Today on Blogcritics
Home » Michael Jackson Trial: “He said don’t tell nobody – it’s our little secret”

Michael Jackson Trial: “He said don’t tell nobody – it’s our little secret”

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

In a surprise move, the rebuttal phase of the Michael Jackson trial ended on Friday in hushed darkness with the prosecution showing a July 6, 2003 videotape of Jackson’s then-13 year-old accuser quietly, somberly and seemingly reluctantly telling law enforcement interrogators for the first time of his alleged abuse by Jackson in early ’03.

The hour-long interview ended with the boy pleading with two Santa Barbara detectives not to tell his mother about the molestations, leaving at least two jurors wiping their eyes, and casting clouds of doubt over the defense’s assertions that the boy was coached by his grifter mother to falsely accuse Jackson for financial gain.

Although Jackson’s defense attorneys had stated they would recall the boy, his mother and possibly others to rebut the videotape, they did not do so.

“How long is it going to take?” asked the boy — dressed in a short-sleeved blue dress shirt, denim shorts, white striped sneakers and white socks — to open the videotape.

After discussing baseball, school, and his cancer with Sgt. Steve Robel, the boy said, “Michael Jackson called me in the hospital [in 2000]. He started telling me he wanted me to come down to the ranch.”

The boy said Jackson took him aside. “Michael asked me to ask him in front of my parents if I could stay with him in his bedroom. He wanted just me to come and I asked if my brother could come.”

He said Jackson showed him and his brother pictures of naked girls on a laptop computer.

After several additional visits, the boy hadn’t heard from Jackson for some time when the singer called to ask him to participate in the Martin Bashir dicumentary. “He said he wanted to make me an actor and this was my audition, and he said to talk about my cancer and how he helped me.”

After the Bashir film aired in February, ’03, Jackson faced a firestorm of criticism for saying that he shared his bed with children, but that it was innocent and non-sexual.

The boy and his family flew to Miami to met with Jackson in his hotel there. The boy said Jackson emptied a can of Diet Coke, poured wine into it, and gave it to him. “He said he had something that could relax me, that could, that could relax me because I was all stressed out … “He said don’t tell nobody. It’s our little secret.”

“Has Michael ever touched you inappropriately or done anything that made you feel embarrassed or made you feel angry at what he’s done to you?” Robel asked the boy.

The boy paused, then said, “I was staying at Neverland and we had a drink – I wasn’t really drunk. He drank a lot, he was really drunk and he started telling me that boys have to masturbate because if they don’t we’d go crazy.”

He paused again.

“What happened next?” Robel asked. “You’re doing a good job. It’ll be much better when you get it off your chest. I know there’s stuff in there that’s built up inside. Something else happened, didn’t it?”

It happened in Jackson’s bedroom. They were both in their pajamas, he said. “He said he wanted to show me how to masturbate. I said no. He said he would do it for me.”

“Did he do it for you?”

“He grabbed me.”

“Where did he grab you?”

“He grabbed me in my private area … He started masturbating me. I told him I didn’t want to do that. He kept on doing it.”

Jackson molested him about five times, he said, “every night that my little brother wasn’t there.”

And after that?

“Michael didn’t call me anymore.”

With the long Memorial Day weekend and today off as well, by the time closing arguments begin, likely tomorrow, the 12-person jury of eight woman and four men will have had four full days to contemplate the words and demeanor of an embarrassed, boyish 13 year-old and their ramifications for the man who used to be the biggest pop star in the world.

Powered by

About Eric Olsen

  • james mclafferty

    Hi ERIC:-),you should of known i’d have to find something.
    Jackson may never befriend another child
    By Jenny Booth, Times Online

    Michael Jackson’s child molestation trial has left the singer a nervous wreck who barely sleeps or eats, and may never again befriend a child, his father has claimed.Joe Jackson said the trial may have frightened his son out of future friendships with children.

    “He’s not against the kids,” he said. “He’s helped so many kids all over the world. But what he’s afraid of, somebody may try something, try to make money. Plan something. “He knows that all kids are pure in heart. They don’t know anything about any dirty stuff, that comes from the grown ups.”The singer’s father blamed his son’s ordeal on Martin Bashir, the British journalist whose documentary included an admission by the singer that he shared his bed with children. The programme led to the police investigation. Mr Jackson accused Mr Bashir of being out to make money. But he said his son was optimistic of being acquitted and had not ruled out a return to the charts.He said that the court case had placed a heavy toll on the Jackson family.”It’s the worst experience I’ve ever had,” he told interviewer Daphne Barak, according to the New York Daily News.”I look around and everybody else is crying. I’m wide-eyed and wondering, How come I can’t cry? If I started crying, I would probably never stop.”Mr Jackson said the pop star had lost a lot of weight and that both his family and fans were desperately trying to encourage him to eat.”We always mention to him about it, but he says, ’I’m going to eat. I’ll eat some.’ But he doesn’t eat enough,” he said.”He takes a couple of bites. He doesn’t sleep a bit, and that bothers me. In his situation, he should be getting plenty of rest and eating plenty of wholesome food to keep him strong. It’s very important.”He’s taking it pretty hard, because a lot of stones have been hurled at him.”Mr Jackson said his son had wanted to take the stand during his trial at Santa Maria court, California, but had been advised against it.

  • Eric Olsen

    the reports have said he looked even more pale and frail in court last week, especially Friday.

    So what do you think about this last bit of drama? It seems to me the prosecution landed a serious blow here at the end.

  • Eric Berlin

    Yeah, serious is right. I think the fact that the defense is not even going to try and refute this damning evidence tells you all you need to know.

  • Eric Olsen

    some have said they were afraid of looking extremely unsympathetic if they had hammered at the kid anymore

  • Eric Berlin

    I suppose it comes down to the jury deciding how “coached” the kid looks… and don’t you give a scared 13-year old the benefit of the doubt here? If I’m on the jury, and I’m pretty sure the kid is telling the truth, or at least some version of it, I send MJ to the slammy-slam.

    How ’bout you, EO?

  • Eric Olsen

    I’ve had the feeling all along that the kidnapping and conspiracy stuff was a distraction and a reach and did not help the prosecution at all, especially because it brought the yelping lunatic mother in.

    BUT, despite the unsavoryness of the family, the actual molestation and alcohol charges have always seemed credible and I have been waiting for the prosecution to come up with someting that made these allegations real for observers and, most importantly, the jury.

    I think seeing the boy just months after the alleged events, at 13 as opposed to the 15 he is now, and seeing what feelings he had about what he said happened, was exactly what the prosecution needed to cut through the weeks of Arviso-slamming the defense has done the last weeks.

