Michael Jackson (107 page)

It must be noted, though, that Jackson and Mark Geragos are suing XtraJet, accusing its staff of having secretly video-recorded
his flight from Las Vegas to Santa Barbara on the day he was arrested, and then attempting to sell the tape. Documents that
surface from XtraJet’s side of the litigation have to be, therefore, viewed with at least some scepticism. Also, Richard Matsuura,
another youngster Maureen Orth claimed was given wine by Michael when he was twelve, categorically denied the report as soon
as the
Vanity Fair
article hit the stands. He says Orth never contacted him before writing the story. His father confirmed that his son was
not given any wine by Michael… either in a glass, or a soda can.

Stories about Michael that mix truth and fiction – such as the wine in Coke cans anecdote – only serve to confuse people and make
them wonder. ‘You can’t blame people for speculating about odd behavior. In light of charges that he intoxicated a minor in
this way, this new information that he actually does drink wine out of soda cans does not look good for him. It has to be
a concern to his defense. There are records, and there is also, probably, a stewardess who served Michael wine in this manner.
How much of a leap is, then, that this is something Jackson would give to a minor? When you are speaking of this kind of person,
when do you cross the line between weird and criminal? That’s the question.’

It was an odd morning in the Santa Barbara courthouse on 16 January 2004, the day Michael Jackson was formally arraigned on
molestation charges. His parents, Katherine and Joseph, were present for the arraignment to lend their support, as were brothers
Jermaine, Tito and Randy. Michael’s attorneys showed up without their client. Michael eventually made his entrance with his
gorgeous sister, Janet. There were photographers present from around the globe, clicking away as Michael gestured, smiled
and shook hands, as if on a red carpet. He looked strong, prepared.

Afterward, much to the thrill of the hundreds – maybe thousands – of fans who came from around the world to demonstrate their
support, Michael jumped atop a sports utility vehicle and executed a couple of slight moves – with his cameramen at his side
documenting the odd but somehow dazzling moment. He’s a man who understands the value of illusion – that being that he’s perfectly
fine and not broken by recent events – and, also, the importance of simple entertainment. He was giving his fans want they wanted
from him. When he’s in public, no matter the circumstances – even the most difficult ones – he’s on stage. He’s also enough of
a dreamer to muse that ‘one day’, the documentation of such an ‘historical’ day will make one hell of a great film.

After the judge chastised him for being late – as if Michael has ever been on time for anything in his entire life; the judge
had better learn to yield to ‘Jackson Time’ – he humbly pleaded innocent to all the counts against him: seven counts of child
molestation and two counts of administering an ‘intoxicating agent with intent to commit a felony’. Those who know him well
have recalled, privately, that the day of the arraignment was ‘the worst of all days for Michael’, that he was ‘scared out
of his wits’, and had not had a wink of sleep in any of the nights prior to it. A knot remained tight in his stomach the entire
morning, though one would never know it by looking at him. His once agile dancer’s body was a mass of aches and pains, the
result of stress and anxiety. The back of his neck throbbed. His temples hurt. His vision was blurry, he would later confide.
However, he was determined to put on a strong front for the cameras, for the public and, especially, for his fans. He had
to rise above. He’d done it countless times before, and he’d do it again.

So, what is the case against Michael Jackson? With the DA Tom Sneddon’s evidence still sealed, all of what he has on Michael
is still unknown, as of this writing. However, what is known is that the DA believes that Michael abused his victim between
7 February and 10 March 2003 – that is, after the Martin Bashir documentary was broadcast, after Christian Anderson’s interview
with the Arvizo family, after Michael’s TV rebuttal, after he hired Mark Geragos to look into the matter… and while the DCFS
and the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department was investigating it.

In essence, what the case against Michael Jackson boils down to, is the following timeline:

6 February 2003 –
Living with Michael Jackson
, the Martin Bashir documentary, is broadcast in the United States.

7 February 2003 – Michael supposedly begins sexually molesting the young boy, Gavin Arvizo, who was seen in the documentary
with him.

11 February – Dr Carole Lieberman lodges an official complaint that the relationship seen between Michael and Gavin Arvizo on
the Martin Bashir documentary looks suspicious. Others complaints follow.

14 February – The Department of Children and Family Services and the Los Angeles Police Department begin their investigations
into the relationship between the star and the boy.

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

February (date unknown): Christian Anderson conducts an interview with the family for Michael’s rebuttal documentary,
The Michael Jackson Interview: The Footage You Were Not Meant to See
.

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

10 March – Michael Jackson supposedly stops molesting Gavin Arvizo.

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

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

18 November 2003 – Neverland is raided by the police.

The question remains: Which of the children’s stories is to be believed? The one they told documentarians Martin Bashir and
Christian Anderson, and also the DCFS, that Michael Jackson was a father-figure who had coddled a cancer victim and his siblings?
Or the one they told Larry Feldman and Dr Stan Katz, that paints him as a child-molester who had got them all loaded and had
sex with one of them?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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