At 12:05 today, Michael Jackson
was taken into custody.
And so it began -
the most divisive
and controversial trial in history.
Pervert, pervert, pervert!
In the dock, a global megastar.
The most famous entertainer
the world had ever known.
His accusers,
young men who claim to have seen
a very private side to him.
Michael Jackson was allegedly
sleeping in bed with little boys.
It turned into a courtroom drama
like no other...
He had to go after these two boys
with some ferocity.
..full of star witnesses...
Jay Leno came in,
Macaulay Culkin, of course.
We were expecting
Diana Ross and Liz Taylor.
..shocking revelations...
He put his hand in my pants.
..plot twists...
When she actually gave evidence,
she did the reverse
and supported the defence.
She really did kind of this 180.
..and disappearing acts.
We all settle into court,
and then there's no Michael Jackson.
With access to people
who were really there...
I remember thinking, "Here he comes,
and he's wearing pyjamas."
..who witnessed
every dramatic twist and turn...
Judge Melville was very upset.
Do you want me to shut
this trial down this afternoon?
..this is the whole truth...
He looked terrified,
just like he was scared to death.
..of a trial
that shocked the world...
That seems to be game, set, match.
Trial's over. You're guilty.
..and changed many lives forever.
It was an absolutely extraordinary
moment in criminal history.
November 2003.
The world's most famous man,
singer Michael Jackson, is arrested
and charged with sexually abusing
a 13-year-old boy, Gavin Arvizo,
at his home, the Neverland Ranch.
Michael Jackson has now surrendered
into police custody behind me,
a crushing humiliation for one
of the world's great entertainers,
right now being read those charges
of child molestation.
The prosecution's intent
was to show that Jackson
was a serial paedophile.
However, Jackson's defence
claim he's being falsely accused
by a family after his money.
Speaking to journalists
this morning,
Michael Jackson's lawyer said
the pop star is denying all charges.
A trial in California will decide
who is right and who is wrong.
This morning, the whole world
is watching this small courthouse
in Santa Maria, a town
in the county of Santa Barbara,
in anticipation of what might be
the biggest trial
we will ever witness.
Michael Jackson was,
at that time, quite simply,
the biggest entertainer,
the most famous entertainer
the world had ever known.
And we were there for, what,
four long, long months,
covering this extraordinary trial.
It was a very exciting case
to cover,
in the sense of just the sheer
magnitude of the defendant.
I mean, we were talking
about a massive major megastar
that the world loved.
And the fans -
it was like a concert,
cos the fans were going crazy.
Look, this is court.
This is a felony charge
that can get him 20 years in prison.
But you felt, that first day,
it felt like a concert.
We're talking about tents
and lights and cameras
and fans and protesters
and reporters.
I mean, it truly built
into a media circus.
We love you more!
This was an extraordinary tableau
of ridiculousness.
These Michael Jackson fans
moonwalking outside the court,
impersonating Michael Jackson.
People from all over the world
who come to this tiny town.
And for four months, it was bedlam.
With the prosecution set
to open its case,
defendant Michael Jackson
makes his grand arrival.
I remember the first day, because
he had gotten The Nation of Islam
and their security team, and
they marched in ahead of Michael.
They marched down the street
as Michael's motorcade was coming.
It was such a powerful sight.
The first time I saw Michael Jackson
walk into the courtroom,
he looked terrified,
and he was so thin
and just looked fragile
and just like
he was scared to death.
Leading the prosecution
against Jackson is Tom Sneddon,
who'd had dealings
with the pop star in the past.
The lead prosecutor was the district
attorney for Santa Barbara,
who was a very experienced
criminal prosecutor.
Tom Sneddon
was a very well-known prosecutor,
a very serious guy.
He had been pursuing Michael Jackson
for years, at least a decade.
12 years earlier,
the world was stunned
when Jackson faced allegations
of abusing another 13-year-old boy,
Jordan Chandler.
Back then, Sneddon was unable
to criminally charge Jackson.
He tried it once before,
back in the early '90s.
That prosecution had failed.
And you could really feel
from Tom Sneddon
the importance
of what this case brought.
Jackson is represented in court
by highly regarded defence attorney
Thomas Mesereau.
Tom Mesereau was one
of the top defence attorneys
in America, hands down.
He did Mike Tyson, and later on,
he would come to do Bill Cosby.
And he was a great attorney,
as simple as that.
Thomas Mesereau had a very
commanding presence in the courtroom
and not only commanding presence,
but a calm about him, as well.
He was tall, and then his hair
was just solid snow white.
And he really knew
what he was talking about.
Mesereau and his team
have their work cut out
defending Jackson against
ten very serious charges.
The prosecution's strategy
is to show
that Michael Jackson was sleeping
in bed with little boys,
and that what he was doing was
ill*gal, that it was a felony,
and they wanted him convicted.
Good morning.
The private world of Michael Jackson
reveals that instead of cookies
and instead of milk,
you can substitute wine, vodka
and bourbon
instead of children's
books and discussions of Peter Pan.
This 44-year-old man is sharing
with 13-year-old Gavin
his collection
of sexually explicit magazines.
You are going to be able to peek
into the private world
of the defendant,
and you are going to hear from Gavin
as he describes to you
his molestation.
I sensed a bit of a kind
of a frustration or an anger,
you know,
like he really...
he really was serious about this.
In court,
Jackson hardly said anything.
He occasionally spoke
to his lawyers,
but for most of the time,
he just sat there
and had no expression
on his face at all.
I submit to you, we will prove
it never, ever happened.
So many people around the world
want to get near him.
People are always just buzzing
around him,
trying to grab hold of something
that will give them
fame and fortune.
It's an ongoing reality.
It's an ongoing problem.
