The People vs. Jackson Trial in Santa Maria - Charles Thomson

Learn the truth about Michael Jackson's unhealthy interest in young boys.

Go to content

The People vs. Jackson Trial in Santa Maria

The following content is from an unpublished book titled: "The Brass Tacks of an Over Polished Trophy". I'm unaware why it wasn't published, but it contains some good contents, and is useful to those researching Jackson's behaviour with young boys and the allegations against him. It has 12 chapters in total. Full credit goes to the original author.
The People vs. Jackson trial began in Santa Maria, California on January 31, 2005. Wisely, Michael Jackson had paid to have his botched cosmetic surgeries repaired beforehand. It was a definite improvement. He sat in complete silence, dressed in white, looking like an angel that had lost his wings.

Tony Capozzola, who runs a legal practice in Redondo Beach recalls: “Michael was terrified that he might get convicted and have to go to jail. That was his worst fear. He was very emotional and cried a lot. It was a tough time for him and he was unstable. He knew if he went to prison as a child molester, terrible things would happen to him. He called me many, many times after court and he called me late at night. He was very emotional and crying in a lot of the calls. Our relationship developed into a friendship and if I wasn’t there, he spoke to my wife.” All Capozzola could do was try to reassure Jackson and keep telling him that he wasn’t going to jail. During the five months of stressful court appearances, Jackson battled a roller coaster of emotions that could easily have led to this loosely wrapped pop star to kill himself.

Capozzola continues: “He would constantly say, ‘Tony, do you think I’m going to jail? I need you to be honest with me.’ He would break down, his voice would tremble and he’d be sobbing. I told him that sleeping with kids doesn’t go in today’s society and he answered, ‘That’s society’s problem, not mine’. (Oh, really?) He never said I’m going to kill myself but he said, ‘I can’t go to jail, I just can’t!’ He implied that he would have to find another way out.”

Jordan Chandler was asked to participate but he promptly left the country to avoid testifying. Naturally, his flight was viewed by MJ supporters as further proof that Michael was innocent but it’s more likely that he just didn’t want to be a part of this media circus any longer. He and his father had been paid handsomely to keep their mouths shut in 1993, what did they have to gain by testifying against Jackson now? (Especially since Judge Rodney Melville had already tossed out the Chandler’s key piece of evidence.) If Evan Chandler was interested in sending Michael Jackson to jail, he would’ve filed criminal charges against him the first place. Evan Chandler wanted a big payout and Jackson gave it to him.

On the other hand, it was never Jordan’s idea to testify against Michael Jackson in the first place. The only reason he went through with it was because Evan told him it was the right thing to do. If his father was nothing more than a greedy extortionist, the greatest tragedy for Jordan would be that Michael used his money and fame to take the easy way out when he needed him most. If Jackson were truly “all about the kids,” you’d think he would’ve wanted to face his accuser in court to disprove the allegations against him so he could salvage their precious friendship and save the child he loved from being used as a pawn in his father’s evil extortion scheme.

Years later, when the Chandlers had a second opportunity to set the record straight, Evan remained in bed (He was very sick by then.) and Jordan ran away as fast as he could. For either one of this men to reappear in 2005 after they had been rewarded with more money than a thousand men could earn in a lifetime to keep quiet and risk their lives by appearing in public again just wouldn’t make sense. I would’ve stayed at home too; counting my money and let the Arvizos take a crack at it.

Naturally, his fans arrived in droves. They figured they were doing their idol a favor by mobbing up outside the courthouse where he was once again forced to explain his outrageous behavior around children. Not allowed inside, they stood in the parking lot chanting, “Michael is innocent! Michael is innocent!” at the top of their lungs long before they knew the details of the case or the prosecution had the chance to call their first witness. Somehow, they just knew that he was already innocent. As far as they were concerned, someone that looks as sweet as Michael Jackson couldn’t possibly be guilty of anything!

This rabble could be heard loud and clear inside the courtroom and the air practically crackled with muffled rage toward the grave injustice being inflicted upon this poor, crushed man/child. The proceedings should have been halted right there. Courtrooms are meant to be an impartial environment. In a civilized world, people would be allowed to testify freely, without intimidation. Nevertheless, Michael Jackson’s trial moved forward.