  • James Williams

    This sounds like a pretty major piece of evidence if taken by itself. However, the jury is also going to have to consider that the accuser emphatically told other authority figures (school and social services) that nothing happened and waited until after talking to a lawyer and meeting the psychologist from the 1993 case before making his allegations. Finally after all of that he appears to be telling the police that they shouldn’t tell his mother (as if he is telling his story for the firt time). So molestation was denied twice by the accuser when questioned by the people who are usually the first to find out about these things and then bring in police. And there is the paralegal that testified that the mother put her children in acting classes so they could be convincing at psych evaluations during the JC Penny’s shakedown. Closing arguments from the defense will focus on this. So there are a lot of major things to consider on both sides. Honestly what does one juror who thinks the tape is compelling say to another who thinks video tape is the result of acting classes and mom’s coaching? This will not be an easy thing to decide.

  • William Badman

    Michael Jackson is innocent of all the charges, the Arviso family are scum, Allegations – Credible???, yes about as credible as teh Jehovahs Witnesses theory that the world is going to end in 44 days – it never happened. After this trial is over they just need to leave Michael Jackson alone, and let him get on with his life, can’t wait for him to return to the charts!!!

  • Eric Berlin

    Good points, James. I haven’t kept up with the trial very closely. Seems a media trial like this wouldn’t be complete without bizarre complications.

  • james mclafferty

    Hi eric,i’m not quite sure what to think?, if it’s just what was heard at the start of the case(which i think it was),then surely it isn’t anything new,BUT i do however concede that it could have some power being the last thing the jury saw.The fact is though they shouldn’t hinge their judgment on that one piece.

  • Josia

    Nice writing Eric –

    Is this the same MJ with the huge smile and afro that we watched dance his way to stardom?? Whenever I read something about the case I can’t get him and his brothers doing ABC when he was about 8 out of my head.

    Anyhow – another icon bites the dust – I think it’s something we’re becoming used to nowadays.

    There is a much bigger scenario being played out here – we just have a glimpse of a very very narrow angle of reality in this world. The big picture will become clearer in the coming years.

    Even though he’s been caught red-handed molesting a cancer patient no less – I have to say I feel sorry for him – to go so high and so low in one lifetime is probably extremely painful.


  • Mahesh

    I followed this trial closely and have come to the opinion that this family is after money. They have done this before (eg. J C Penny, welfare fraud) and have repetedly lied in court. Also the Paralegal’s testimony has proved that the accusers mother is a inveterate liar and a seasoned grifter. Her testimony also proves that her delinquent children are/were her associates in fooling the courts by lying under oath and following the script.

    To eric berlin who writes: ” and don’t you give a scared 13-year old the benefit of the doubt here?”

    Why not give Michael the benefit of doubt. Isn’t that the law. Doesn’t that fall under “proof beyond resonable doubt” clause. Afterall this case is about doubts.

  • james mclafferty

    Hi josia:-).Excuse my ignorance but where has it been proved without a shadow of a doubt that mj red handedly was caught?,that’s not me going on the defensive i’m just curious?.He might still be innocent.

  • Josia

    Hi James –

    That’s American democracy at its finest – just like with the Clinton trial – do you really think for a second that he was innocent even though he got off? (whoops!) Even if MJ is pardoned by the President himself I have no doubts in my mind or heart about what really happened. You can see the guy is sick and has probably been sick for a very long time. C’mon – would you leave him alone with your child?


  • Mahesh

    Josia, You seem upset. Are you not geting the welfare checks, child support payments on time?

  • Eric Olsen

    Hi Josia, thanks and yes, I do feel sorry for him. His fall is staggering and startling.

    James, James, William and Mahesh – I agree the Arvisos are shady at best best and appear to have latched on to celebrities for money and support. I think the mother is a loon and a con artist.

    BUT, the point of the video is that despite whatever else, the kid is credible — emotionally and factually — about what he says Jackson did to him, especially when he was 13 and the events were fresh.

    No, from all accounts of the courtroom — again I reiterate that the public has been done a grave disservice by being denied access to the trial — the boy came across as very believable and disturbed by the whole thing. If the defense had thought that anyone would believe that he was faking in he interview, they would have made him testify again.

    The fact that they didn’t call him back is very telling, as Eric B said.

  • Eric Berlin

    It’s a little bit shocking that the defense wouldn’t dare take another crack at the now 15 year-old.

  • Eric Olsen

    one columnist said the jury seeing him in person after seeing the video would oly remind them of what they saw

  • Eric Berlin

    Yes, but as you mentioned, there’s a difference between a scared 13-year old on tape and a possibly shifty and less sympathetic 15-year old on the stand. With all the other factors and complications in the case, it’s astounding that the defense would let this possibly damning evidence seep into jurors’ minds without any kind of counter-punch.

  • Eric Olsen

    hence the dramatic shift in the tone

  • William Badman

    Gavin Arviso is a lying f**k, not worth the time of day, sorry i have seen right through him, he to many inconsistancies, he keeps changing his story, he lied before, and have coaching lessons on how to lie better in court, oops i mean sound more convincing!

  • P

    You guys are not reporting the truth, this is an excerpt from Fox News about the tape that was shown Friday:

    “And then there was the boy’s actual demeanor: He does not once cry or reach for a tissue. He seems embarrassed, but maybe more about selling out a friend than about being molested.

    He is clearly upset when he talks about Jackson having changed his phone numbers in the past so the boy couldn’t reach him. After he’s finished telling his story, one of the cops hands him a soft drink and a straw and his mood brightens immediately.

    Much was made in court about his composure. But the tape was more about shock than emotion. This wasn’t “Ordinary People.” No one in the room wept as the boy mumbled his story and looked to the ground.

    Still, shock matters. The task left to defense attorney Tom Mesereau in his closing argument will be to push the jury away from what they know now: Jackson drinks and he sleeps in his bed with 12-year-old boys.

    Mesereau must persuade these dozen jurors that even if Jackson did this in the past, he didn’t do it with this boy. He will have to show all the inconsistencies in the boy’s story, his court testimony, what he said in front of the grand jury and what he told Robel and Zelis.”,2933,158077,00.html

    Now try and spin that Mr. Eric :-)

  • Mahesh

    Eric, its quite possible that the defence doesnt want to have a crack at gavin because they believe he is too good a lier, and they don’t want the jury fooled by his theatrical performance. Remember he has done this before, lied before a jury against his father, Lied in the JC PENNY case and the jury believed him then. Maybe the defence believes that Gavin is too good lier, obviously the acting lessons have done him good, and they don’t want him fool this jury.