There are many, many challenges
in defending
in a case of that nature
that, when a young person
makes an allegation of sexual abuse,
the big question is
why would the individual do that
unless it was true?
And obviously,
there's a lot of sympathy
that goes with an allegation
like that.
I think there was a feeling
that Michael Jackson
was gonna be found guilty.
Michael's innocent!
Michael's innocent!
Michael Jackson arriving
for the second day of his trial,
charged with the molestation of
former cancer victim Gavin Arvizo.
Today, the first
prosecution witnesses
will begin giving evidence.
The first witness
called by the prosecution
is British journalist Martin Bashir.
Three years earlier,
Bashir spent eight months
filming a documentary called
Living With Michael Jackson.
And using your heel.
Use your heel to slide back.
Slide back on your heel.
Initially, the star was excited
about the film.
Michael calls, and he says,
"I have this huge thing coming out.
"It's gonna change the world.
"It's gonna change
everybody's perception of me.
"It's gonna be great."
During filming, Bashir noticed
Jackson spending time
with the 12-year-old
called Gavin Arvizo,
and he interviewed them together.
When people hear
that children stayed in your bedroom
and they say,
"Is that really appropriate
"for a man, a grown man,
to be doing that?",
how do you respond to that?
I feel sorry for them,
because that's judging someone
who wants to really help people.
Why can't you share your bed?
The most loving thing to do
is to share your bed with someone.
It proved to be catastrophic
for the singer.
Documentary drops on ABC
in February,
and it was a disaster
from the word go.
Jackson is seen in that documentary
holding hands with Gavin Arvizo.
He also talked about sleepovers
with young children.
The little boy was leaning
on Michael's shoulder.
There was clearly affection there.
A little too close for comfort.
And that was what clearly proved
so inflammatory.
The effect of that documentary
was extraordinary.
Gavin Arvizo
had been battling cancer
when he was introduced
to Michael Jackson in hospital.
The star invited his family
to Neverland,
and they became friends.
After the jury is shown
his documentary,
the prosecution questioned Bashir.
The prosecution needed to call him
in order to exhibit the documentary
that had been the trigger
for the whole investigation.
Mr Bashir, what is
your profession or occupation?
I've been involved
in journalism for 20 years,
and I've been a television
journalist for around 18 years.
Martin Bashir is happy to answer
questions from the prosecution,
but in cross-examination,
he's less forthcoming.
What I think Thomas Mesereau
desperately wanted to get into
was the tactics
that Martin Bashir employed
in order to get people
to open up to him -
the fact that he would insinuate
himself into people's trust
and then basically turn on them.
Mr Bashir,
in the process of attempting to
obtain statements from Mr Jackson,
you called him "the boss",
didn't you?
Did you want to answer that?
I don't, Your Honour.
Mr Bashir clammed up
and refused to answer questions
from Jackson's defence attorney,
Thomas Mesereau.
Mr Bashir, to prepare,
the show you've just shown the jury
in this courtroom,
you told them you had
an abiding sense
that he is a selfless
and most generous person.
Correct?
Do you wanna answer that question?
I don't, Your Honour.
He relied almost entirely on
the right of journalistic privilege
in declining to answer questions.
Thomas Mesereau and, indeed,
his client, Michael Jackson,
clearly believed
that the film fatally misrepresented
who Michael Jackson was.
Michael was very upset
by the way he was portrayed.
He felt this wasn't
a true depiction of him.
So he had one of his videographers
film over what Bashir was filming
when he was filming the interview.
Two weeks
after the Bashir film aired,
Jackson broadcast his own version
in retaliation.
It features footage his team filmed
of scenes Bashir edited out.
I love them.
Thank you so much.
The boy with Jackson
in the Bashir documentary,
Gavin Arvizo,
was also filmed with his family.
Vincent Amen was involved
in the production.
I was told that the Arvizos
were gonna
be doing a video deposition
of their relationship -
true relationship -
with Michael Jackson.
We now know it
as the video rebuttal,
as it was called during trial.
In this rebuttal video,
you have Gavin
and his sister, Davellin
and mom, Janet, and Star,
and everybody is talking
about singing his praises,
literally talking about
how great he is and how, you know,
none of this
could have ever happened
and they loved him.
The first impression was
Janet was not happy at the time.
She felt bad for Michael.
And this was a mischaracterisation
of Michael
and a mischaracterisation of
Gavin's relationship with Michael.
I gave my brother the extra
little spark he needed in his mind,
cos my brother was to the point
where he couldn't even move.
He couldn't even... talk.
And he gave
my little brother so much.
I was generally moved.
I felt this was
an ethical production,
a very truthful production.
And it actually moved me
to believe the Arvizo family
and their relationship
to Michael Jackson
and basically cleared up
any doubt that I had
in Michael Jackson's innocence.
The rebuttal video seems like
perfect evidence for the defence.
However,
in a surprise turn of events,
the interview is presented
in court by the prosecution.
In reality, according
to prosecutors, this was fiction.
It wasn't reality.
They were told they had to do it.
They needed to do it.
They'd been given so much.
Michael Jackson, according
to other accusers, would say,
"If you tell what we have done,
we're both going to jail.
"We're going to be in trouble."
Before long, Gavin's mum
dramatically turned on Jackson,
alleging sexual abuse of her son,
and even kidnap.
Following her complaint,
70 police officers raid Neverland
in search of incriminating evidence
and, a short time later,
Jackson was arrested.
Gavin's 18-year-old sister Davellin,
who appears in the rebuttal video,
is the first family member
called by the prosecution.
Davellin, the sister,
said in her evidence
that they had been given a script.
Sneddon asked her...
What did he say about the rebuttal?
It was just we were supposed
to say nice things about him,
and he offered us a piece of paper.
Paper? What do you mean by a paper?
Kind of like a script.
Do you remember what was on it?
