Michael Jackson

by J. Randy Taraborrelli

  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.’

  The Time Line

  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.

  ‘Not Debbie too.’

  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.’

  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 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 relationship 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 association 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 circumstances’. 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-petition 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 documentary defending him against the Martin Bashir allegations, now he wanted nothing to do with her. ‘Doesn’t she know I have enough on my hands?’ he asked one associate. ‘
Why can’t she just leave me and my children alone?’

  While Michael’s associates 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 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.