Michael Jackson_ The Magic, the Madness, the Whole Story, 1958-2009 Part 41

So, what is the case against Michael Jackson? With the DA Tom Sneddon's evidence still sealed, all of what he has on Michael is still unknown, as of this writing. However, what is known is that the DA believes that Michael abused his victim between 7 February and 10 March 2003 that is, after the Martin Bas.h.i.+r doc.u.mentary was broadcast, after Christian Anderson's interview with the Arvizo family, after Michael's TV reb.u.t.tal, after he hired Mark Geragos to look into the matter... and while the DCFS and the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department was investigating it.

In essence, what the case against Michael Jackson boils down to, is the following timeline: 6 February 2003 Living with Michael Jackson Living with Michael Jackson, the Martin Bas.h.i.+r doc.u.mentary, is broadcast in the United States.

7 February 2003 Michael supposedly begins s.e.xually molesting the young boy, Gavin Arvizo, who was seen in the doc.u.mentary with him.

11 February Dr Carole Lieberman lodges an official complaint that the relations.h.i.+p seen between Michael and Gavin Arvizo on the Martin Bas.h.i.+r doc.u.mentary looks suspicious. Others complaints follow.

14 February The Department of Children and Family Services and the Los Angeles Police Department begin their investigations into the relations.h.i.+p between the star and the boy.

18 February The Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department begins its own investigation.

February (date unknown): Christian Anderson conducts an interview with the family for Michael's reb.u.t.tal doc.u.mentary, The Michael Jackson Interview: The Footage You Were Not Meant to See The Michael Jackson Interview: The Footage You Were Not Meant to See.

24 February The DCFS and LA Police probe ends with conclusions that any allegations are 'unfounded'.

10 March Michael Jackson supposedly stops molesting Gavin Arvizo.

16 April The Santa Barbara County Department ends its investigation and closes its case against Michael, saying that the elements of criminal activity had not been meant.

13 June The Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department receives a report from Dr Stan Katz in which the family changes its story and alleges that molestation actually had had taken place, and that Gavin Arvizo (and his brother and sister) were also given intoxicating agents, by Michael. The investigation is re-opened, and the family is (later) interviewed by the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department. taken place, and that Gavin Arvizo (and his brother and sister) were also given intoxicating agents, by Michael. The investigation is re-opened, and the family is (later) interviewed by the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department.

18 November 2003 Neverland is raided by the police.

The question remains: Which of the children's stories is to be believed? The one they told doc.u.mentarians Martin Bas.h.i.+r and Christian Anderson, and also the DCFS, that Michael Jackson was a father-figure who had coddled a cancer victim and his siblings? Or the one they told Larry Feldman and Dr Stan Katz, that paints him as a child-molester who had got them all loaded and had s.e.x with one of them?

In the Arvizo family's defence, their supporters insist that it wasn't until June 2003 when Janet Ventura-Arvizo took her son to Larry Feldman and then Dr Stan Katz that Gavin felt he could safely reveal details of his molestation. Perhaps that's true. A victim of s.e.xual abuse often does not want to come forward immediately with details of his ordeal. However, why would all the children change their stories? Why does Star Arvizo suddenly remember witnessing the s.e.xual molestation, but previously hadn't recalled any of those kinds of details, or even hinted at them? Why does he also suddenly remember being given alcohol by Michael? Why does Daveline Arvizo now remember that she was given wine? Even if everyone had been reticent about saying anything critical about Michael and the way he had behaved toward them, did they have to go so far as to, instead, paint a glowing picture of him? If they had all been too frightened or too intimidated to come clean about any of his behaviour, wouldn't they have just not said much at all... instead of complimenting Michael Jackson to the point of making him seem like their Saviour? It simply doesn't add up.

In the end, the case against Michael Jackson will hinge on whatever reasons Gavin, Star, Daveline and Janet Arvizo give as to why they changed their stories, from denials to accusations and those reasons may not even be known until the trial begins, which will probably not be until early 2005. Were they motivated by money? Did someone else put ideas in their heads? Or did they all finally see the light and decide to tell their real real story about Michael Jackson? Indeed, the answers to those questions will either send Michael Jackson to prison... or set him free. story about Michael Jackson? Indeed, the answers to those questions will either send Michael Jackson to prison... or set him free.

'Not Debbie too.'

Another surprising development in Michael Jackson's life since the most recent edition of Michael Jackson The Magic and the Madness of Michael Jackson The Magic and the Madness has been the emergence of his ex-wife and mother of two of his children, Debbie Rowe, in a surprisingly antagonistic manner. Though she has said in the past that she has little interest in the upbringing of the children to whom she gave birth, Prince Michael and Paris, she apparently changed her mind once Michael was arrested. has been the emergence of his ex-wife and mother of two of his children, Debbie Rowe, in a surprisingly antagonistic manner. Though she has said in the past that she has little interest in the upbringing of the children to whom she gave birth, Prince Michael and Paris, she apparently changed her mind once Michael was arrested.

During the months after Michael's arrest, an alarmed Debbie attempted to contact him to discuss his state of mind. She knows how sensitive he is, and she was concerned about him. However, she had another agenda: she also wanted to discuss the terms of the custody and visitation agreements, especially after learning that the Nation of Islam was involved in Michael's life. She is Jewish having converted for her first marriage and was 'extremely, extremely upset', according to a close friend of hers, about Michael's new alignment with the Nation, an organization known to be anti-Semitic.