Just nice things of Mr Jackson,
and that's it.
The effect of her testimony
was that the rebuttal video
was pre-scripted
in order to paint the most positive
light you could have of Michael.
Davellin did not witness the central
accusation of alleged molestation.
But in her testimony, other
disturbing behaviour comes to light.
On the stand, Davellin,
the older sister, mentioned,
among other things, that she and her
siblings had been served alcohol.
You've got the idea
of Michael Jackson
pouring red wine into a soda can
and then giving it to a child
and calling it Jesus juice,
like Jesus drank the red wine
with his disciples.
This megastar is taking red wine and
pouring it into an empty coke can
to give to a kid.
That's what is being told to us,
and so you have
to visualise that happening.
And at first it seems like
"No way! Did that happen?"
It seems
to kind of stun some people.
What I saw, anyway, is a couple
of the jurors looking at him
like a little bit,
"OK, I'm disappointed in you.
"I'm a little angry."
And I think the prosecution felt
like they won
some big points with that.
Yet alcohol is only the tip
of the iceberg.
Next, the prosecution calls
Gavin's younger brother, Star,
who has even more
disturbing revelations
of what went on behind closed doors.
We heard about p*rn*graphy,
that p*rn*graphy was in the house,
that it was out, that it was shared,
that it was viewed,
that, you know, it was something
that they all looked at together.
"Do you recall whose idea it was
to go on the internet?"
"Michael's.
"While we were on
one of those sites,
"a lady had her shirt up,
and Michael said, 'Got milk?'
"Yeah, and then
he leaned over to Prince,
"and he says,
'You're missing some P-U-S-S-Y.' "
How many sites do you feel
that you went to that night?
I don't really remember,
but probably, say, five or six.
And what did those sites have?
You don't need to go
into all of the details,
but generally,
what was their common denominator?
Females.
The alcohol and the p*rn*graphy
is important evidence
for the prosecution.
But Star has something
much more serious to reveal.
And it's the first time
this evidence is heard.
The bombshell moment
of Star Arvizo's evidence
came when he claimed
to have seen his brother Gavin
on a bed at Neverland Ranch
with Michael Jackson.
I think the gist of it
was that Star observed
Michael Jackson sexually abusing
his brother Gavin.
You said you saw his hands.
Whose hands were you talking about?
Michael's.
And where were his hands?
His left hand
was in my brother's pants,
and the right hand was in HIS pants.
Did you see, if anything,
what he was doing?
He was masturbating.
That was the first and, indeed,
the only direct eye witness account
of alleged molestation.
And what does that tell you?
This is a kid looking at something
happening to his own brother.
Seems clear to me.
He witnessed his brother being,
I guess, molested by Michael.
And when you have a eyewitness,
that seems to be game, set, match -
trial's over, you're guilty.
It's amazing to me that the jury,
having heard that...
..did not, at least in their minds,
convict him right then and there.
I mean,
how much more evidence do you need?
Star's testimony
is undeniably powerful.
However, the defence strategy
from the start
is to undermine the prosecution case
and its witnesses.
You didn't immediately go
to your mother and report that,
did you, when you saw it?
No.
You didn't immediately go to
your father and report that, right?
My dad wasn't there.
You didn't immediately
tell Davellin about it, right?
No.
Now you've indicated -
for the first time ever -
discussed any alleged inappropriate
touching by Michael Jackson
was with psychologist Stanley Katz,
right?
Yes.
And you've admitted that you gave
Stanley Katz a different description
than you've given
in this courtroom, right?
Yes.
In fact, you never mentioned
the third event
that you've described today
to Stanley Katz.
Because I might have forgot
about it.
What Mesereau did with Star
was he tried to point out
inconsistencies in his stories.
And so, the more that you
can paint an inconsistent story
from a witness, then that gives
reasonable doubt for jurors.
And that's what
the defence is always trying to do
to get to that reasonable doubt.
In the rebuttal video,
which the family claim
was scripted and false,
Star praised Jackson
as a father figure.
Defence counsel
asked the following -
"Star, do you remember making those
comments about Michael Jackson?"
Sure.
Were you telling the truth?
No, not really.
Were you lying?
Yeah.
On there, yes.
So you were lying when you said
Michael let you feel like his son.
You weren't telling the truth?
Yes.
And when you said
he let you call him father,
you weren't telling the truth?
Yes.
Defence counsel is demonstrating
that Star had lied
on previous occasions.
And that's a very, very
significant development.
You've got the statements
in the rebuttal video,
you've got what we're hearing
on the stand.
Some of the time,
it's two different things.
Which one was it?
And some of these stories
are inconsistent.
The defence strategy seems
to be working.
However, next comes
their biggest challenge
as the accuser
is called to testify...
He started acting like he was having
sex with the mannequin.
..not, though, before
the court is thrown into chaos.
This was the circus,
and this was another day in it.
It is the second week
of the Michael Jackson trial,
and the prosecution has called
the main accuser, Gavin Arvizo,
to give evidence.
This is
the star witness of the case.
This is Gavin on the stand
to tell his story.
This is the accuser
facing Michael Jackson.
Tom Sneddon would have realised,
as an experienced prosecutor,
this was the most important part
of his case.
He had to present Gavin
as a credible witness to the jury,
otherwise his case would fail.
And when it's a child,
it's a particularly daunting
and complicated and challenging
state of affairs.
However,
on the day Gavin, now 15,
is due to talk
about the alleged abuse,
the court is suddenly thrown
into chaos.
We're talking
about high-stakes drama.
This is the moment
that everybody is waiting for.
What's gonna happen?
And then you've got this entirely
different scenario that unfolds.
We all settle into court,
and then there's no Michael Jackson.
Where is the famous defendant?
That's what the judge,
Judge Melville, wanted to know.