  • Eric Olsen

    Friedman is a Jackson apologist and lickspittle: consider it spun

  • Dennis

    I still say that Jackson paid out multi million dollar settlements to two other boys to silence them, would he have done that if he was innocent?

    I don’t think so and therefore the present accuser is most likely telling the truth, if I were on that jury I would certainly believe him in view os the previous cases.

  • p

    Ok, I’m not going to sit here and argure past allegations. It’s pointless, neither of us know the truth either way. But lets just say IF he did do something in the past. He PAID MILLIONS of dollars to get out of that whole mess. That IS a form of punishment you know. Hell one guy got paid 2 million because Jackson “tickled” him. lol I don’t think those previous allegations should have any bearing on an otherwise ridiculous case. This family is out to get money, you’d have to be blind not to see that.

  • http://lies tim

    what proof do they have that michael jackson molested some 12 year old boy .. maybe the parents set michael up because michael has alot of money i think its sad how many people think he actually raped a kid … well im not going to buy into this sorta nonsence …. if they dont have proof that michael raped a kid i think they should just shut the hell up

  • Eric Berlin

    Some of the above comments remind me of the great Adam Carolla’s take on the nature of celebrity in America. He basically posited that in order for a celebrity to be convicted nowadays, he/she would need to be caught wearing a bloody shirt, holding a bloody knife in one hand, and a written confession (in the victim’s blood, of course) in the other.

  • James Williams

    The jury will discuss the fact that of the two old settlements one of the boys would not come forward to hammer a nail into Michael’s coffin even though the money is firmly his. His absence causes questions about whether he agrees with his mother and her lawyers about what really happened. If he testified that nothing happened to him then his mother and a lot of folks would be toast. If he testifies against Michael then Michael is toast, case closed. He seems only to have a compelling reason to avoid the trial if Michael did nothing to him. So why avoid such a huge and important search for justice if he really was molested? I can’t speculate as much to the other situation because I missed his testimony. I do know that it was reported that the allegations were not reported to the police but to lawyers and tabloids. People usually call the cops when a crime has been committed against them. So I personally don’t think the older allegations help so much. It could very well be right back down to “he said/he said” like it was in the beginning.

  • William badman

    this is not relavent, there was no knife involved, think you posted on the wrong board

  • Eric Berlin

    It’s an analogy, my (bad) man.

  • parent

    I think the reason that the defense held back calling Gavin back was at the request of Michael. There was a quick huddle between Michael and his attorneys after the prosecuction showed the tape. This was their chance to get one last shot at Gavin. Remember the first day this accuser showed up in court? Poor Michael about had a heart attack and ended up 2 hours late coming from the hospital dressed in his PJ’s. The guilt of seeing him must be too much for Mr. Jacko.

  • Bear

    the kid and mother have lied under oath as has the kid counseler. The witness against michael lied, they didnt go to the police when they saw michael touching the kid they went to the news papers for MONEY. its all about money and always will be. Lets not forget they have all lied under oath.

    There a money hungry family who were not kidnaped, the mother was shopping and the bot used to break into the alchol and drink it, kets not forget try to hurt the animals and drive out on a buggy from neverland. The mother is guilty and she knows it. She is very nutty aswell. There not a normal family, lets not forget the JC penny court case and the changed police statements the boy made. So think about the early evidence in the case not the last.

  • keys

    Doesnt it seem a little strange that this family has sued ppl b4. i mean how many times do ppl go 2 court and do this??? gavin is 15 and has already been twice. the fact that they admitted to lying under oath b4 is very damaging, also the fact that he denied it and the mother is a welfare cheat have blown there chances

    one little video aint gonna make any difference here there have been 3 months of damaging discreditation

    Can mj be convicted beyond reasonable doubt – -oh hell no!!

  • rob

    Well, I think now that the charges have been amended, it’s almost guarenteed he’ll be found guilty of at least providing alcohol.

    His own defence witnesses confirm that the boys got into MJ’s alcohol.

  • rob

    Well, I think now that the charges have been amended, it’s almost guarenteed he’ll be found guilty of at least providing alcohol.

    His own defence witnesses confirm that the boys got into MJ’s alcohol.

  • jacqui

    i feel mj is an ill man in the form of a mental illness but hey does this make him a pheodiphile there is a big difference between the two. Finally he himself is a child in a mans body and i think it is a child like love he has for theese boys. but hey; think of this is he gay? almost certain he is and why have there been no girls in all theese accuastions.

  • lewis

    rob, i doubt it,
    if is is found guitly it will be none or all. there is no evidence that mj gave the boy alcohol (his word against gavins). and the defense witnesses saw the boys in the cellar by themselves and one of the chefs said the boy asked for alcohol to be put in his drink (there word against gavin) – which one will be more beleivable.

    i hope mj sues them back of all that welfare money theyve been getting which tha didnt deserve

  • paul

    Im with you Lewis

    I don’t think that the jury will be able to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for any of the charges.
    The fact that they had to bring in other “victims” and “witnessess” that all back fired and lets be honest so did all the arviso’s there is no case to answer in my mind

    i no i certainly wouldnt wont to be found guilty with the weak case that has been presented.

    Yeah maybe mjs not the guy next door but the certainly doenst make him a peadophile. I think most of what he does is publicity or tabloids making up stuff and the plastic surgery is a cause from his extraordinary childhood

  • Daltrey

    I believe jackson is innocent, but has already paid the cost even if he does get found innocent. He obviously sick – mentally because of his up bringing, constant fame and all the allegations over the years. Quite sad that a someones life can be messed up like that because of greed and to provide entertainment for the public.

  • Eric Olsen

    separating out the alcohol charge and making it a simple misdemeanor is an interesting move: it could result in a conviction for just that, which would be very unlikely to result in any jail time

  • injun

    How could anyone think this guy is innocent? Would you pay someone 23 million to “go away” if you weren’t guilty? That kid from ’93 was able to able to describe exactly MJ’s “private parts” that would only have been visible during an erection. Once a pedo, always a pedo. Anyone that believes that MJ is being framed is STARSTRUCK. Would you let your child sleep with him?

  • Eric Olsen

    what I find most interesting about the whole affair is the righteous indignation on both sides

  • Eric Berlin

    Interesting and surprising.

    I guess there’s an OJ Element to some of it: people investing their own bias, fears, addiction to media and celebrity, etc. and forming an opinion based upon a mixture of facts, opinion, and subconscious need.