It could be argued that it makes little sense, at least from a public-relations standpoint, for Michael Jackson to be involved with any organization deemed to be controversial. He has enough problems. However, that said, the Nation of Islam is an easy mark and there has been a great deal of overheated media coverage of the organization's sudden a.s.sociation with the Jacksons because of its obviously biased cultural positions. In fact, fundamentalist religions usually do lean toward certain biases. For instance, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are both overt in their disdain for Islam and for Muslims. There is open disdain at the top of many religions. Is Catholicism not openly against h.o.m.os.e.xuals? Fundamentalists of all religions often ignite emotions in people, no matter what the religion: fundamentalist Jews, fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Muslims, etc... Debbie has said, privately, that she doesn't want her children around fundamentalists of any any religion, and especially the Nation of Islam because of its incendiary position against whites and Jews. religion, and especially the Nation of Islam because of its incendiary position against whites and Jews.

Jermaine Jackson is a Muslim, though not a member of the Nation. There are many confounding and contradicting stories about how the Nation became involved in Michael's life, but the simple truth is that the organization contacted him and asked if he wanted their support... and he said yes. Michael welcomes all support at this time, and seems happy to have it from any quarter. Is the Nation merely involved in Jackson's security, as he and his handlers have insisted? Or is the group actually managing his business affairs, as strongly rumoured? Is there some kind of religious 'brainwas.h.i.+ng' going on? It's doubtful. The Jehovah's Witnesses couldn't tell Michael what to do when was a young adult, and Scientologists couldn't influence him either, when he was with Lisa Marie. It's doubtful the Nation of Islam will be able to tell him what to do.

However, for an artist who has never preached separatism or racism, the Nation's involvement in his life is perplexing. To explain away the surprising a.s.sociation, it's claimed by those presendy in his camp that Michael has known Nation leader Louis Farrakhan since he was six years old. 'Excuse me?' remarked a long-time Jackson family a.s.sociate. 'Were they socializing back in Gary? Did he come by the house for pre-Jackson 5 rehearsals?' Indeed, how did a six-year-old boy who wasn't even famous yet meet Louis Farrakhan in Gary, Indiana? Small world, isn't it?

It is known, though, that twenty years ago, Louis Farrakhan spoke out against Michael and criticized him as a bad example to the world's youth. All has been forgiven, apparently, because Farrakhan is now one of Jackson's supporters. 'We don't believe Michael is guilty,' he said in a recent speech. 'And there are a lot of people that know the mother who is accusing him and the little boy that he helped to heal, and they don't believe Michael is guilty. What happened to the presumption of innocence? See, black people are always guilty until they are proved innocent; white people are innocent until they are proved guilty.'

During this time, Michael Jackson should, it could be argued, only be presented in a way that is credible to critical-thinking people and not just that faction of the public arena his fans, mostly who will believe anything they are told as long as it is stated by a famous person, or someone described as 'an official spokesman'. Of course, as soon as Louis Farrakhan made his sweeping and untrue racial generalization in an attempt to play on the basic fears of people of colour, his support of Michael lost all credibility, or as one pundit put it, 'Too bad that after all these years he doesn't know where to draw the line.'

It does seem that the Nation has isolated Michael from those in his circle. Even his family members, such as his own mother, have not had access to him after the generous show of familial support at the arraignment. His videographer, Christian Robinson, has not seen Michael since the day of the arrest, either. He 'absolutely' believes that the Nation of Islam has kept him away from Jackson. At Michael's arraignment, a different videographer was at his side when the star leapt atop an automobile to greet his fans. He says that the Nation's influence is 'hopefully the closest thing to a jail Michael will ever see'.

It's easy to blame the Nation for running interference between Michael Jackson and others, especially lately, but if one traces Michael's history, there has always been some person or some group of people charged with isolating him and at his own request.

Ten years ago, for instance, when Michael didn't want to be pressured during the Jordie Chandler debacle with the possibility of another Jackson family reunion venture, his attorneys and Elizabeth Taylor were charged with keeping his parents and siblings at bay. Remember Katherine Jackson asking why it was that Elizabeth had access to Michael, but she did not? Years before that, the job fell to Frank Dileo. Everyone in the family complained then that he he was the one keeping them from Michael. Before that, John Branca was the person certain family members, blamed for preventing them from having free access to Michael. Going all the way back to the late 1970s, Michael's managers Ron Weisner and Freddie DeMann were targeted by Joseph and Katherine as being culprits responsible for ruining their relations.h.i.+p with Michael by not allowing them to speak to him. was the one keeping them from Michael. Before that, John Branca was the person certain family members, blamed for preventing them from having free access to Michael. Going all the way back to the late 1970s, Michael's managers Ron Weisner and Freddie DeMann were targeted by Joseph and Katherine as being culprits responsible for ruining their relations.h.i.+p with Michael by not allowing them to speak to him.

In truth, no one has ever kept Michael Jackson from anyone in his family, or from certain staff members, without his explicit request that distance be created between him... and 'them'. The representatives from the Nation of Islam may or may not have their own financial or political agenda at hand in their a.s.sociation with Michael. However, to Michael they serve what he feels is a valuable and habitual purpose: they shelter him from those he feels are out to drain him of whatever little joy he has left in life. Maybe his family has all of the best of intentions, and nothing but love for him, these days. However, if Michael doesn't see it that way and if he doesn't act as if he wants them in his life, the notion of their affection and loyalty is moot.