And as the clock... clock ticked,
no sign of Jackson whatsoever.
So Judge Melville was very upset.
I notice
the defendant's not present.
Yes, Your Honour.
Mr Jackson is at Cottage Hospital
in Santa Ynez
with a serious back problem.
We are all standing out there.
I'm outside now, right?
And, you know,
we were gonna go live.
Breaking news -
Michael Jackson is gone.
I mean, of all the days, this is
the day everybody wants to see.
They want to see him
come through that door,
take his seat inside the courtroom
and face his accuser.
This is the moment.
I'm going to issue a warrant
for his arrest.
I'm forfeiting his bail,
and I will hold that order
for one hour.
In one hour,
I will execute that order.
If your bail is revoked.
you go behind bars
for the duration of the trial.
And that was what he was facing
at the time.
Mesereau is forced to make
a desperate call to his client
and insist
Jackson returns immediately.
When, an hour later,
the singer finally appears,
no-one can quite believe their eyes.
When he did turn up,
Jackson walked into court
in his pyjama bottoms.
See, I'm thinking,
"What in the world is going on here?
"Is he crazy? Has he lost it?
Has he totally gone bonkers here?"
And he's walking,
like, so slow and gingerly, and...
and I'm saying, "OK, this is...
this is bad, this is really bad."
It was just a crazy moment,
because it's not often
that you see a defendant walking
into court wearing pyjamas.
But listen, this was the circus,
and this was another day in it.
It was certainly speculated
that the reason that he had to go
to the hospital suddenly
for back pain was because
he didn't wanna face his accuser.
That's what it felt like.
Jackson now has to hear
the most serious allegations
from his accuser in his pyjamas.
Sneddon asked Gavin
about a mannequin Jackson had
in his bedroom.
Did you ever see Mr Jackson
do anything with that mannequin?
Yes.
He started acting like he was
having sex with the mannequin.
So, what did he do
with the mannequin?
He acted like he was humping it.
And where was he
when he was doing this?
On the bed.
According to Gavin,
the singer pressurised him
to engage in sexual activity.
What did he say to you?
He said that
if men don't masturbate,
they might r*pe a girl
or be kind of unstable.
The jury has already heard
about the alleged abuse
from Gavin's younger brother, Star.
Now it's time to hear it
from the accuser.
This is the crucial evidence
from the most important witness
in the case.
This is Gavin on the stand.
So, he says, "And then so he..."
"We were under the covers,
and I had his pyjamas on,
"because he had
this big thing of pyjamas,
"and he gave me his pyjamas."
And so I was under his covers,
and that's when he put his hand
in my pants.
And he started masturbating me.
Do you know approximately
how long Mr Jackson,
uh, masturbated you?
Maybe five minutes, I guess.
The onlookers,
the media in the courtroom...
You saw some mouths open, literally.
You know that expression?
"Oh, gosh, their mouths are open."
Well, literally,
you saw mouths open
with Gavin's, uh, testimony.
I think Sneddon,
after that testimony,
might have felt
that he had landed another punch.
That is pretty strong stuff.
And that was a moment, too,
you thought, "OK,
Michael Jackson's in trouble here."
From what I remember,
Mesereau's cross-examination
of Gavin was very direct,
very pointed and very sceptical.
But that's his job.
He had to do that.
In order to undermine
the credibility of the witness,
he had to go after
not only that kid,
but the other kids,
with some ferocity.
You testified that Mr Jackson told
you what masturbation is, right?
Yes.
Do you remember being interviewed
by the Santa Barbara
Sheriff's department?
Yes.
Remember you said, "My grandma
told me that if men don't do it,
"men might get to a point
"where they might go ahead
and r*pe a woman."
I believe so.
Well, you came into court under oath
and told the jury
Mr Jackson made that quote to you.
My grandmother and Michael
were both trying to talk to me
about "the birds and the bees"
story.
And they pretty much said
the identical thing.
Is that what you're telling me?
Not exactly.
Not exactly?
No.
What Gavin said was
that Michael Jackson had said,
"If you don't masturbate,
you'll end up raping a woman."
But Gavin also said
that his grandmother
had said the same thing,
which is, on the face of it,
a very remarkable coincidence,
and clearly,
the defence homed in on this
to undermine the disputed claim
that Michael Jackson had said it.
And this was, you know,
an important aspect
of their strategy to say,
"Of course he never said that,
and this is ridiculous,
"because you're now saying
your grandmother said it as well."
So they were trying
to illustrate and highlight
that this
simply couldn't be believed.
Mesereau focuses on inconsistencies
in Gavin's statement
about whether
the alleged abuse occurred
before or after the rebuttal video.
You said repeatedly in this trial
that Mr Jackson
did not inappropriately touch you
until after this video was done,
correct?
Yes.
Do you remember telling Mr Sneddon
and the sheriffs on one occasion
that you were molested
before the video was done?
No.
Would it refresh your recollection
if I showed you a transcript
of that interview?
Yes.
But the thing was, I don't...
Even to this day...
..I don't remember exactly
when everything happened...
exactly, so, I mean...
So, then,
why does your story change?
I don't know. It...
It happened after. I...
I mean...
By the end of the cross-examination,
he'd clearly identified
a number of features of...
of the complainant's evidence
that were unsatisfactory.
And that was his ultimate goal.
So he'd clearly achieved
what he set out to do
by leaving the jury
asking serious questions
about the reliability
of the main prosecution witness.
Despite this success,
defence attorney Mesereau
is not happy
about the prosecution's next move.
So, the next stage of the trial
revolved around the question
of whether historic alleged abuse
should be admitted in evidence.
And we all know
from covering Michael Jackson
and following his story
that there have been
many allegations of sexual abuse.
And that's what the prosecutor,
Tom Sneddon, wants to bring in.
