There’s a boy on a witness stand. He’s a teenager. A cancer survivor. He beat the disease when a lot of people thought he wouldn’t. And now he’s sitting in a courtroom in Santa Maria, California, telling a jury what he says the most famous person alive did to him. He describes being shown explicit material. He describes being given alcohol — alcohol he says Jackson called “Jesus juice.” He describes being touched. His younger brother takes the stand after him and backs up parts of the story. Their mother testifies too. And when all of it is done — fourteen weeks of testimony, dozens of witnesses, ten criminal charges including child molestation, conspiracy, and intoxicating a minor — the jury comes back and says the state of California didn’t prove any of it. Not guilty. Every single count.
This is part three of our series on the accusations against Michael Jackson. And this episode is about the criminal trial — the only time these allegations were tested in a courtroom with a jury, rules of evidence, cross-examination, and the burden of proof. What the prosecution built. How the defense took it apart. And what the verdict actually meant — which is less than you think, and more than you think, at the same time.
The whole thing started with a documentary. In early 2003, British journalist Martin Bashir aired Living with Michael Jackson. The film showed Jackson in his own world — Neverland Ranch, the theme park rides, the exotic animals, the shopping sprees that seemed designed to fill some hole that money couldn’t reach. And then it showed something that made the country stop. Jackson, on camera, holding hands with a teenage boy named Gavin Arvizo, cradling him, defending the practice of sharing his bed with other people’s children. “It’s not sexual,” Jackson told Bashir. “We’re going to sleep. I tuck them in. It’s very charming, it’s very sweet.” The head of a California child abuse prevention organization called it a red flag. And initially, even DA Tom Sneddon — the same prosecutor who’d gone after Jackson in 1993 — said that under California law, sleeping in a bed with a child, without affirmative offensive conduct, wasn’t a crime.
But then the investigation moved forward anyway. Child welfare officials conducted a preliminary investigation of Jackson and Gavin. Their confidential report, which leaked to the media, stated that the accusations appeared unfounded. It didn’t matter.
(Continued In Video 👆)
This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.
The Podcast.
Listen on your fav Podcast App!
Pick Your Player Here!
