taking your calls as well. And don't forget tomorrow night President Bush will have a prime time news conference starting at 8:30 Eastern, so we'll be on late but. We will be on for a full hour following that news conference.

We'll be back. Raymone Bain will join us. You're phone calls as well, as we look at the Michael Jackson case in Santa Maria, California Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Welcome back. Let's re-introduce our panel. At the Santa Maria courthouse is Ted Rowlands, CNN correspondent covering the Jackson trial.

Also at the courthouse, Jane Velez-Mitchell, correspondent with Celebrity Justice.

In Miami is Stacey Honowitz, assistant Florida state attorney for sex, crimes and child abuse. At the Santa Maria Courthouse is Michael Cardoza, defense attorney, former Alameda County prosecutor. He was also in court today. And now joining us from Washington is Raymone Bain, Michael Jackson's spokesperson. Raymone a little late, but that's allowed because happy birthday Raymone and many more.

RAYMONE BAIN, MICHAEL JACKSON'S SPOKESPERSON: Thank you, Larry. Thank you very much.

KING: All right. What's your reaction to, so far, this very short testimony so far from Ms. Rowe?

BAIN: Well, you know, Larry, as I indicated on Monday when I was asked if Michael was nervous, or if he was concerned about Ms. Rowe testifying, and I basically said then he was not. Because he has been very, very kind to Ms. Rowe. They were married for three years. And he is a good father. So I'm not surprised at all today with the outcome of her testimony.

And you know, people have been so quick to jump to conclusions. Oh, she's going to be the smoking gun. Oh, she's going to destroy Michael Jackson. Oh, she's good to do this and that. And that did not happen. And we've been hearing that constantly now since this trial has started.

And I think that, again, Tom Mesereau is doing an excellent job. Michael is very pleased with what is happening thus far. And we look forward to having the defense give its case.

KING: You were not, then, surprised when she said that she was not coached or told what to say?

BAIN: No, I'm not. Because I never thought she would say that, Larry. Michael Jackson has maintained his innocence in all of this. He has said time and time again that he is not, or has been a part of any kind of conspiracy.

And I think, frankly, the case is just weakening. And it's unfortunate that we are even in a trial. But we are, and we're going to fight this until the finish. KING: He has a full day tomorrow on the stand. She has already, though, hurt him a little bit with questioning what kind of father he is. Did that surprise you?

BAIN: Well, I think we have to look at the circumstances. Ms. Rowe is involved in a custody suit. And she's also seeking payment from Mr. Jackson. So I think that there is a lot looming in the backdrop.

And I think at the end of the day, her testimony will not destroy Mr. Jackson, because he is a good father and a loving father. And she really can't say anything other than that, because she has been in his presence with those kids. And if she says something other than that, it won't be the truth.

KING: Do you know her, Debbie -- Raymone, do you know Debbie?

BAIN: No. I have not met her. She was there prior to my coming aboard. So I have not had the pleasure of meeting her.

KING: Let's go to calls. Youngstown, Ohio. Hello.

CALLER: Hello. Larry King?

KING: Yes.

CALLER: I'd like to say hello to you and the panel.

KING: Hello.

CALLER: And I have a question and a comment.

KING: Go.

CALLER: I'd like to ask the panel, do you think Michael Jackson would have given an interview with the Bashir and admitted and talked about being with kids in his room, serving them tea, cookies and having fun with them if he really, really molested them?

KING: Michael, what do you think?

CARDOZA: You know, I'll tell you, I honestly don't know whether he did this or not. But I will say this, if he did something like this, I'm not sure he really understands that it's wrong. If he did it. And I'm not saying he did.

So would he do the video -- yes he really might under those circumstances because he puts it out there. Anybody to me that says, oh yeah, I'm a grown man and I sleep with people's kids that aren't my kids, now that's strange -- come on -- by anybody's standards, but apparently not by Michael's.

KING: Go ahead Raymone.

BAIN: May I respond, Larry?

KING: Sure.

BAIN: I like that question. And I'm glad I have an opportunity to respond.

Absolutely not. If Michael Jackson were molesting children and he were a pedophile, he would not sit before a camera and say that.