He wants to present that
to the jurors
to show that this isn't
just a one-off,
this isn't just something
that happened once.
If you can tell the jury
and paint this picture,
this guy's been doing stuff
like this for decades,
then it's easier
for that jury to believe
that Gavin Arvizo was molested.
Now, the defence tried
to exclude all that.
Mesereau wanted it to be
simply about the Arvizos,
and he had every right
to... to want that.
The judge took the view that
the existence of other allegations
was relevant
for the jury to consider,
and that, in the end,
it will be up to the jury
to decide the weight to be attached
to those allegations.
This is a very important application
for the prosecution.
At this point,
the trial has not gone
particularly well for them.
Every witness
has been demonstrated
to be materially inconsistent
on important matters.
The judge's ruling means
the next witness to take the stand
will really turn the heat up
on Mesereau and his team.
The first witness to testify
about previous abuse by Jackson
was Jason Francia,
whose mother had worked at Neverland
in the early '90s,
when Jason was between
seven and ten years old,
and he testified as to that abuse.
Was there ever an occasion
that you were with Michael Jackson
where something happened
that made you feel uncomfortable?
Yes.
Did that happen more than once?
Yeah.
Do you have a recollection
of these events?
Yeah.
What happened?
I'm tickling, and he's tickling,
and I'm tickling, and he's tickling.
And eventually, he moves down
to my little private region.
Did he actually make contact
with your genital area?
Not skin to skin, but yeah.
Yeah, he was in my clothes.
I thought his testimony
was damaging, to say the least,
because now you have another victim.
And people had not heard
of Jason Francia until the trial.
It shows, doesn't it,
that this is perhaps part
of a pattern of behaviour
on the part of Michael Jackson,
that he has this propensity
to ingratiate himself
into the lives of young people,
to attract them
to his Neverland Ranch,
with its carousel and its zoo
and all the other hullabaloo,
and groom them and abuse them.
The testimony
of someone other than Gavin
who claims he was abused
is damaging for Jackson.
However, Mesereau seizes upon the
one thing that unites many of those
who'd made such allegations
against the singer.
Tom Mesereau did a masterful job
of painting this picture
that everybody who testified,
it was all about money.
They either had already been paid,
that they were gonna be paid.
They were looking to make money
off of Michael Jackson.
At some point,
you and your mother settled a case
with Mr Jackson.
Correct?
There was a financial settlement.
Jason Francia's family settled
for $2 million in 1993,
and not long after this,
another alleged abuse victim,
Jordan Chandler,
received over 20 million.
To an extent, it was true.
He's got all this money.
He's the biggest star in the world.
What do they want? They want money.
They want money.
Everybody wants his money.
This is a story that is
a long, old one in Hollywood,
that people go after celebrities,
say that they did something wrong,
get a little something in return,
whether that's fame themselves,
a shot at a try-out,
an audition, a trip,
whatever the case may be.
I mean, when you're talking
about people
who had had previous allegations
of sexual misconduct
with Michael Jackson
and then you learn that they
received financial compensation,
then that might make you want
to question who's telling the truth.
Now, there was never any evidence
that the Arvizos sought money
from Michael Jackson,
and Janet
had... had swore under oath
that she was...
had never sued Michael
and would never sue him,
something that held up.
Gavin's mum, Janet, might not
be seeking money from Jackson,
but will she be able
to convince the jury
that her motivations are sincere?
Gavin's mother, Janet, was seen as a
crucial witness for the prosecution.
As it turned out,
she came across as unreliable,
almost from the beginning.
Well, you're correct,
I did an inadequate job.
I'm a poor actress. You're right.
I think you're a good one.
Jackson's Neverland Ranch
was the perfect place
to invite children,
with a theme park, zoo
and never-ending candy.
Today, the prosecution
calls witnesses
to what went on behind its walls -
the staff who worked there.
Some of the most interesting
testimony at this trial, for me,
was hearing from the people
that worked at Neverland,
because you've got the direct people
that are, you know,
the management team,
the security team,
but the people that worked
inside the walls of Neverland
are the people who saw everything.
One of these members of staff
is the former head of security,
Ralph Chacon.
Now, during the time you were
employed at Neverland Ranch,
did you personally observe anything
that you felt was inappropriate?
Yes.
Ralph Chacon, to me,
not only seemed
to be a reliable witness,
but a relatable one.
Ralph Chacon had allegedly witnessed
Jackson abusing 13-year-old
Jordan Chandler in 1993.
I saw him standing in the nude.
Jackson was caressing
the boy's hair,
was kissing him on his head,
on his face...
his lips.
He started kissing him
on his n*pples.
He started to move down
to his p*nis.
Once again in this trial, the jury
is hearing some very damning
testimony about the singer.
But in cross-examination,
Mesereau wants to find out
if the witness has shared
this testimony with anyone else.
Well... we went to a tabloid.
Which one?
It was The Star.
The problem with Ralph Chacon
is, like, he...
he had also talked
to tabloid media
and got paid for his stories.
And you wanted money for a story?
Yes, sir.
Did you sell a story to the tabloid?
Yes, sir.
This is another example
of how the defence find ways
of undermining
the testimony of witnesses
by attacking their own conduct.
It all goes back
to Tom Mesereau's defence strategy,
that everybody is out for money,
everybody's out to make a buck off
of my poor client, Michael Jackson.
The defence's success
at sowing doubt in the jurors' minds
is an issue for the prosecution,
so they hope their next witness
will be a potential game-changer.
Gavin's mother, Janet,
was seen as a crucial witness
for the prosecution
because she was viewed as someone
who could corroborate
what Gavin had said
and what his siblings had said.
Gavin's mother, Janet,
called to the stand.
And this is a moment that a lot
of people have been waiting for.