As far as Debbie Rowe is concerned, for her to end up on the outside side of Michael's present circle is a surprising occurrence. The question remains, though, as to whether or not she has a right to an opinion about Michael's children, and the way they are being raised. She and Michael did have a custody and visitation agreement (while she did not have custody, she was allowed a couple of visits a year if she wanted them, an opportunity of which she had not availed herself in the past), but it can be changed at any time, said her attorney, 'with a showing of changed circ.u.mstances'. While she gave away custody of her children, she, apparently, did not give away her parental rights. 'She can always go back to the courts and re-pet.i.tion to change custody,' said one attorney, 'however, no one ever thought she would, but she did after she could not get a return call from Michael, and after she felt disrespected by him.'

When Michael set a dismissive tone with his ex-wife, his loyalists followed suit and froze her out, as well. Suddenly, no one was returning her phone calls, nor those of her attorney. Whereas just a year earlier, Michael had called upon Debbie to appear in a doc.u.mentary defending him against the Martin Bas.h.i.+r allegations, now he wanted nothing to do with her. 'Doesn't she know I have enough on my hands?' he asked one a.s.sociate. 'Why can't she just leave me and my children alone?'

While Michael's a.s.sociates held a major meeting at the Beverly Hills Hotel in January 2004 to discuss his future, Debbie was in a meeting of her own: at the Ivy in Beverly Hills with two of Michael's former managers, Dieter Weisner and Ronald Konitzer, to discuss her concern over the involvement of the Nation of Islam in Michael's life, and also her options relating to child custody.

A final straw for Debbie came in the week of 16 February 2004 when she heard rumours that Michael had gone back into rehab, this time in Colorado.

In truth, Michael was not in rehab in Colorado, but was being treated there by herbalist Alfredo Bowman for what one source close to him describes as 'not really an addiction but definitely a dependency' on morphine and the prescription-drug Demerol. Michael's use of such drugs might explain his detached and odd demeanour of late, especially during his interview with Ed Bradley for 60 Minutes 60 Minutes during which he seemed physically and mentally lethargic. According to reports, he's been using the medications in order to cope with the stress of the allegations and with chronic insomnia. It's dangerous behaviour, especially considering what happened ten years ago when he became addicted to painkillers during the Jordie Chandler matter and ended up in rehab in England. during which he seemed physically and mentally lethargic. According to reports, he's been using the medications in order to cope with the stress of the allegations and with chronic insomnia. It's dangerous behaviour, especially considering what happened ten years ago when he became addicted to painkillers during the Jordie Chandler matter and ended up in rehab in England.

Alfredo Bowman maintains an office in Beverly Hills, and another in Honduras. He was treating TLC singer Lisa 'Left Eye' Lopes at his 'USHA Healing Village' when she died in a car accident there, in the spring of 2002. Bowman apparently got into trouble with the New York State attorney general a couple of years ago when that office objected to his claiming to have found cures for AIDS, cancer and leukaemia. On his website Bowman boasts of never having gone to school 'not even kindergarten'. His website also claims, 'We are proud to inform you that Cosmo Therapy is part of our healing journey realigning with the energy of life which is beyond spirituality. Return to MOTHER!!!'

Debbie tried to obtain information about Michael's so-called 'detox', but, again, was unsuccessful in contacting him, or anyone around him. The walls around Michael and his children were up, and she was on one side, while the Jackson camp was on the other side. She has always said that Michael is not a paedophile; however, according to sources close to her, she is no longer sure what to believe about him and until she makes up her mind, she wants guardians.h.i.+p of her two children. She's even indicated in court papers filed in Los Angeles that the children are not biologically Michael's, no surprise to his critics who have always been sceptical of the paternity of his children.

In a court order filed on Friday 20 February 2004, Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl approved an agreement reached by the Rowe and Jackson camps to have retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Stephen M. Lachs preside over the case. The order said his appointment would continue 'until the conclusion of all matters'.

Judge Lachs works with a centre for alternative dispute resolution that allows parties concerned about their privacy who are involved in civil disputes to hire private judges at a rate of $650 an hour. 'They hire private judges so that everything can be done behind closed doors,' said attorney Dana Cole, an expert in family law who is not involved in this case. However, Lachs has said that much of what occurs in his 'private' court room will still be open to public scrutiny. The private judge's rulings will be as binding as if they were made in a regular family court.

While Michael does not wish for the matter to proceed as it is in the court system, he has had little choice in it. Ironically, the millions he has paid Debbie over the years have made it possible for her to become one of his biggest adversaries, and maybe one of his biggest nightmares. He's going up against a woman who can afford to retain legal counsel as powerful as his own and using money he has paid her to do it! Michael's signature on the paperwork is big and sprawling, as if he was extremely agitated when he committed it to the doc.u.ment.

Those in his private world say that Debbie Rowe's re-emergence in Michael Jackson's life as an opposing force is as hurtful to him as the allegations of child molestation. In retrospect, Michael handled the matter of Debbie's discontent the way he handles most problems he tried to avoid it. As has been repeatedly stated by those who know him, he is childlike in many ways, and, it seems, has become more so in this last, traumatizing year especially when it comes to dealing with unpleasantness.

Like a youngster facing some disagreeable situation, Michael simply could not, or would not, cope with it. He was frightened that Debbie Rowe was positioning herself to pose a serious threat to his family. His hands would shake when he would pick up the telephone to call her. He couldn't follow through, he was so fearful of what it was she wanted from him and how she might impact his relations.h.i.+p with his children, all three of who have given him the greatest joy he has ever known. One of his a.s.sociates recalled it best: he handed him the phone to call her. 'Do it, Mike. You gotta call her,' he said. Michael looked at him with such an anguished expression, it appeared that he was about to let out a long, desperate scream. But he didn't. Instead, he put the phone down and walked away in tears. 'Not Debbie too,' he said, shaking his in disbelief. 'Not Debbie too.'

Coda.

