Part 41 (1/2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10 March Michael Jackson supposedly stops molesting Gavin Arvizo.

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

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

18 November 2003 Neverland is raided by the police.

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

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

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

'Not Debbie too.'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coda.

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

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

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

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

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