But no-one in the court
could anticipate
exactly how Janet's testimony
would play out
over the next few days.
I found a sketch of Janet Arvizo
going like this,
just being dramatic.
By the time she got to the stand,
Janet was a little bit
out of sorts, nervous,
and found it hard
to answer direct questions.
Tell us what it was that you saw.
Please don't judge me.
At the time,
I hadn't slept for so long.
And everyone was asleep.
And it was hours into the flight.
She describes an incident
involving Michael Jackson
and her son on board a private jet.
I figured this was my chance
to go and check to see
what was going on back there, and...
..that's when I saw Michael licking
Gavin's head.
And I... I thought it was me.
I thought I was seeing things,
I thought it was me.
That's the sketch I drew,
was of Janet going... like that
to show how Michael was licking
Gavin's head.
People called her combative
at times,
and there were some times
where she did these snap moves,
where you were just taken aback
in the courtroom,
and you could see
the physical reaction
that some of the jurors had.
You know, that's just not
typical behaviour of a witness.
I don't think that people felt like
it went over well with the jury.
She was very animated,
and it wasn't in a good way.
It was astonishing, really.
I mean, she just did not seem
a credible witness at all.
She faltered. She prevaricated.
She pointed her fingers at the jury.
She lost her train of thought.
She was the...
the ultimate unreliable witness.
It was very sad,
cos, you know, she...
that... that didn't look good
for her.
By the time the prosecution
has finished questioning Janet,
there is a feeling she has been
something of an own goal.
So when Mesereau gets to his feet,
he smells blood.
Mesereau's first point of attack
is Janet's claim
that she and the children
were held c*ptive at Neverland
after their relationship
with Jackson broke down.
Did you think you were being held
against your will by Mr Jackson
or anyone associated with him?
Did I think it?
Yes.
I knew it.
And did you think
you were the victim
of either force or fear created by
anyone associated with Mr Jackson?
I knew it.
Yet you never went to court
to get a restraining order
at any time
regarding Mr Jackson - true?
I was too scared of him.
The defence attorney is suggesting
Janet's testimony does not add up.
Yes, the two of them
did not care for each other.
And, uh, yeah,
Thomas Mesereau and her,
when it was on cross-examination,
she...
she was not liking the questions
he was asking.
I felt that she was no match
for Tom Mesereau -
not that many people
are a match for Tom Mesereau -
but she was absolutely gonna be
out of her league.
And I think that the prosecution
was wary of that, too.
Janet becomes more irritated
when defence attorney Mesereau
turns his attention
to her claims of acting
in the rebuttal video.
Well, you're correct.
I did an inadequate job.
I'm a poor actress. You're right.
I think you're a good one.
"Oh, I think you're a good actress."
You know, when he takes that tone,
you can feel his disdain.
You know, you can feel it
in the courtroom
that he doesn't like her,
he doesn't believe her.
And he wants the jury to also call
into question her credibility.
This is Thomas Mesereau
basically lampooning Janet Arvizo
to highlight
what an extraordinarily bad witness
for the prosecution she has been.
He's having a bit of humour,
really, for the jury's benefit.
Do you want me to shut
this trial down this afternoon?
No, Your Honour, I don't.
Then let's start taking this
seriously and act correctly.
Yes, Your Honour.
Go ahead.
Mesereau might be toying with Janet
at times in his cross-examination,
but he also wants to land
a knockout punch.
There was a case in 1998
where Janet Arvizo
claimed she'd been assaulted
by security officers from JCPenney,
the store, where she was shown
to have lied,
and where her and her family
had been awarded,
I think, in excess of 150,000.
The family was in the store
when the children
had been suspected of shoplifting.
In the car park, security guards
confronted Janet and her family.
A fight ensued, and she claimed
she received injuries.
So, she claimed that these injuries
had been inflicted
by security guards,
but she'd failed to accept
that her husband
sometimes beat her up as well.
In her testimony to the police,
she claimed that
her husband had never beaten her up,
something she later retracted.
You told the Los Angeles
Police Department
that for approximately 17 years
he'd been physically
and emotionally abusing you, right?
This is correct.
But in the JCPenney case,
when you wanted money...
..you said the opposite about David,
didn't you?
So, Tom Mesereau
asks Janet on the stand,
"You were not telling the truth
under oath
"when you made those statements."
The problem you had is
that when you made allegations
later on
regarding David abusing you
for 17 years,
there's a deposition
that previously had been taken
where you said the opposite
under oath.
Correct?
You're... It's too long.
It's a yes and a no
and a yes and a no.
And now I don't know.
So she lied under oath
in the JCPenney's case.
Is she lying under oath now?
That is a big question being put
to jurors in this exchange.
When a witness admits lying,
this is always
an important stage of a trial.
The impact of that revelation,
that admission,
was devastating
to Janet Avizo's testimony
because it basically portrayed her
as a liar,
somebody who would lie for money.
The mother of the accuser has failed
to deliver for the prosecution,
so Sneddon and Zonen decide
radical action is needed
and call another mum to the stand.
Another day
in this Santa Maria courtroom,
and another prosecution witness
in the trial of Michael Jackson.
However, today's witness
is a surprising choice
for the prosecution.
With the prosecution
feeling their case is slipping away,
they decide to take a huge gamble
on their next witness...
Deborah, D-E-B-O-R-A-H
Rowe, R-O-W-E.
..someone closer to the defendant
than any other witness...
Jackson, J-A-C-K-S-O-N.
..the former wife
of Michael Jackson
and the mother of his children.
Rowe gave birth to two of Jackson's
children, Prince and Paris,
in the late '90s,
but they separated in 1999.
I remember having a conversation
with Steve Robel,
the lead detective,
before Debbie testified,
and they thought, you know,
this is huge for the prosecution.