  • Eric Olsen

    excellent description EB

  • p

    injun. That was actually going to be addressed during the trial, but Elizabeth Taylor was to sick to make it and MJ didn’t want to put her through that. Basically, Elizabeth talked MJ into settling that case. It was thought that the bad publicity from a trial could hurt his image more than anything than just paying them off. He was at the top of his game at the time. Also he didn’t have to pay the money out of pocket, the money was paid by his insurance company for(child negligence) he never admitted to actual molestation. MJ didn’t have to pay a single cent out of pocket, but of course the details of this settlement were not to be discussed in public. I wish Elizabeth had been able to make it, to shed some light on that whole thing.

  • p

    Also Injun, the boy could have walked in while MJ was getting out the shower or anything. He’s supposedly got a skin-disorder that causes those discolored spots all over his body.

  • injun

    He claims to have a skin-disorder (vitiligo). But in truth, he has bleached his skin to become white, and frankly, if he gets any whiter he’ll become invisible. He also claimed to have 1 single “nose operation to help him breath better”. If you beleive that those little slits he calls nostrils help his breathing then it’s no wonder that you beleive all of his other fabrications of the truth.

  • james mclafferty

    Who cares??? MJ’s ambition is to produce music…which he has! Is it anybody else’s business if he does have vitiligo? If he says he does, who are we to say he doesn’t? His music should be the main focus.

    I believe MJ really does have vitiligo and uses makeup to hide the blotchy patches. During the end credits of “Ghosts,” a MJ short film, they show MJ being made over for his numerous roles. During a segment end of he lifts his bare arms and you immediately notice uneven skin color. I feel sorry for him. As for his hair going white, there have been rumors that he wears a wig. This may be true and this is the reason why, or maybe he dyes his hair. Either way I believe he does have vitiligo.

  • james mclafferty

    Michael Jackson jury could get case by Friday
    Wednesday, 01 June , 2005, 19:43

    Santa Maria: The jury could begin deliberating in the Michael Jackson child molestation trial by the end of the week, a judge said on Tuesday, following instructions on the law and closing arguments by attorneys for both sides.

    Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville, who spent the day working on jury instructions with prosecutors and defence lawyers with jurors and Jackson absent, said he wanted to hand the case over to the eight-woman, four-man panel by Friday afternoon.

    “I want to get the case out late Friday,” Melville told attorneys for both sides after pushing back closing statements by one day.
    Editor’s Choice
    All the latest news on the Michael Jackson trial
    In Pics: Michael Jackson’s arrest

    Following that timeline the jury could begin deliberations late on Friday or Monday morning. Jurors were expected to work behind closed doors for about six hours a day until they either reach verdicts or announce a deadlock.

    The jury will be asked to weigh a Santa Barbara County Grand jury indictment that charges Jackson with four counts of molesting a 13-year-old boy, four counts of plying the young cancer patient with alcohol in order to abuse him, one count of conspiracy and one count of attempted molestation.

    The 46-year-old entertainer, who has pleaded innocent, faces more than two decades in prison if convicted on all 10 counts, which stem from the boy’s extended visit to Neverland Valley Ranch in February and March of 2003.


    Melville ruled on Tuesday that in considering the four alcohol counts against Jackson, the jury could determine that the singer gave his young accuser alcohol but did not abuse him. Under that scenario they could convict him of a lesser charge.

    Legal experts said the move, which is not unusual in California courts, did not affect the remainder of the indictment, and gave prosecutors an advantage as the misdemeanour charge might be easier to prove.

    Jackson would face two to four years in state prison if convicted of the felony alcohol charge, while the misdemeanour charge carries a fine and the possibility of a shorter spell in county jail.

    The accuser, both on the witness stand and in a videotaped police interview, said Jackson routinely gave him wine while he was staying at Neverland. He said Jackson masturbated him on several occasions after plying him with alcohol.

    The judge made his decision while discussing with prosecution and the defence key rulings on how he would instruct the jury.

    “They’re arguing about the ground rules that will control everything that will happen from now on – arguments, deliberations and verdict,” former San Francisco prosecutor Jim Hammer said.

    But the process was so tedious that by mid-afternoon the normally packed courtroom held only about two dozen reporters and Jackson fans, some of them dozing.

    “If we had televised today’s proceedings we could have deterred an entire generation of kids from going to law school,” defence attorney Robert Sanger quipped.

    Two key players in the case, lead defence attorney Tom Mesereau and prosecutor Ron Zonen, were absent, presumably working on their closing arguments.
    Copyright 2004 Reuters Limited. Click for Restrictions

  • q

    Jacko is “Scared Silly”. Now we’re being told that MJ thinks that he will be convicted of child molestation, and that he believes that there is a conspiracy between Sony, Judge Melville and DA Sneddon to make sure he is found guilty.

  • james mclafferty

    Hi q:-),where my good man did you read that?,sounds a bit tabloid to me,if you’ve got a link can you direct me there so i may look.

  • lewis

    sorry injun

    but Jordy got the descrition of MJ’s private parts wrong and he could have easily been told what it looked like as mj had to have is body examined by police

    NOt that the 1993 cases matter much in this case but if u were molested and u had a chance to come out and tell it exactly how it is – why wouldnt u go on the stand Jordy Chandler had the chance to make or break this case – and i think we know he did – he ran scared cox he knew that his story wasnt gonna stand up and tmez was going to bury him!!!

  • q

    james – try these links,,2-10-1462_1714294,00.html

  • q
  • q
  • q
  • injun

    sorry lewis……so you also think he’s being framed by the SBPD? I suppose Furman DID plant the glove too?

    It’s been reported on COURTTV that Jordy was offered a “you name the amount” cash sum by MJ lawyer Brian Oxley to remain unavailable for this case. This has been verified by cell-phone records and when contacted by reporters Oxley would not comment…
    hint, why do you think he been MIA for the last few weeks?

  • injun

    here’s the snippet:
    an unnamed prosecution witness has told authorities that renegade Jacko lawyer Brian Oxman once promised the singer’s 1993 accuser “he could write his own check if he would refuse to testify” in the current case. That young man had already settled a sex-fueled civil suit against Jacko, reportedly for millions. The man wound up not testifying. Oxman said a gag order barred him from responding to the charge.

    Can anyone say ‘obstruction of justice’?

  • james mclafferty

    Day 64 Jury Instructions Delivered Closing Arguments Begin Tomorrow

    Created: Thursday, 02 June 2005

    On day 64 the jury in the Michael Jackson trial received the instructions Wednesday that will govern their deliberations into whether Mr. Jackson
    molested a teenage boy.

    Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville told jurors that closing arguments will begin Thursday and they will be given the case sometime Friday.

    Mr. Jackson watched as Melville began reading lengthy instructions hammered out by attorneys over more than a day.

    The judge listed the 10-count indictment against Mr. Jackson, which includes four counts of committing a lewd act on a minor. The indictment also alleges one count of an attempted lewd act, one count of conspiracy involving child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion, and four counts of administering alcohol for the purpose of committing a child molestation.

    Following up on an earlier decision regarding the alcohol allegations, the judge told the jurors they may consider a “lesser charge” of “furnishing alcohol to a minor,” a misdemeanor. The instruction means the jury would not have to relate the alcohol to the purpose of molestation.

    The judge paused at one point to determine if the jurors were paying attention.

    “You know I read to my wife at night so she’ll go to sleep. Am I having that effect here?” he said.

    Jurors at Michael Jackson’s trial were to hear closing arguments this week before going into deliberations to decide whether the Mr. Jackson is guilty of fondling a 13-year-old boy.

    The prosecution and defense teams should deliver their final statements after discussing with trial Judge Rodney Melville the precise instructions that will be given to the eight women and four men of the jury.

    There was no session Monday, which was a US holiday, and the jurors were not present during Tuesday’s discussions.

    In closing arguments, the prosecution is expected to portray Mr. Jackson as a sexual predator who preyed on young boys, showing them porn and serving them alcohol to lure them into sex at Neverland, his fantasy-themed
    California estate.

    Mr. Jackson’s longtime nemesis, chief prosecutor Tom Sneddon is expected to tell the jurors Jackson had a history of sexually abusing young boys long before the alleged 2003 crimes for which he is charged.

    Mr. Jackson, who has not spoken out in his own defense from the witness stand, has pleaded innocent to all the 10 charges that could land him in jail for as long as 20 years if he is convicted.

    Lead defense lawyer Thomas Mesereau had initially indicated he might call some fellow-superstars to come to Jackson’s defense, including Elizabeth Taylor and Liza Minelli, but only a few celebrities were called, including Macaulay Culkin, of “Home Alone” fame, who emphatically and repeatedly denied claims Mr. Jackson had fondled him.

    Jurors at the Santa Maria, California courtroom heard a total of 130 witnesses during the three months of testimony that came to a dramatic conclusion on Friday when the court watched a videotaped police interview with the alleged victim.

    In his closing arguments, Mesereau is expected to reiterate his claim that the mother, who has a history of litigation and fraud, coached the young boy to lie under oath in order to extort Mr. Jackson.

    If Mr. Jackson is found guilty, the family could file a civil suit against Jackson.

    The defense team has highlighted many discrepancies in the testimony by Mr. Jackson’s accuser, his two siblings and their mother.

    The lawyers ridiculed claims there had been a conspiracy to hold the family prisoner amid panic in the Jackson camp over a February 20003 television documentary.

    They pointed out the family kept returning to Neverland, and had plenty of opportunities to call for help, if indeed they had been held against their will.

    The jury could begin deliberating in the Michael Jackson child molestation trial by the end of the week, a judge said on Tuesday, following instructions on the law and closing arguments by attorneys for both sides.

    Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville, who spent the day working on jury instructions with prosecutors and defense lawyers with jurors and Mr. Jackson absent, said he wanted to hand the case over to the eight-woman, four-man panel by Friday afternoon.

    “I want to get the case out late Friday,” Melville told attorneys for both sides after pushing back closing statements by one day.

    Following that timeline the jury could begin deliberations late on Friday or Monday morning. Jurors were expected to work behind closed doors for about six hours a day until they either reach verdicts or announce a deadlock.

    Melville ruled on Tuesday that in considering the four alcohol counts against Mr. Jackson, the jury could determine that he gave his young accuser alcohol but did not abuse him. Under that scenario they could convict him of a lesser charge.

    Legal experts said the move, which is not unusual in California courts, did not affect the remainder of the indictment, and gave prosecutors an advantage as the misdemeanor charge might be easier to prove.

    Mr. Jackson would face two to four years in state prison if convicted of the felony alcohol charge, while the misdemeanor charge carries a fine and the possibility of a shorter spell in county jail.

    The judge made his decision while discussing with prosecution and the defense key rulings on how he would instruct the jury.

    Source: MJJsource / AP / Reuters

  • james mclafferty

    Hi q, thanks for the links but, i feel the investigator should maybe not be taken as gospel because does he not have an alterior motive for saying what he told news 24?.i.e,tried to claim $5000 back unsuccesfully(sp?).

  • robert

    I’ve been watching this case closely. There was a time when I thought that the prosecutions case was weak. After reading transcripts, listening to and reading various reports that filter in daily, the case seems to be much stronger than I originally expected. There is now no doubt (no reasonable doubt) in my mind that Mr. Jackson is guilty and I feel that the jurors conscience will allow them to make the right decision. This man must pay for his crime (not with his $$) and spend time in prision so that he can come to terms that he is not above the law and would be treated like any other convicted pedophile – celebrity or not.

  • james mclafferty

    It might just be me but i’d say the following says it all.
    Day 65 Closing Arguments Mr Jackson must be acquitted That’s the law