In April 2004, a secret Grand Jury convened in Santa Barbara County to hear from witnesses brought forth by District Attorney Tom Sneddon to testify against Michael Jackson including his present accuser. The jury then handed down an indictment against the entertainer on molestation charges. The decision means that a majority of the members of the Grand Jury felt enough evidence existed in the case against Jackson to bring it to trial. However, a California Grand Jury is simply a function of the prosecution; the defence does not have the opportunity to present its case, and isn't even present at the proceedings. Therefore, with DA Sneddon vociferously offering everything he has against Michael Jackson and with no reb.u.t.tal or cross-examination of witnesses from Jackson's team how could the result have been anything but an indictment?

After the indictment, to make matters even more complicated, Michael suddenly dismissed his attorneys, Mark Geragos and Benjamin Brafman. They were replaced by Thomas Mesereau Jr., another well-known criminal defence attorney, who represented actor Robert Blake in his murder case (until they parted company, citing irreconcilable differences). In an interview, Brafman indicated that the decision did not come directly from Michael (though he believes Michael had a hand in it), but rather from 'advisers and family members'. He further added that the parting of ways was 'for reasons we choose not to discuss publicly'. It was reported that Michael's brothers Randy and Jermaine were influential in the matter, as was Leonard Muhammad of the Nation of Islam.

It now seems clear that there are members of Michael's family who have future career plans in mind for him... and probably for themselves, as well. They are trying to protect their brother (which is admirable) and, perhaps, their own interests (which is probably not as commendable, but also not particularly surprising, if one reviews family history). Again, one is forced to wonder how much decision-making power Michael has, or even wants, in his present dilemma... and how many other key players with mixed agendas may enter stage left and exit stage right before the Jackson show plays before judge and jury.

It is obviously a tragic turn of events if Michael Jackson is being targeted with untrue allegations of child-molestation. At this writing, he is enduring the saddest, most agonizing period of his life. Ironically, prior to this ordeal, he was beginning to rise to the challenge of looking at his world in a new and profound way, trying to come to terms with the ugliness of some of his past. He seemed to be finding a measure of contentment, perhaps for the first time, as he raised his children. He had also just begun to rediscover the joy of music. Finally, the Jordie Chandler matter of a decade ago was beginning to fade from public consciousness. Then, this new thing thing happened, a matter so awful as to lay waste to any personal progress he had made setting him back years, perhaps making it impossible for him to ever reconcile any of his troubles and to take full responsibility for his choices, indeed his life. However, until he does so, perhaps he is destined to repeat the same mistakes, as if he is the beleaguered star of a horrible, Greek tragedy. In truth, there seems to never be a time when he is free of crisis. happened, a matter so awful as to lay waste to any personal progress he had made setting him back years, perhaps making it impossible for him to ever reconcile any of his troubles and to take full responsibility for his choices, indeed his life. However, until he does so, perhaps he is destined to repeat the same mistakes, as if he is the beleaguered star of a horrible, Greek tragedy. In truth, there seems to never be a time when he is free of crisis.

What other famous person has these kinds of problems? Is it that Michael is so different, so unusual, so extraordinary, so... famous famous... that he is an easy target for one kind of exploitation or another, be it one of the many hundreds of lawsuits filed against him or, now, a second allegation of child molestation? Or, does he somehow bring such madness onto himself by being arrogant, or naive... or both? Perhaps he is just one of the unluckiest people ever to be in show-business? You have to feel sorry for the guy.

However, one fact still remains: despite his background his childhood fame and adult superstardom at the end of the day it is not reductive of who he is and the challenges he faces to remember that Michael Jackson is only human, no more than the nine-to-five worker trying to support a large family on a meagre wage and no less than the wealthy socialite without a care in the world. Like everyone who draws breath, he is ultimately responsible for making his own decisions. He's a grown man not a child. He writes his own story, bringing into focus the characters he chooses to have in his world. No one forced Jordie Chandler and his father on him, and no one forced Gavin Arvizo and his mother on him, either. Casting those people to play roles in his life has amounted to some of Michael's biggest mistakes, of that there is little doubt.

It's sad tragic, even. He's such a privileged person, a man heaped with every blessing of fame, fortune and family. One wonders why there seems no way then, no way at all, for Michael Jackson to lead a good and dignified and happy life.

THE FINAL YEARS.

What If?

It hit me while I was standing in Michael Jackson's kitchen eating a tuna sandwich. I'll never forget the moment, which was as strange and surreal as one might imagine. It had been a week and one day since his sudden death on 25 June 2009. I had spent practically every moment doing television interviews and reporting the terrible story for CBS News, the television network for which I had covered Jackson's molestation trial four years earlier. However, this time, it was different. The King of Pop was gone. He was dead. It seemed unfathomable to me, yet somehow, it was true. Still, since I had so much work to do I'd been trying to suppress my heavy emotion and complete the many jobs at hand. I found myself standing in Neverland's exquisite gourmet kitchen with its steel appliances and fine, antique wood finishes because I was asked to conduct a tour of the famous estate for a CBS-TV broadcast. And it was while standing there eating that sandwich that it finally hit me. This is it, I realized. Michael is gone, forever. The sinking feeling in my stomach that I'd tried to ignore for a week gave way to almost overwhelming despair. It seemed unbelievably unfair. I looked out from the kitchen toward the expansive outdoor patio the meandering brook, the enormous trees and, of course, the figurines of little children playing and I tried to conjure up the laughter and music that once filled this cavernous s.p.a.ce, the happy times.