Michael Jackson's ex-wife
is gonna testify.
But why would Rowe testify
against the father of her children?
Do you know the defendant,
Michael Jackson,
seated to my right,
with the long dark hair?
Yes, I do.
How do you know Mr Jackson?
We've been friends,
and we were married.
The prosecution understand
that Rowe is estranged from Jackson
and hasn't seen her children
for nearly three years.
I think they were expecting her
to come up there and say that
she had concerns with his behaviour,
that she even... she even warned him
about his behaviour.
This is a key moment
for the prosecution.
We were thinking that
this person is going to talk
about some of the maybe shady things
that happened behind the scenes.
Well, I think
the defence clearly anticipated
that Debbie Rowe would say
very bad things about him.
That was...
All the evidence suggests that
that's what they anticipated.
Like the Arvizo family,
Rowe was also filmed
praising Jackson
in response
to the Bashir documentary.
And like the Arvizos,
the prosecution believed
Jackson's ex-wife was coerced.
And they expect her
to admit this on the stand.
In that interview, what kind of
person did you say Michael was?
Generous to a fault,
giving and kind.
When she actually gave evidence,
she did the reverse
and supported the defence case.
She really did this 180.
She says Michael Jackson
is "great with kids,
"puts other people ahead of him".
So, you know, that is only good
for the defence at this point.
The prosecutors are shocked.
Their gamble has backfired.
What is it you're intending
to represent in this interview?
Michael as a wonderful person
and as a great father,
and generous and caring.
I think the decision
to call her was a mistake.
And suddenly, you're presented
with a witness you didn't think
was gonna be helpful who is,
then it's like anything in life,
you know.
You've been given a free gift.
You're delighted about it.
It showed or gave the impression
the prosecution was desperate.
I don't know her personally,
but I knew she would never do...
It's crazy to think
she would turn on Michael Jackson.
Debbie Rowe has been
a disappointment to the prosecution.
And four days later, after
nine weeks and over 80 witnesses,
Sneddon and Zonen
finally rest their case.
Now it's time for the defence to
present its arguments to the jury.
And there is one question
on everyone's mind.
I would say that
during this phase of the trial,
almost every conversation
that we had on television
and on radio and in the parking lot
and in restaurants
was "Will Michael Jackson
take the stand?
"Will he be called to testify
in his own defence?"
Mesereau has to weigh up
the pros and cons
of putting this global superstar
on the stand.
He had a right
to take the stand.
By law, you can,
if you're accused of something,
you can get on the stand
and be your own witness.
Uh, but he chose not to do that.
Can you imagine
the cross-examination
that Tom Sneddon would have with
Michael Jackson on the stand
after all this time?
This is a prosecutor who has
been trying to get Michael Jackson
in a courtroom and on
a witness stand for years and years.
And now here's the moment
that would have opened up,
really, just a huge can of worms.
He was very meek,
very mild, very quiet.
And the notion that he would
have forcefully defended himself
against these allegations
seems a little far-fetched.
Instead of calling Mr Jackson,
the defence begins its case
by calling forward witnesses
who'd known the singer
when they were young boys.
Good afternoon, Mr Robson.
Hey, how are you doing?
How old are you?
I'm 22.
Wade Robson was called
by the defence
to say that he'd befriended
Michael Jackson,
that he'd, as a child,
he'd often go to Neverland,
he'd sleep over there.
Mr Robson, did Michael Jackson
ever molest you at any time?
Absolutely not.
The defence clearly decided
to call witnesses
who had not been the subject
to any sort of molestation at all.
Mr Robson, did Michael Jackson
ever touch you in a sexual way?
Never, no.
This was powerful evidence
in the case.
Mr Robson, has Michael Jackson ever
inappropriately touched
any part of your body at any time?
No.
In cross-examination,
the prosecution tried to sow doubt
in the jury's mind
by undermining what is potentially
very strong testimony.
You're saying nothing happened,
is that right?
Yes.
What you're really saying is nothing
happened while you were awake.
Isn't that true?
I'm telling you
that nothing ever happened.
Mr Robson, when you were asleep,
you wouldn't have known what had
happened, particularly at age seven.
Would you have?
I would think something like that
would wake me up.
What is a witness supposed to say
when he's asked,
"Is it possible you were abused
when you were asleep?"
And what can a witness say,
other than that "I was asleep"?
This seems to me
to be highly improbable
and must have seemed
highly improbable to the jury.
And the fact that
the prosecution were suggesting it
does rather smack of desperation.
It's all... It's a bit farcical.
The next defence witness
is Macaulay Culkin,
the star of Home Alone
and a long-time friend of Jackson
as a young boy and as a teenager.
There was a fair amount of
anticipation with the Culkin case
because he was well known,
and I think people were very
interested in what he had to say.
There had been rumours that he had
been molested by Michael Jackson,
and then, when Macaulay Culkin
got on the stand,
he saw Michael, and he just melted.
Just like Wade Robson,
Macaulay Culkin spent
long periods of time
hanging out with Michael Jackson
at Neverland.
He was adamant
that he had never been molested.
The strategy
with these two witnesses
was to corroborate the notion
that Michael had never engaged
in sexual abuse.
That's good for the defence.
Over 14 days,
the defence calls 50 witnesses,
and this includes other celebrities
there to defend Jackson's good name.
For the defence, we practically had
this conga line of celebrities -
Chris Tucker, George Lopez,
Jay Leno.
If a celebrity tells
you something, it must be the truth.
They pay more attention and
they put more weight on celebrity.
We hold them up as royalty.
And so Macaulay Culkin
was seen as royalty.
He's a celebrity.
He's a... You know, he's an icon.
He's a god to some of them.
The prosecution found it difficult
to undermine the testimony
of these stars.