No. 2, I have noticed, Larry, and I would like for the viewing audience to know this fact. When Michael Jackson conducted that interview, he says it's nothing wrong with sharing your bed with a kid. I sleep on the floor on a cart. Every time that interview is played, that portion of the video is edited.

Michael Jackson never says in that video with Bashir that he sleeps in the bed with the child. He says it's nothing wrong with sharing my bed. What's wrong with that when I'm on a cart or I'm sleeping on the sofa?

But all of that is edited, so the wrong message is getting out here. Absolutely not. Michael Jackson would never have said before a camera talking about that as a pedophile.

KING: Jane, isn't that a good point, Jane Velez?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That's a very good point. And actually, that's why the defense has been trying to play the outtakes of the rebuttal video of the actual video that Michael Jackson did. And Hamid Moslehi, Michael Jackson's former videographer, had reams and reams of outtakes that he said would put what Michael Jackson into context. But that hasn't come into the trial yet. And that was one of the things that they were battling over today.

KING: We'll take a break and...

BAIN: That has come in.

KING: You say it has, Raymone?

BAIN: Yes, when the prosecution showed the entire Bashir documentary, it was in the documentary. Michael Jackson said, it's nothing wrong with my sharing my bet with a child as long as I'm sleeping on a cart or on the floor. He said that. And it has been played three and four times. It is said.

KING: So when was it edited?

(CROSSTALK)

HONOWITZ: That's what they're going to argue. During closing arguments...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Let me get a break and come back. Please ask the guests to talk one at a time. More calls right after this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEFFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Jackson's arrest on molestation charges opened a new chapter in the strange relationship. Debbie initiated legal proceedings to regain custody of her children. And later that year, when Debbie appeared on an entertainment show, Michael stopped paying her, saying she had broken their confidentiality agreement.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Victoria, Texas. Hello. Are you there, Victoria? Victoria? good-bye.

Sacramento, California. Hello?

CALLER: Hi.

KING: Hi.

CALLER: If Michael Jackson is convicted of the alleged molestation charges, would Debbie Rowe regain full custody of their two children being that she initially relinquished her parental rights?

KING: Let's ask the lawyers.

Stacey, what do you think?

HONOWITZ: That's a very interesting question, a very interesting question. In California -- I mean, she's trying to get custody right now. And certainly, upon a conviction, it's going to be a lot easier for her to regain custody of the kids.

And the reason why is because she's the biological mother. And although the children haven't been with her at all in these last years, the courts will look favorably upon the biological mother as opposed to somebody else in the family.

So, I think there's a good chance that if he gets convicted of these crimes, now that she's in court trying to regain custody, there's a very good shot that she's going to be able to get them.

KING: Michael?

CARDOZA: I'll give a real simple answer -- absolutely. I mean, who else are they going to go to? This is the biological mother. The courts look to that, even though she gave up all her legal rights to this child. Michael goes to prison, the first person the court will look to is the biological mother. Absolutely she's going there, and the defense certainly will try to sell that to the jury. If she tells anything they don't like on the witness stand, that will be her bias in this case.

KING: Raymone, who watches the kids while Michael's in court? BAIN: Oh, he has a staff there, Larry, who takes care of the children, and they also have teachers there, teaching them every day.

KING: Manchester, Georgia. Hello.

Caller: Oh, yes, good evening.

KING: Hi.

Caller: My question is for Raymone. First of all, I have a couple comments. I just find it extremely appalling that Michael's (INAUDIBLE) tremendous bias against Michael, starting with Diane Dimond, Nancy Grace, and Mrs. Stacey on tonight. Here have you a 46- year-old entertainer who is a multi, multimillionaire, if not close to being a billionaire. He owns nearly 3,000 acres of land in California, owns the biggest -- one of the biggest -- publishings in all the whole world with the Beatles, and these people want to see him taken down. I mean, "Saturday Night Live" couldn't have written a better skit. These prosecutors are a joke.

KING: What's your question for Raymone?

Caller: Now, Raymone -- man, my question for Raymone is, do you think it's possible that the defense would call Debbie Rowe as a defense witness, once the case is presented?

BAIN: What was -- say that again.

KING: I didn't hear you. What did you say?