    Thursday, June 2, 2005
    On day 65 defense attorney Thomas Mesereau countered the prosecution’s closing arguments stating that the accuser’s family consisted of “con artists, actors and liars.” He said prosecutors revealed the weakness of their case by attacking him and Mr. Jackson’s career during their closing argument.
    “Whenever a prosecutor does that, you know they’re in trouble,” Mr. Mesereau told the panel, which is expected to get the case Friday. “This is not a popularity contest between lawyers.”
    Mr. Mesereau was to conclude Friday and the prosecution was to deliver a rebuttal before the case goes to the jury. Mr. Jackson, said “I’m OK” as he left court Thursday.
    Prosecutors, Mr. Mesereau said, engaged in a “nasty attempt, a barbaric attempt” to attack Mr. Jackson personally by bringing up his financial problems, collection of adult magazines and what they called, a “sagging music career.”
    Mr. Mesereau also showed charts suggesting it was ridiculous to believe that during a time when Mr. Jackson was under international scrutiny he would choose to commit a sex crime.
    Defense lawyer Thomas Mesereau urged jurors to acquit, saying prosceutors had not proved their case that he said was built on “lies, innuendo and exaggeration.”
    Mr. Mesereau hit back hard in his closing arguments that are expected to run into Friday morning, telling jurors the prosecution case was “absurd” and based on lies.
    “This is a family where children have been taught to lie. This is a family where children have been taught to con,” he said, adding that the accuser’s mother had a track record of manipulating celebrities and misfortunes for money.
    Mr. Mesereau stressed that the only witnesses to the alleged molestation was the boy’s then 12-year-old brother and that the key witness to an alleged plot by Mr. Jackson to kidnap the family was the mother.
    There is “no forensic evidence, no DNA, no hairs, no fibers, no witness to any of this,” he said. “There is no way in the world you can find (the accuser’s family) trustworthy beyond reasonable doubt.”
    “Facts are the facts are the facts are the facts.” Mr. Mesereau explained to the jury.
    He said the prosecution wanted jurors to believe “it was all Michael Jackson taking these innocent little lambs and corrupting their lives. It’s all baloney,” he said.
    He appealed to jurors to dismiss the case. “If you have the slightest doubt, and it’s a reasonable one, then Mr. Jackson must go home and he must be free,” he said.
    Mr. Mesereau conceded that Mr. Jackson was “different” and “offbeat,” but said he was not a criminal and that Mr. Jackson had long been the target of extortion plots.
    “He has the reputation for being a very child-like person, very naive, idealistic, a musical genius, a person that likes to sit in trees and compose,” Mr. Mesereau said, urging jurors to see him through a “human lens.”
    “The issue in this case is the life, the reputation, the future of Michael Jackson,” the lawyer pleaded.
    The prosecutor showed again heterosexual adult material from Mr. Jackson’s collection of magazines and said jurors should understand these were part of the “grooming process” intended to get boys aroused.
    Mr. Mesereau countered, “Yes. He (Mr. Jackson) is a human being. They found a lot of girlie magazines. Did he want the world to know that? No.”
    Mr. Mesereau responded that Mr. Jackson wasn’t charged with possessing illegal pornography because everything in his home was legal, that no child pornography was found in his home or computers, and that prosecutors used the adult magazines just to make Mr. Jackson look bad.
    “They have dirtied him up because he’s human. But they haven’t proven their case because they can’t,” he said. Mr. Mesereau suggested that this ‘dirtying’ tactic of the prosecution was used to make it easier for the jury to convict him.
    Mr. Mesereau also said the boy was unemotional as he described the alleged molestation in the video and in testimony and challenged the jury to closely examine his demeanor. “You saw no emotion whatsoever when he spoke about allegedly being molested. When did you see him really get angry? When he talked about Michael Jackson abandoning his family,” Mr. Mesereau said.
    Mr. Mesereau also pointed out that when the accuser was asked by the investigator in the video to name some things that he would think of as “wrong”, the accuser responded with; staying up late, fighting, breaking things and killing someone. Mr. Mesereau pointed out that unlike most children, he did not even mention lying, cheating or stealing.
    In the prosecution’s closing argument, Senior Deputy District attorney Ron Zonen berated Mr. Jackson and his attorneys, stood by the testimony of the accuser’s mother, and used charts and graphics to show what he said was a pattern of criminal behavior.
    Zonen argued for nearly two hours before he even brought up child molestation, focusing first on a complicated conspiracy alleging Mr. Jackson sought to hold the accuser’s family against their will.
    Mr. Mesereau said the real issue was “whether the accuser’s family was credible,” and he tore into the prosecutor’s claim the boy’s mother wasn’t out for money, repeatedly returning to the refrain, “Was she asking for money?”
    “When she filed for emergency welfare 10 days after getting her (settlement), was she asking for money?” Mr. Mesereau asked. “If you do not believe (the family) beyond a reasonable doubt, Mr. Jackson must be acquitted. That’s the law.”
    The prosecutor acknowledged she fraudulently applied for welfare after receiving a large settlement in a lawsuit, but asserted that was the only thing she had been proven to have done wrong in her life.
    And Zonen ridiculed the idea the boy’s mother could have made up the entire story and prompted her children to lie in order to get wealthy at a future time.
    “The suggestion this was all made up is nonsense,” he said. “It’s unmitigated rubbish.”
    Zonen depicted Neverland, Mr. Jackson’s fantasy estate and amusement park, as a place with no rules, no schooling and no discipline for children who stayed there.
    “They rode rides, went to the zoo, ate whatever they wanted candy, ice cream, soda pop. There was only fun. … And at night they entered into the world of the forbidden. Michael Jackson’s room was a veritable fortress with locks and codes which the boys were given … They learned about sexuality from someone only too willing to be their teacher.”
    On the contrary, Mr. Mesereau highlighted the testimonies of Neverland employees that caught the accuser and his brother with adult magazines and stealing alcohol when Mr. Jackson was no where around. Mr. Mesereau showed that the accuser is hardly the naïve youngster the prosecution presents, focusing on their long history of lawsuits where the children were coached and encouraged to lie for financial gain.
    Zonen spent much of his argument attacking Mr. Jackson’s current and former lawyers.
    He accused Mr. Mesereau of promising things in his opening statement that he could not produce, including mentioning celebrities who would testify who never appeared.
    Zonen was defensive in talking about the boy’s mother, one of the most erratic witnesses of the trial.
    “(She) never asked for one penny from Michael Jackson,” he said. “She never desired anything from him and she doesn’t today.”
    “There is no way in the world you can find the (accuser and his family) are trustworthy beyond a reasonable doubt.” If that is the case, Mr. Mesereau said, “Mr. Jackson must be acquitted under our legal system.”
    Mr. Jackson, who did not take the witness stand during the four-month trial sat unmoved during Zonen’s closing arguments. When he arrived at the courthouse with his parents and three brothers, a throng of about 200 supporters shouted “Fight Michael, Fight.”
    Mr. Jackson’s lawyer reminded the jury that the molestation case against Mr. Jackson involved only one alleged victim.
    He scorned testimony in the trial from other young friends of Mr. Jackson. “They (the prosecution) brought in alleged victims from the ’90s because they are desperate,” he said.
    Mr. Mesereau said it was absurd to suggest that Mr. Jackson would have molested his accuser in the intense period of media scrutiny after the 2003 broadcast of a documentary in which Mr. Jackson defended his practice of sharing his bed with boys.
    Mr. Jackson has denied four counts of molesting the boy, then 13, plying him with alcohol, and conspiring to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion. Mr. Jackson faces more than two decades in prison if convicted on all charges.
    The case is expected to go to the jury on Friday.
    Source: MJJsource / AP / Reuters

  • ian symonds

    Well, I guess the world will know today or Monday….I say he is guilty, that being the case, I hope he gets a solitary cell for his own protection. I bet there is some big dude serving life who would love to jam his “member” where it hurts….I hate pedofiles

  • injun

    hey james….why only the defense side of closing arguments posted? you seem a little lopsided. the prosecution made for a strong closer that lead most experts to agree that he will found guilty of at least one count of molestation.