I think the prosecution
didn't see it coming,
and it seemed like
they were very unprepared.
With the defence resting its case,
the judge is ready
to send the jury out.
But the prosecution asks if it can
present one final piece of evidence.
It's a video of Gavin giving
a police interview,
shortly after he claimed
he was abused.
I think that every time
that we have seen a police interview
played in a court of law,
it's very impactful
because it's in the moment.
Sneddon wasn't allowed
to show it before
because Gavin had testified
in court in person instead.
The prosecution chose to show
that tape at the end of the trial
because it was a way
of reminding the jury
of the central element of the case.
"This man molested me."
And that's it.
That's the heart of it.
Did he do it, or didn't he?
The prosecution convinced the judge
to change his mind,
concerned the defence
have made Gavin look
like he is making things up.
Sneddon wants jurors
to see how he came across
when he first gave evidence.
The video was so powerful,
cos you saw this child
squirming in his seat,
and you could see clearly
that he wasn't uncomfortable
because of the questions -
he was uncomfortable because
something happened to him.
Yeah.
The true, unvarnished truth is
what prosecutors say he is giving,
the truth
of what happened to him.
For a witness like Gavin,
who's been heavily criticised
during the trial
and made to look like a liar,
then to be portrayed
on the original police video
as being vulnerable and distressed
and... and very different
to how he's been portrayed,
could be extremely powerful
for the prosecution.
I think the demeanour of a child
when giving an account of abuse
can be very powerful evidence
in front of a jury.
I thought that
that was brilliant
to... to leave the jury with that.
And because of that,
I thought that they had
a good chance of a conviction.
It is time for the jury to decide
if Michael Jackson is guilty or not.
The jury in the four-month
trial of Michael Jackson
for molestation of a child
is expected to begin
their deliberations today.
The law says that there has
to be no doubt in a juror's mind.
If you're voting a certain way
in a case like this,
it's got to be ironclad.
After four months in court,
the judge instructs the jury
to retire
and consider their verdicts.
There was really no way of telling,
because a lot
of the prosecution's testimony
had been undermined by the defence.
And so you didn't know
how it would... how it would land.
It's an anxious wait
for both legal teams.
I would have thought the defence
were feeling relatively optimistic.
I think there was a feeling that...
that he would be found guilty.
Is this gonna be a hung jury?
Is this gonna be a mistrial,
after everything
that everybody's been through?
There was a lot of question
about how this was gonna end.
I mean, it was a nail-biter.
One day passes, then a second,
and no word from the jury.
Every day we went to the courthouse,
we're like, "Today's the day."
And then it wasn't.
And then it wasn't.
It was a lot of tension,
and the longer they stay out...
..you're thinking,
"OK, what's going on here?"
It was really extraordinary.
I mean, we'd waited, what,
seven days?
Usually, at a m*rder trial,
you know,
people will take their time.
It's somebody's life on the line.
And this was Michael Jackson's life
that was on the line.
Eventually, after seven days
of deliberating the evidence,
the jury returns.
When that announcement was made that
the jury came up with a verdict,
it was like an expl*si*n.
I mean, people came from everywhere.
We had fans, we had protesters,
the world's media.
Everybody swarmed this courthouse.
The people
of the state of California,
Plaintiff versus
Michael Joe Jackson,
defendant case number 1133603.
Count one, verdict.
The crowd was on edge.
Hundreds of them,
Michael Jackson fans,
who really had their...
their hearts in their mouths.
We, the jury
in the above entitled case
find the defendant
not guilty of conspiracy
as charged
in count one of the indictment.
When that "not guilty" verdict
came out,
you could hear people screaming.
CROWD SCREAMS
They start yelling.
Second one.
We, the jury
in the above entitled case
find the defendant not guilty
of a lewd act upon a minor child.
Not guilty,
and then the third was...
Not guilty.
With each of them,
one of those fans
was releasing white doves.
And they are yelling,
and they're screaming,
and they're "Michael, Michael!"
Not guilty.
Not guilty.
Not guilty.
Not guilty.
He did it. He won.
It was one
of the most dramatic moments
that we have seen
inside of a courtroom.
All ten exonerating
Michael Jackson comprehensively.
It was an absolutely extraordinary
moment in criminal history.
I was stunned in the moment,
because I didn't think
he was walking out of that court.
He's a free man.
I recall people saying
that he had wiped away a tear,
that he looked visibly relieved.
Did he do it, or didn't he?
The trial was a way
of finding out if that was true.
For the second time,
prosecutor Sneddon has failed
to convict Michael Jackson,
who is cleared of all ten charges.
The verdict is no surprise.
I think it was
a weak prosecution case,
and I would have expected
most juries
to come to the same conclusion.
The case wasn't quite strong enough
to convict.
And then you add to that
the sheer celebrity
of Michael Jackson.
And I think the jury might have
been hesitant
to convict someone so well-known
and so renowned
and so loved by a lot of people.
More than any other place,
more than any other place
in the United States,
California has a very hard time
convicting its celebrities.
And in Michael Jackson's case,
the biggest celebrity in the world
was never going to prison.
Michael Jackson died in 2009.
14 years after testifying
for the defence,
Wade Robson admitted lying
under oath.
He claims he too
was molested by Jackson.
One other alleged victim
has since also come forward.
Welcome to our World! Where we serve you cookies to ensure you get the best viewing experience on our site.
Did you know that you can remove censorship board-wide, use our advanced search functions, be notified when new content is posted, join our memberships, set episodes to show in any order you want & more if you are logged into your account?
Register or sign in here: ucp.php?mode=register
Did you know that you can remove censorship board-wide, use our advanced search functions, be notified when new content is posted, join our memberships, set episodes to show in any order you want & more if you are logged into your account?
Register or sign in here: ucp.php?mode=register