Caller: Do you think it's possible for the defense to call Debbie Rowe as a defense witness once their case is presented?

KING: You think the defense could call Debbie Rowe?

BAIN: It's a -- it's a possibility. I would not count that out at all. It's a possibility.

KING: Stacey, in your opinion, have the pundits preconvicted him?

HONOWITZ: No, of course not. I would not -- I wouldn't say that. I mean, we go on these shows. You ask us opinions of how they think the prosecution is doing, how the defense is doing. Nobody knows what a jury is going to do in this case, and I don't think anybody has preconvicted him. I think he runs the risk -- like any celebrity, he's out there, he's all over the world, he's all over the nation. Everybody knows him. So naturally, somebody could never imagine that Michael Jackson could ever do wrong or molest a child, and it's up to the prosecution to prove that. So, I'm not surprised by the comments at all.

KING: Michael, have some gone over the top?

CARDOZA: In my honest opinion, yes, some have gone over the top. Some do attack him at different times. You know, without naming names, of course they do. I mean, just listen. I mean, as our viewers, make up your own mind when you listen to people if they're really being fair and objective, or if they're trying to push their own agenda.

KING: Jane, is celebrity justice fair and objective? Can you be totally objective?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, we have been -- well, you can try, and we have tried, and we've been right down the middle. We do stories that some people interpret as pro prosecution. We do stories that some people interpret as pro defense. I will say, the media is deeply split, and I could sit in the courtroom with a pro defense person and a pro prosecution person on either side and get two completely different responses to what I'm hearing on the stand.

I've always tried to act as if I were a juror who is not supposed to decide the case until you hear all the evidence. But a lot of people become emotionally invested in the outcome, and I think it's a real mistake, because it's the best way to look like a fool. You start hearing what you want to hear, you stop taking notes on the things that don't add up to your sequence of events, as you perceive them, and you can get in trouble. I do believe there are people in the media who have gone too far on both sides.

KING: Ted, you can be pro anything before all the facts are in?

ROWLANDS: No, you can't. I think that as human beings, inherently, when you sit in a courtroom, you start to form opinions on specific things as they come at you. But as a reporter, as Jane said, you have to take a down-the-road view of things, and especially, don't let it bleed into any of your reporting, which I do think in this case it has happened with some folks.

And I agree with Jane. It is amazing that there seems to be these differing opinions among the press, and -- the first time I've ever seen it where people clearly seem to have an agenda and sometimes I think it bleeds into their reports which it absolutely should not be doing.

KING: We'll take a break and come back. More phone calls. We'll ask Raymone if she thinks that Michael's getting a bad rap. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Before we take our next call, Raymone, do you think that Michael's been bum rapped?

BAIN: I do. I think that there have been journalists who have just deliberately misrepresented the facts. I've said so many times, and so has he, what you hear in court, and then what is reported, are two different things. And it's so unfortunate, because I really think that, overall, the journalists have done a good job in reporting the facts. But there are some who have been so vindictive and so vocal in their opinions of Michael -- and they slant stories to form their opinions of him, and I think that it's totally unfair to him, and I think it's totally unfair to the viewers, because the viewers are relying on those who are reporting the case to come back and give them the facts and let them make their own determinations.

KING: All right. Let me get another -- Port Richey, Florida. Hello.

Caller: Hi, good evening, Larry. We know that Debbie Rowe is the mother of the first two children. Does anyone know who the mother of this third child is?

KING: Jane, do you know?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That is an anonymous person. Baby Blanket, as he is called, and the reports are...

KING: Baby Blanket?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, his -- Blanket is the baby's -- what the baby is called...

BAIN: Prince Michael.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: ...as a nickname.

BAIN: Yes.

KING: Oh.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But his nickname, you have to admit, is Blanket. That's what they call him, and I think that's a cute name. There's nothing derogatory about that whatsoever.

And, you know, reports that I have read have indicated that Michael Jackson may have preferred, initially, for his other two children to have, initially, been from an anonymous background, and that it was after the news broke that Debbie Rowe was pregnant, that, then it ended up becoming part of the world's knowledge. But initially, it was supposed to be something, reportedly, that was supposed to be kept secret.