Neverland Ranch was one of Michael Jackson's greatest creations, the result of his imagination gone wild. He loved it here, and no wonder; it's truly breathtaking. In many ways, Michael really had it made, I thought to myself as I took a look around. He was so blessed to live here. His entire life, in fact, was one of unbelievably good fortune. So how did it go so wrong for him? When did it happen? Obviously, many things had gone awry, and I had recounted the wrong turns in great detail over the years. But what was it about this place that seemed to bring all of the chaos into focus for me? What was it? What was it? In this very kitchen, I decided, In this very kitchen, I decided, that's that's where it went wrong. And over there, in the breakfast nook which is really about as large as most people's living rooms it went wrong there, too. where it went wrong. And over there, in the breakfast nook which is really about as large as most people's living rooms it went wrong there, too.

I walked into the breakfast nook, stood in the center of the room and took a look around. It was completely empty as was the rest of the house but the memories remained.

It was in these very rooms in November of 2003 that Michael Jackson introduced the world to a young boy named Gavin Arvizo, first in the kitchen and then the breakfast nook. He smiled at the youngster and gazed wistfully into a television camera for a Martin Bas.h.i.+r doc.u.mentary and asked, 'Why can't you share your bed?' Gavin, seeming totally enchanted by the pop star, rested his head on Michael's shoulder. 'The most loving thing you can do is share your bed with someone,' Michael continued. But after Bas.h.i.+r pressed the issue, Michael tried to clarify it. It was almost as if it had suddenly occurred to him that his comments could be misconstrued. 'Always give the beds to the company, you know?' he said, now sounding a lot like his mother, Katherine, known to be the consummate hostess. 'He [Gavin] was gonna sleep on the floor and I said no, you sleep on the bed and I'll sleep on the floor.' When Bas.h.i.+r pressed as to why Gavin couldn't sleep in one of the guest units, Michael said, 'Yes, but whenever kids come here they always want to stay with me me. They never want to stay in the guest units, and I have never invited them in my room. They go, can I stay with you tonight? I say, if it's okay with your parents, yes you can.'

As I walked into Michael's living room, I found myself staring at the fireplace and wondering... what if? What if he hadn't said those words on national television? What if he had had more sense, especially after the allegations of ten years earlier?

But was it so bad, really? Yes, it was, I decided at the time. Maybe now, looking back on it knowing all we know and having been so inundated with nauseating testimony as a result of the subsequent trial it seems almost inconsequential. But at the time, when those words came tumbling from Michael Jackson's mouth, yes, it was bad. It was defining. In fact, it was the one moment that, without exaggeration, completely ruined his life. After the show was broadcast on 6 February 2003, certain children's protection agencies raised questions, and one thing led to another before, finally on 20 September, Jackson was charged and arrested for child molestation.

If Michael had simply not taped that one segment with Gavin, I wondered, would he eventually have gotten into trouble somewhere else down the line? Who knows? But as I walked back into the kitchen alone with my thoughts, I felt so incredibly sad for him, for his family, for his friends and for everyone whose lives were affected by a single moment Michael probably viewed as totally insignificant as it unfolded.

Indeed, what if... ?

Memories of Santa Maria.

Four years ago in the winter and spring of 2005 28 February through 4 June I sat behind Michael Jackson in a courtroom in Santa Maria, California. I'm pretty certain I was the only person present other than his lawyers and his family members who had ever even met the defendant or any of the other Jacksons. How well I remember the first day t.i.to walked into the courtroom to support his brother. Everyone in the press area turned and looked at me with raised eyebrows. I mouthed the word 't.i.to' and they all then quickly jotted his name in their notes. They didn't know who he was! It was pretty much the same with all of the family members, who came in different configurations every day to support the most famous of the Jacksons.

At the beginning of the trial, Michael Jackson then forty-six seemed to be in very good shape. He would walk briskly into court and, as we in the press watched, limber up by stretching his body as if he was getting ready for a performance or an athletic event. It was interesting to watch his dancer's body flex and relax, and I remember thinking that he looked as fit as he did in his memorable videos for 'Thriller', 'Billie Jean', and 'Beat It'. When he would turn and smile at his attorneys or even the spectators, his charisma was strong and so evident to me. The magic was still there. He was still Michael Jackson, I thought. People were mesmerised by him, and somehow awed just to be in his presence. And never was that more evident than on 1 March 2005 the second day of opening statements when Michael's lawyer, Tom Mesereau, played the controversial Martin Bas.h.i.+r doc.u.mentary for jurors, the very one that had gotten Michael into such trouble. As Michael's music played and photos of his amazing career flashed on the screen, heads began bobbing in the courtroom. People began to smile at one another. For a moment, it was as if we weren't even in a courtroom. We were transported to some other place certainly a better better place while Michael's familiar voice and music filled the room. I thought to myself, place while Michael's familiar voice and music filled the room. I thought to myself, This is going to be one very odd molestation trial This is going to be one very odd molestation trial.

Then the testimony began.

Day after day as the prosecution stated its case and paraded one witness after another who spoke of inappropriate behavior between Michael and young boys, the pop star gradually seemed to fold inside of himself.

On the eighth day of testimony, 9 March 2005, Michael's alleged victim, fifteen-year-old Gavin Anton Arvizo, testified. Wearing a blue b.u.t.ton-down s.h.i.+rt, he seemed nervous, mumbling at times. He recounted the times Michael gave him alcohol and said that Michael had also m.a.s.t.u.r.b.a.t.ed him on two occasions. It was disturbing, to say the least. Michael stared straight ahead as if a wax mannequin, displaying absolutely no emotion whatsoever.