  • Eric Olsen

    probably because I did such a ripping good job with the prosecution closing (smile)

  • james mclafferty

    Hi eric,good job on the pros side,and yes that’s exactly why i posted the above article.(smile).Injun and others:-).Hope this seems less one sided.

    SANTA MARIA, Calif. – As the
    Michael Jackson child molestation trial moves into its final stages, closing arguments could prove even more decisive here than in many other trials.

    Prosecution and defense attorneys will tell two different stories, trying to convince jurors that Jackson is either a predatory pedophile and self-involved celebrity or a humanitarian who tried to aid a cancer-stricken boy but was victimized by scheming grifters.

    Loyola University Law Professor Laurie Levenson, who has attended the trial, said closing arguments would be critical, unlike in most cases.

    “Neither side was able to dominate the trial enough to be confident in what the verdict will be,” she said. “Both sides have to persuade the jurors what to see in the facts that have been presented. They have to help them figure out the biggest enigma: who is the real Michael Jackson?”

    Jackson, 46, is charged with molesting the then-13-year-old boy in February or March 2003, giving him wine, and then conspiring to hold his family captive to get them to rebut the damaging documentary, “Living With Michael Jackson.”

    The prosecution rebuttal case wound up Friday with jurors seeing a videotape of the accuser’s July 6, 2003, interview with police. The defense then rested without calling any rebuttal witnesses. Judge Rodney S. Melville gave jurors the day off Tuesday while attorneys discuss jury instructions.

    In closing arguments that could begin as early as Wednesday, prosecutors will paint Jackson as a manipulative molester, a weird-looking celebrity who thinks he is immune from the rules that govern normal conduct.

    The defense has taken the tack of embracing Jackson’s odd appearance and lifestyle and is likely to argue that he should not be penalized for being different.

    Defense lawyers will remind jurors that although Jackson did not testify, they heard him sharing details of his difficult childhood and his desire to make children happy with his Neverland amusement park.

    The defense will seek to demonize the accuser and his family as well as those they contend fell for their story. They will say there are financial motives everywhere and remind jurors how the mother approached other celebrities with her tale of woe before she hit on Jackson.

    Prosecutors are relying not just on the current case but on a series of allegations against the star 12 to 15 years ago. They will suggest he got away with molestation before and wants to get away with it again.

    They have highlighted so-called propensity evidence they were allowed to present under a unique California law known as penal code section 1108. It allowed them to resurrect allegations from the early 1990s that Jackson molested other boys — claims that never resulted in criminal charges. Jurors were not told that Jackson paid millions to make two of the claims go away. They did hear, however, that some of his accusers sold stories to tabloid magazines for thousands.

    Prosecutors called one young man to say he was touched inappropriately during tickling sessions many years ago. The defense called three now grown men, including actor
    Macaulay Culkin, to say they were never touched sexually by Jackson.

    Prosecutors are expected to say — as they did in opening statements — that Jackson was a star on the skids trying to resurrect his image by granting access to an interviewer who then skewered him with his own words in a video documentary, “Living With Michael Jackson.”

    On that video, the world saw the boy who would become his accuser holding Jackson’s hand and resting his head on the pop star’s shoulder.

    The show raised a storm of controversy because of Jackson’s acknowledgment that he allowed children to sleep in his bed, though he said the encounters were entirely innocent. Prosecutors say he entered a panic mode, decided to produce a rebuttal video and needed the boy and his family to participate. They will say Jackson was at the heart of a conspiracy that involved child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion.

    And in the weeks after the family performed on the video, prosecutors allege that Jackson then for the first time molested the boy. The defense is expected to ridicule that time line as unbelievable, and to attack the boy’s mother as a money-hungry charlatan.

    The defense will remind jurors that the boy took acting lessons, has been described as cunning and shrewd, and said himself that Jackson broke his heart by rejecting him as a friend. They will say this is a case of revenge.

    Prosecutors will certainly remind jurors of the demeanor of the boy, both on the witness stand and in a powerful video shown at the very end of their case in which he haltingly described the alleged abuse. They will say that if jurors believe him, they must convict.

    “Jurors will not easily decide this case,” said Levenson. “They know that they will be second guessed on so many things.”

  • james mclafferty

    TRANSCRIPT.The 10 charges against Jackson and public opinion polls.
    Michael Jackson is charged for more than just molestation.

    By Dan Abrams
    Updated: 12:59 p.m. ET June 2, 2005

    Dan Abrams
    Host, ‘The Abrams Report’
    • Click for profile
    • E-mail the author
    Inside the courtroom Wednesday, Judge Melville laid out the charges against Michael Jackson for the jurors. Then, he ordered them back to court at 8:30 a.m. PT Thursday morning PT for closing arguments from both sides.

    The jury will take the case into the deliberation room and decide if Michael Joe Jackson is guilty of conspiring to extort, abduct, and imprison the much-talked about family.

    The ten 10 charges are outlined below:

    Count 1: Conspiracy. The charge is Michael Jackson “conspired with Ronald Konitzer, Dieter Weizner, Frank Casio, Vinnie Amen and Marc Schaffel to abduct, falsely imprison and extort the accuser and his family by unlawfully controlling, withholding, isolating, concealing and enticing and threatened them.”

    Sentence: Up to four years for the conspiracy to abduct a child, up to one year for the false imprisonment, and up to four years for the extortion.

    Counts 2 to 5: Molestation. The charge is that between February 20, 2003 and March 12, 2003, “Jackson willfully, unlawfully and lewdly committed a lewd and lascivious act upon the accuser with the intent of arousing, appealing to, and ratifying the lust, passions, and sexual desires of himself and the accuser.”

    This refers to two counts of the boy himself saying “Michael Jackson molested me, and two counts of his brother saying, “I saw Michael Jackson molesting him.”

    Sentence: For each count, Michael Jackson could face up to eight years in prison.

    Count 6: Attempt to commit a lewd act. “Between February 2003 and March 12 that Jackson attempted to have the accuser commit a lewd act upon Jackson’s body with the intent of arousing.”

    “Basically there was one area of testimony where the accuser said Michael Jackson grabbed his hand and put it on Michael Jackson’s genitals and then the boy grabbed it away,” explains “Inside Edition” senior correspondent Jim Moret. “This jury may have been stunned to discover that it’s not actually molestation— It’s a lewd act. And all you really need is ‘a touching of the body of someone younger than 14 with the intent to arouse either person.’ This touching could be on top of or below the clothing.”