KING: Do you know the mother, Raymone?

BAIN: No, I have not asked, Larry, and frankly, I don't think it's really people's business. I think getting into that deep into Michael's personal life is just very intrusive. I would never have that conversation with him, because they are his kids, and that's it, period.

KING: Magalia, California, hello.

Caller: Hi, Larry. This is -- I have a question, I believe for Stacey. Do you know if any of the employees who allegedly saw the molestation going on, will they be held accountable for not reporting it to the proper authorities?

HONOWITZ: Well, you know, there's certain laws in California -- certain people have to report it or you get in trouble. I don't think that the employees, for not doing it -- you could bring a neglect charge, you know, in actuality, you really could bring in a neglect charge. It really wouldn't do anything. But, they're not doctors, they're not professionals, they're not psychotherapists, they're not nurses -- those are primarily the people that are under a duty and obligation to report it if they see that something's wrong. But certainly, as has been used in this case, that's the point for the defense. If you really saw something bad going on, why didn't you report it? The flip side to that, if I'm not going to report it and get my boss in trouble because that's where my bread is buttered. So, it could go either way in this trial but I don't think they'll be charges against them.

KING: Stacey, technically, isn't anyone supposed to report a crime.

HONOWITZ: Anyone is supposed to report a crime, but it's mandatory -- of course, as a good samaritan, you're supposed to report a crime. But it's mandatory for certain people to report or they could be charged with a crime.

KING: Michael.

CARDOZA: Morally, certainly, Larry, you're absolutely right. Legally, no. And what Stacey's talking about are like psychiatrists and people in that type of position, if they know something, yes, then they have a legal obligation. But if you see a bank robbery, somebody mugging somebody, if you want to turn around and walk away, you can do it legally. Nobody can do anything to you about that.

KING: Laguna, California. Hello.

CALLER: First of all, I'd like to say that I really enjoy your show.

KING: Thank you.

CALLER: I have a comment and the question. The comment is going back to the Michael Jackson video where it says that he said that he doesn't see anything wrong with sleeping in the bed with the boys or, you know, with the children. And even though he's on a cot. Although, he does also say that even if he slept in the bed with them, he doesn't see anything wrong with that.

KING: What's the question?

CALLER: The question is that, I'd like to know if the jury knows that Debbie Rowe is not getting any money right now from Jackson? And also that so far she has received $10 million from him?

KING: Jane.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, the reports are that she has received many, many millions over the years, a home, gifts. And reportedly, since their divorce, $1 million a year. And that that was cut off this past year, because she reportedly gave an interview to the media and that was regarded as a violation of their confidentiality agreement.

KING: Her question was does the jury know that?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I don't think so. That's part of the whole dilemma of this case. We the media know so much more than the jury knows. It's hard for us to gauge how the jury is reacting to all this, because they don't have the body of knowledge that we have about this case. So many of the really salacious stories have been argued in motions outside of the jury's presence. They have not heard them theoretically.

KING: Yes. We'll take a break and be back with more on this edition of LARRY KING LIVE -- don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Bellville, Ontario. Hello.

CALLER: Hello. Thank you for taking my call.

KING: Sure.

CALLER: Because of the bizarre actions of Michael Jackson, I was just wondering if he's ever checked for drugs. Because in the documentary I watched him feeding a baby. I've never seen anybody feed a baby like that in my life that would be normal.

KING: Stacey, you want to comment?

HONOWITZ: I couldn't even hear anything that she said. It was about feeding the child?

KING: What was it, ma'am, that bothered you?

CALLER: I was just wondering if Michael Jackson had ever been checked for drugs.

KING: Oh, drugs.

CALLER: Because in the documentary, he is shown feeding his child.

KING: And it looks weird to you.

CALLER: You can't see through the veil. And I'm just wondering if he's ever been checked for that.

KING: Do we know, Stacey, if drugs have been a part of this.

HONOWITZ: I have no idea. And I don't who would even know who would check for drugs with him, quite frankly. He's not on trial for drugs.

KING: Raymone, have you ever heard anything about drugs.