The day after Gavin started his testimony, Michael was an hour late getting to court. After the judge issued a bench warrant for him and threatened to throw him in jail, he finally showed up in pajamas. He'd had a serious back problem, it was explained, and needed medical treatment. There was no time for him to change. It was obvious that things were not going well for him. In fact, that bizarre day was pretty much the beginning of the end for Michael. The real story as I saw it besides the unsettling testimony wasn't the fact that he showed up in pajamas as much as it was that Michael seemed to be dying in front of our very eyes. He was clearly in terrible pain, both physical and emotional. Anyone who cared about him would have been heartsick by the sight. It was horrible to watch as he slowly deteriorated to the point where he could barely walk into the courtroom.

The prosecution's case had it that twenty telephone calls between Michael and Gavin which started when Jackson called him in the hospital during the youngster's cancer treatment were followed by the first invitation to the Neverland Ranch. That first night, according to Gavin, Michael suggested that he and his brother Starr sleep in Michael's room. He told them to ask their parents, they did, and it was agreed that they would sleep in Jackson's bedroom rather than in a guest cottage. That night they supposedly watched Internet p.o.r.n together. 'I thought he was the coolest guy in the world, my best friend ever,' Gavin said, 'know what I mean? I really liked him?'

But then, out of the blue, Michael changed his phone number and abandoned the boys. That sounded like Michael to me. He could be very capricious. He may have felt that Gavin was just a fan and that he'd given as much as he was going to give to him. Still, from Gavin's expression and demeanour on the witness stand, it was as if the boy felt betrayed, or maybe even jilted. In fact, Gavin would testify about the time he was at Neverland and had been told that Michael was not present. But then Gavin ran into him there. 'It feels like my heart broke right there,' he recalled, choked with emotion.

One day, according to the testimony, there was an unexpected telephone call asking Gavin and Starr to take part in the filming of Martin Bas.h.i.+r's doc.u.mentary, Living with Michael Jackson Living with Michael Jackson. Then, after the doc.u.mentary aired and caused a big sensation because of Michael's misguided comments, Gavin and his family were asked to take part in a reb.u.t.tal video intended to be used for damage control. Gavin, his two siblings Starr and Davellin and mother, Janet, then met Michael in Florida, as he testified, and that's when Michael supposedly gave him wine in a Diet c.o.ke can and called it Jesus Juice.

The s.e.xual misconduct between Michael and Gavin was said to have taken place back at Neverland between 20 February and 12 March 2003 (again, after the airing of the Bas.h.i.+r doc.u.mentary). As the story went, the Jackson camp then supposedly kept the Arvizos under strict surveillance and effectively kidnapped them. (Tom Mesereau had a great line about this in his cross-examination of Gavin's brother Starr: 'How many times did your family escape Neverland and then go back so you could escape again?') The climax of the Arvizo testimony would come in the video recording of Gavin's questioning by Santa Barbara police, which was shown to the jury in the last days of the trial. Gavin again described the five times he claimed Michael made him drink alcohol and then abused him. 'He said boys have to m.a.s.t.u.r.b.a.t.e because if they don't they go crazy,' Gavin told the police. 'He said that he wanted to show me how to m.a.s.t.u.r.b.a.t.e. I said, "no". He said he would do it for me. He grabbed me in my private area. He put his hand in my pants... he started masturbating me. I told him I didn't want him to do that... He kept on doing it.'

Something about this story didn't sit right with me. Maybe it was the conspiracy charge the allegation that a gaggle of Michael's cohorts kept the Arvizos at Neverland against their will at Michael's behest. That seemed ridiculous to me. My feeling was that if the district attorney concocted that charge, and it seemed to me that he had, what else in his case was fiction? If I couldn't believe the conspiracy charge, could I believe the rest of the charges of giving alcohol to minors and s.e.xual molestation? But more than that, the so-called 'reb.u.t.tal video' was troubling. In it, Gavin and his family were seen praising Michael Jackson beyond all reason while insisting that he was not capable of doing anything inappropriate with a child, and that anyone who thought so after watching the Bas.h.i.+r doc.u.mentary was very wrong. And they were adamant about it, too. However, to explain it, the prosecution claimed the whole thing had been scripted and the Arvizos had been forced to say what they said.

Whatever the case, I felt certain that District Attorney Tom Sneddon hated the idea of having to play that video for the jurors. After all, it made his case against Jackson look very suspect. The fact that he was in possession of this video and still went ahead with his prosecution made me question his motives. In fact, it made me think he had it in for Michael Jackson, maybe because he was never able to prosecute him for what he believed happened between him and his first accuser, Jordan Chandler, ten years earlier. In my opinion, once he saw the video of the Arvizos singing Michael's praises, he should have just said, 'Case closed. These people are probably liars. And even if I'm not absolutely sure they're liars, they just might might be liars and that's reason enough not to proceed with the ruination of another man's life.' be liars and that's reason enough not to proceed with the ruination of another man's life.'

The worst day, though, was the one we members of the press privately called 'p.o.r.n Day'. That was the day and it may have been more than one, I can't recall perhaps because I've tried to block it the prosecution showed, on an enormous screen, p.o.r.nographic images of magazines found at Neverland. It was awful. I remember sitting there watching Michael's mother, Katherine a devout Jehovah's Witness as she was forced to look at the lurid display. I just remember the back of her head being very still, as if frozen in place. (At one point I believe I remember her not appearing at all for one of the sessions.) None of it was gay p.o.r.n, though. None of it was kiddie p.o.r.n. So why show it? The prosecution suggested that it was straight p.o.r.n used by Michael to turn on young heteros.e.xual kids so that he could then have s.e.x with them. It didn't make sense to me. And why show so many images? One magazine, maybe. Two? Maybe. But stacks of them? I wasn't even sure they were Michael's, to tell you the truth. In my mind, it seemed like a manoeuvre to destroy him and his family.