    Counts 7 to 10: The felony alcohol counts— Giving alcohol to the child to assist in the commission of the lewd act. Each of these counts relates to giving the boy alcohol in an effort to molest him on those four molestation counts. The charge is that he unlawfully gave the accuser alcohol to enable and assist him to commit child molestation.

    Abrams Live Vote
    Trial verdict on MOLESTATION: Do you think Michael Jackson will be… * 3625 responses
    Trial verdict on CONSPIRACY: Do you think Michael Jackson will be… * 3638 responses
    Trial verdict on GIVING ALCOHOL (to assist in the commission of a lewd act): Do you think Michael Jackson will be… * 3654 responses
    Do you think Michael Jackson is actually… * 3744 responses
    not guilty?
    We are unable to record your vote. Please contact MSNBC technical support for assistance.
    E-mail to share your thoughts.
    Can you convict somebody of just these alcohol offenses, and if you acquit him by a reasonable doubt on the underlying lewd acts? “The answer is yes,” says Criminal defense attorney Daniel Horowitz. “This was actually a crime that was invented in the 1890’s, put on the books in California to punish people who slipped laudanum or opiates to people, knocking them out, so that then the warehouse they were guarding could be robbed. But it applies to any felony, any drug including alcohol meant to knock the person out or weaken them so that then you can commit the crime. That is a crime in and of itself.”

    After recent developments in court this week, they jury may decide Jackson is still guilty of the lesser misdemeanor charge of providing alcohol to a minor.

    Sentence: If Jackson is convicted on a felony alcohol count, this carries about two years time, while a conviction on a lesser misdemeanor charge would result in fines and probation.

    Coverage of the Michael Jackson trial continues with Dan Abrams live at the courthouse bringing you the very latest. ‘The Abrams Report’ airs weeknights, 6 p.m. ET on MSNBC.

  • salmoncatchingbear

    i feel that it’s a little bit sad all round.

    in the uk, very famously, Ian Huntley murdered holly wells and jessica chapman, both 10. Huntley was sentenced to life imprisonment. it transpired that Huntley had previously been accused (please note accused) of commiting sexual crimes against young girls. he had been accused (again, please note) of having sex with a minor.

    when huntley was sent to prison, there was an uproar that he was allowed to work as a caretaker in a school, that his history should have been taken into account.

    Huntley was NEVER charged, let alone found guilty of these crimes, but with hindsight it is easy for us to judge and wish that we had done something about it earlier isnt it?

    the flip side of the coin is that the media would have a field day if a sweet little old man had been denied a job at a school because of untrue allegations that had been made.

    with this in mind, the fact that previous allegations against Huntley now appear to have substance, how do you feel about accepting the jury’s decision? it COULD be that he IS guilty, even if a jury could not decide it without an element of doubt and he is acquitted.

    I am not saying this because i am on one side of the fence or the other, i am very undecided.

  • james mclaffery

    Alright Salmoncatcher, you ok?,We’ll find out either way this week and to be honest i’ll be glad to see the back of it.The jury’s verdict beckons.:-)

  • salmoncatchingbear

    hello james mate.. i’m fine, sorry for crossed wires, you know my email, you’re welcome to chat on that mate…

    i too will be glad to see the back of this, either way. doesnt look open and shut in either direction does it?

  • Michael Jackson

    Im innocent and all this is bullshit!

  • pam

    update: Chris Tucker’s ex-girlfriend writes open letter to Michael Jackson’s 2005 accuser.

    Open letter from defense witness, Azja Pryor, former friend of Janet Arvizo…

    Dear Gavin, Star, Davellin, and Janet:

    After Michael?s tragic death last week, I have to say that all the negative feelings I?ve had towards your family following the outrageous claims made by you Gavin and your mother Janet–against Michael–came back to me tenfold. The pain, disappointment, anger, and betrayal I feel towards you simply cannot be put into words. You have shown me that your greed, lies, and personal gain override any “morals” your family claims to have; and you have proven yourselves to be the kind of people capable of turning your back on the very person who came to your rescue when you were most desperate.

    The fact that you falsely accused Michael of the most heinous of acts, and made his life a living hell in what would become his last years is unthinkable; and I am sure some would say, unforgivable. In your attempts to destroy him once again, you, Gavin, accused the man you called your “best friend” of the one thing that you (and everyone else) knew would completely turn his life inside out. You took the one thing we all know that Michael cared about most in life–children, especially children who are suffering, and you tried to turn it into a bad thing. You Janet, as a parent, allowed this, encouraged this, and went forward with the awful lies in an attempt to destroy Michael Jackson and swindle money from him.

    Shame on you!

    This man did nothing but help your family in their darkest hour. I know Michael was just like my family. We were all pulled into your woeful stories and shared your family?s plight as Gavin fought for his life during his battle with cancer. Gavin, you told me that Michael?s love helped cure you of cancer. Your entire family praised Michael privately to everyone who would listen, yet turned against him so viciously in public. I have remained silent for many years, but I can no longer do so. Right now I struggle to find the words to adequately write this letter, as I am so filled with anger towards you and pain for the Jackson family.

    You call yourself Christians. If this is true I call on you, Gavin, and your mother Janet to finally do the right thing for Michael in death that you never did during his days here on earth. You need to completely exonerate Michael?s name and legacy from the awful, disgusting claims you made against him. Claims and allegations that you and I both know are completely false and utterly ridiculous. Whatever your motives at the time to create such accusations are now minute and unimportant.

    It is much bigger than you.

    We are speaking on this man?s legacy; a man who positively touched lives around the world. A man who is arguably the greatest entertainer the world will ever know. Michael is someone who shared in your family?s pain; opened his home to you and included you in his very own family. He was a human being who never deserved any of this.

    Gavin and Janet, you can change your identity and try to hide from the public scrutiny, but ultimately, you cannot hide from the wrath of God?s judgment. This is the right thing to do. It is the very least you can do for Michael, his children, and his legacy. Gavin you are now 19 years old, no longer an impressionable young boy under you mother?s guidance, nor are you a pawn in this grand scheme to assassinate Michael?s character. I know your heart, and I know that you are capable of doing what is right. Clear Michael?s name of your ugly accusationsonce and for all. You owe it to him. You owe it to his family. And you owe it to God. Let?s finally give Michael the ability to completely rest in peace.

    Azja Pryor
    July 4, 2009