BAIN: Let me just respond to that question. I have several male friends who have a hard time getting a bottle in a baby's mouth. So I don't think that the way Michael was trying to feed his kid was abnormal. I mean, I have seen even worse. It's sometimes just a little awkward there. But I know now that he does it quite well.

KING: Coeur D'Alene, Idaho.

CALLER: Hi, Larry. You pronounced it right. I have a question for your attorney's. When the mother of the alleged victim testified that she allowed an adult male to sleep with her son for 30 nights, isn't she incriminating herself as an accomplice to abuse or at least neglect on her part?

KING: Stacey.

HONOWITZ: Now, that's a great question. Because several times in the prosecution for child molestation, as they did in this case, they blame it on the mother. That it was the mother's fault for letting the child go. But, you know, unless she had knowledge, personal knowledge that Michael Jackson was molesting her child, then, of course, she'd be in big trouble. But she absolutely had no knowledge that this was going on or else she wouldn't have sent the child back. So, although it's a good question, she can't be charged if she had no personal knowledge this was going on. She could be negligent. And Michael will tell you she's probably negligent in what she did. But she can't be charged as an accomplice in this crime.

CARDOZA: I agree that she's not going to be charged in this particular case, although personally I think she should be. She certainly has denied any knowledge. I mean, I don't know if it's plausible deniability, though. Because as -- this woman's a half bubble off plum. And she lets all this go on with this little boy? You've got to know she thought something was wrong. But will they prosecute her? no, they won't.

KING: Ted, what do you expect tomorrow?

ROWLANDS: Well, we expect more from Debbie Rowe. And the big question is at the end of the day, is this going to be a witness that helps the prosecution further their conspiracy theory, or will she help Michael Jackson out? And as things have gone so far, it's really a wash. It's tough to say which side she's going to help. But we expect her on the stand for most of tomorrow. Then we expect her lawyer who was present during this videotaping, as well, to take the stand. And we may see the three-hour or portions of the three-hour videotape as well.

KING: Jane, what do you expect?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I think that the big picture is that the clock is ticking for the prosecution. They have to connect the dots. Time is running out for them. And they need some major bombshell somewhere within the next couple of days. Let's hope for their sake that they come up with something stronger than they have thus far.

KING: Thank you all very much. As a reminder -- thank you all very much. We will cover this again tomorrow night. But we'll, of course, first have to concentrate on the press conference by the president. So we'll probably do two type shows, one postmortem on the press conference. Then two a discussion of the testimony tomorrow of Debbie Rowe in the Jackson case. It gets curiouser and curiouser.

Debbie Rowe: Michael Jackson Is a Victim of Opportunistic Vultures
Mood:  celebratory
Topic: Main News

Instead of reinforcing the prosecution's position, Debbie Rowe ended up helping her ex-husband more than anyone else could have.

Michael Jackson's ex-wife, Deborah Rowe, called several of the people working for Michael Jackson as "opportunistic vultures" who bragged of the millions they were making off the singer.

Initially Debbie Rowe, 46, was called by the prosecution to testify that her video praising Michael was scripted, but she ended up helping Michael by denying that claim.

Debbie Rowe called Marc Schaffel, the video's organizer, as well as Dieter Wiesner and Ronald Konitzer liars and "opportunistic vultures." The three men are considered co-conspirators in the case.

Debbie Rowe reserved her most vitriolic statements for Schaffel, who she said bragged to her that he was being paid for the video and that he had many plans to make money off Jackson. "He just bragged about how he had taken advantage of an opportunity," Debbie Rowe said.

Debbie Rowe praised Michael, calling him generous, a good father, and great with kids, even despite her legal battle with Jackson for the right to visit their two children.. She added that she felt Michael keeps her away from their children due to his lawyers and advisors.

"There's different Michaels. There's like my Michael," Rowe said, her voice breaking with emotion. "And there's the Michael that everyone else sees."

A former nurse for Jackson's dermatologist, Debbie Rowe was married to the singer from 1996 to 1999 and bore him a son and a daughter, Prince Michael and Paris. Michael Jackson had a third child, Prince Michael II, with another woman in 2002.

When they divorced, Debbie Rowe pledged never to talk about certain aspects in return for a multimillion-dollar settlement.