At the end of the day, Randy Jackson looked at me as he left the courtroom and gave me a thumbs-up and a big smile. It seemed odd under the circ.u.mstances. But I returned the gesture. That evening I went back to my room and thought about that moment with Randy. It seemed somehow familiar to me. And then I remembered that almost thirty years earlier, Randy had been in an automobile accident and doctors said he would never walk again. At a press conference at the hospital, they rolled the young eighteen-year-old Randy Jackson out in a wheelchair, both legs in a cast. They said he would never walk again. I remember feeling sick about it. What a tragedy. And I remember that Randy looked at me standing among the other members of the press and gave me a thumbs-up and a big smile. Of course, Randy not only walked again, Michael said he danced and went on with his life in remarkable fas.h.i.+on. Say what you will about the Jacksons, hope springs eternal for that family and maybe with good reason.

I'll never forget another moment at the trial. It was one of the many days Michael hobbled by me, smiled and nodded his recognition. I smiled back. And as he pa.s.sed, I remember that he smelled like old, musty clothing. It was as if he was a wax figure in a museum, and one that had been there too long and was in need of care and attention. Later, one of the other reporters came over to me and said, 'You're putting your objectivity in jeopardy by smiling at the defendant. People are going to think you're on his side.' I shrugged my shoulders. 'Yeah, well... ' I muttered as I walked away. I thought it was a little late to be concerned about objectivity, especially after 'p.o.r.n Day'.

'I don't recall seein' any head lickin''

I have so many memories of that infamous trial. Sometimes they hit me in waves when I least expect it, especially since Michael's death.

For instance, I remember the day Gavin's mother, Janet Arvizo, testified. Her testimony on 13 April 2005 was so preposterous, so unlikely what with her allegation that she believed Michael was going to kidnap her children and take them away in a hot air balloon many of us in the press corps actually began to feel as if we'd been duped. After all, we'd spent months before the trial at court hearings in Santa Maria about evidence that had been sealed. We had no idea what the DA had on Jackson, we just knew it had to be pretty bad. But the testimony thus far provided by the DA seemed weak and inconsistent, and when Janet Arvizo came to town with her quirky manner, it became clear to a lot of people that this wasn't such a cut-and-dry case. Could it be that Michael was being set up by a family intent on making money, maybe, or a DA determined to finally nail him? After Janet's testimony, one CNN reporter came over to me and said, 'You know what, pal? I feel so...so...used.' It was as if he'd been promised something by a suitor and been betrayed. A friend of mine named Michael Lawler an ardent Jackson admirer who had followed the proceedings so closely he knew the evidence better than even I did had flown in from New York to attend the trial. I helped him get into the courtroom for Janet's testimony. He was so disgusted by it that he couldn't help but mutter something derogatory under his breath. Overheard by the officials, he promptly got tossed right out of the courtroom. 'The next time you help someone get into here,' a sheriff deputy told me later, 'you'd better tell him to keep his trap shut even if the witnesses are crazy as freaking loons.'

I also well remember the day Bob Jones testified, the twenty-ninth day of testimony.

I had known Bob since I was ten years old and had more than thirty years of history with him. He was a formidable man. As head publicist at Motown and later the man in charge of Michael's PR, he was the person I had to clear in order to get to Diana Ross, The Supremes, The Temptations, The Jackson 5 and all of the other Motown stars when I wanted to do interviews and features about them. He never made it easy, either. He could be incredibly intimidating and combative. He was also, at heart, a big softy. I can't count the number of favors we did for each other, mostly involving me writing about some obscure Motown artist not one person on the planet cared about in exchange for an interview with a true legend like Stevie Wonder or Smokey Robinson.

When Bob Jones left Motown to work for Michael Jackson, he made it tough for all of us in the press to get to Michael, as we expected would be the case. He'd known Michael since the pop star was eight, so of course he was protective of him. However, when there was a press day or some other function at Neverland, we'd all find ourselves in a bus together headed out there to cover the event. I remember him once telling me, 'If I see you take even one picture on the property, I'll throw you into the lake with my own two hands.' And he meant it, too.

Bob left Michael's employ in 2004 after almost seventeen years not counting all the years at Motown in what seemed an unfair way, by letter, not even a phone call. Michael just wrote him off and abandoned him for reasons that are still unclear to me and, it seems from talking to Bob about it, to him as well. Then Bob wrote a scathing book about Michael with reporter Stacy Brown. Even I was shocked by it, and I don't shock easily when it comes to this subject matter. Of course, the prosecution loved every rage-fueled word, especially in regard to Jordie Chandler, the boy Michael was accused of having molested in 1993. And before the book was even officially published, they put Bob on the witness stand to face his former employer and tell under oath some of the stories about Michael and Jordie that were in his book. What must it have been like for Bob to look out from the witness stand and stare into Michael's eyes after having written such a book? Whatever his feelings, in terms of doing what was expected of him, Bob couldn'-t or wouldn'-t pull it off for the prosecution. He'd spent so many years protecting and loving Michael Jackson, he simply couldn't do it. He acted or maybe it wasn't acting, I'm not sure to this day as if he hadn't even read the book, let alone written it with Stacy. 'I don't recall seeing any head lickin',' Bob said when asked about a particularly strange pa.s.sage in his own book. (I have to admit, that became a favorite line for a lot of us in the media.) Tom Sneddon never really broke Bob Jones no one was ever able to do that, not to my knowledge, anyway. Bob left the witness stand after not saying anything very damaging about Michael. In fact, in some ways, I felt he sacrificed his own dignity for Michael that day, maybe his final gift to his former friend and employer. He didn't seem to care that the DA had made him look like a liar, as long as he didn't betray Michael Jackson on that witness stand. Still, I had a sinking feeling that, as far as Michael was concerned, Bob was dead to him now anyway. Bob died a couple of years later without ever reconciling with Michael.

On that same day, June Chandler Jordie's mother testified. She spoke of the gifts Michael gave her and the pleading and begging he did to allow him to spend time with Jordie ten years ago. She looked so devastated as she spoke about the way her relations.h.i.+p with her son had been ruined she hadn't spoken to him in eleven years, by his decision and how much she regretted ever having trusted Michael with her son. She said that Michael lavished her with all sorts of expensive presents in order that she trust him and, maybe by extension, allow her boy to spend private time with him, on at least thirty occasions!

When I wrote about the Jordie Chandler business as it unfolded in 1993 and 1994, I was never certain what to think about it. Michael had been so adamant in my interviews with him at the time anguished telephone calls from abroad that he was not guilty, it was difficult for me to accept that he was that good a liar. Also, I had many credible sources who felt certain that Michael was being blackmailed, that he was innocent. But some of the stories in which Jordie was concerned were so disturbing, I wasn't sure what to make of them. Where Gavin Arvizo was concerned, however, I came to the conclusion that Michael wasn't guilty based on testimony presented in court. But when it came to Jordie Chandler, I wasn't as certain. How could I be?

Many of Michael's fans and family members have been angry with me over the years for not being unequivocal about Michael's innocence where Jordie Chandler was concerned. I understand that they feel Michael's denials to me in interviews should have been enough to convince me, and of course his commentary about it went a long way. But the fact of the matter is that I was never in the same room with Michael and Jordie. How could I know for sure what went on between them? And, most important unlike the situation with Gavin I wasn't presented with more than sixty days of sworn testimony to help me make up my mind. I wanted to believe that Michael was innocent of any wrongdoing with Jordie Chandler, of course. I hoped that was the case. But that doesn't necessarily make it so. In the end, in my view, blind faith is a wonderful thing reserved only for family members and very, very close friends. The rest of us just have hope and that's not the same as knowledge.

Then there was the small fact that Michael paid Jordie more than $25 million. Certainly that didn't help clear his name, as far as I was concerned. I remember interviewing Michael right after the settlement was made and telling him that I was extremely disappointed that he'd paid the Chandlers so many millions. I told him that from that moment on, people would always believe he was guilty as charged. It was the first time I'd ever heard Michael swear. 'I don't give a [expletive deleted] what people think,' he told me angrily. He said that the litigation had ruined his life, that he was absolutely innocent but that he also had the money to make the whole thing go away. It was the first time, I thought, Jackson didn't make a decision with an eye toward how it would play out in the public arena. In some ways, I remember thinking it was a defining moment for him. I wondered if maybe all of the image-making days were behind him and I hoped he'd now be able to lead a more authentic life. Maybe he didn't do it after all, I mused, and he just wanted to get on with his life and forget that the Chandlers ever existed. But then, ten years later, I sat studying June Chandler on the witness stand, this sh.e.l.l of a woman with dead eyes. She looked as if her whole world had come cras.h.i.+ng down around her the day she and her boy met Michael Jackson. And I wasn't sure what to think. She was, I felt, the prosecution's strongest witness, and not so much because of what she said it wasn't much, actually but because of how she appeared while saying it. Ruined. Totally destroyed by the circ.u.mstances of her son's relations.h.i.+p with the King of Pop.

Debbie Rowe's Testimony.

Debbie Rowe's testimony on 28 May 2005 the fortieth day was probably the most dramatic of the trial. She hadn't seen Michael in many years; he wouldn't speak to her. As far as he was concerned, she'd betrayed him more than once by wanting to see the two children Paris and Prince Michael she'd had for him. 'Sometimes she wants them,' he'd once told me in a phone conversation, 'and sometimes she doesn't, and I'm not gonna screw my kids up by dropping her into the picture and then out of the picture. I'm mad at her now.'

Michael was certainly angry when Debbie made a play for the children right after he was arrested in 2003. In a legal declaration at the time, she claimed that she kept up her visiting rights to the children for about a year but relinquished them because she couldn't handle all of the publicity surrounding the relations.h.i.+p and thought it would be 'in the children's best interests'. However, according to her statement: 'During the past few years I maintained contact with persons close to Michael so that I could keep updates on the children. I have their pictures throughout my home and often reflected on the fabulous life they must have enjoyed with their father. I was always told that our children were treated like royalty and were very happy children. I wanted to speak with Michael over the past few years to talk about our children but he did not want to speak with me. Michael never returned any phone calls nor initiated any conversation with me, so I unfortunately continued to rely on observations of others that had personal knowledge of the children and their welfare.'

She also maintained that child abuse charges against Jackson had forced her to reconsider, adding: 'I believe that I will provide a more stable environment for our children at this particular time. I believe that I have a responsibility to protect and be involved with my children's life and well-being until such time as a full investigation can be conducted to determine really what is in the children's best interests. If I did not intercede now to help our children I would not be fulfilling my responsibility as a parent.' Fearing that Jackson was about to flee the country with her children before his trial, she requested that the children's pa.s.sports be immediately surrendered. She wrote: 'Michael has close, influential and rich friends all over the world. He has the ability to rent a private jet at a moment's notice, have the children taken from the United States and never returned.'