Gavin and his brother crept up to the podium looking tiny and scared for good reason. Michael Jackson had replaced his first lawyer, Mark Gerogos with Thomas Mesereau. Gerogos was deeply entrenched in the Scott Peterson murder case at the same time he was defending Jackson. Mesereau had a reputation of being a lawyer that wasn’t afraid to play hardball. He didn’t hesitate to take whatever measures he deemed necessary to win the case and he was there to give this one his undivided attention.

Both boys claim that they saw Jackson nude on one occasion while watching television in the star’s bedroom. While one boy said “Michael just stood there naked for a moment,” his sibling provided a far more damaging account. The younger brother said that when they saw Jackson naked they quickly looked away. Then Jackson sat down with them and said, “It’s okay, it’s okay. You guys should do the same.” He claimed that Jackson’s penis was erect during the incident. After drinking the alcohol Jackson gave them, Gavin claims he was feeling “kinda drunk.” The child said Jackson told him that boys have to masturbate or they’ll go crazy and offered to show him how. “He told Michael, ‘No,’ but Michael said, ‘I’ll do it for you’ and boldly grabbed his private area. The boy said he told Michael he didn’t want to do it but he kept masturbating him. Michael said, ‘It’s okay. It’s natural! If you masturbate, does white stuff come out?’ After Gavin ejaculated into his pants, Jackson directed him to place his soiled underwear into his hamper before showering. The garments were not returned and Jackson provided him with a new pair. When the police raided Neverland in Nov. 2003, they seized underwear belonging to the alleged victim, “described as white cotton ‘Hanes’ brand briefs, size small.”

Much emphasis has been placed on how the boy’s testimonies weren’t identical. People from Jackson’s corner claim they were instructed what to say by their gold digging mother. If they were given a script to follow, why wouldn’t their testimonies match? Had their testimonies been identical, it would’ve suggested that they had been prepped in advance but they weren’t. They had slightly different accounts, much like you would expect stories from two different boys would. One thing was certain; one boy didn’t claim that Michael was a perfect angel while the other said he was molested. They both said Jackson gave them alcohol and acted inappropriately. Gavin said that his memory of the intricate details were foggy because they had been drinking.

I think it’s safe to assume that having their credibility attacked by Jackson’s high priced, pit bull lawyers and hearing a bunch of Looney Tunes screaming for their blood outside could have contributed to how these boys got discombobulated as well. This is preciously why children shouldn’t be called to testify in a criminal trial. They make lousy witnesses. They just don’t pay attention to the same details adults do. They don’t care what time it was when such and such happened, the day of the week or the date on the girlie magazine they’re looking at. (Unless it’s “Miss October,” I suppose.) No child should have to experience what it feels like to be ripped to pieces in a heated criminal trial just because some stupid adult didn’t know his boundaries!

Back in court, Mesereau practically leaps out of his seat when it was Janet Arvizo’s turn to take the stand. He had been waiting for the chance to get a crack at her. He had done his homework and knew that she had a history of suing people and winning settlements. Mesereau was a crafty enough devil to turn Michael Jackson’s criminal trial around and put Janet Arvizo on trial for things she did years before she met Jackson.

If I were a member of that jury, I would take a person’s past into account as well but I wouldn’t give it as much gravity as Mesereau did because on its own, it simply doesn’t prove anything. It’s a cheap courtroom tactic called “Defamation Of Character.” I don’t know how much time was spent pouring over Janet Arvizo’s old police records but it’s ironic that Judge Melville refused to enter those photos and drawings into evidence because they were old news, but then allowed Mesereau all the leeway in the world to put Arvizo’s unrelated past history under a microscope! I ask you, how did a lawsuit Janet Arvizo won against JC Penny in 1998 become stronger, more damning evidence in a child molestation case than the depiction a 13-year-old boy drew of the alleged pedophile’s penis?

Regardless, the ploy worked brilliantly. Mesereau successfully tripped Janet Arvizo up enough that she lost credibility with the jury. This was as good as gold to MJ enthusiasts. If you mention Janet Arvizo to them, you’re guaranteed to hear about what a lowlife crook she is. They’ll go on at length about how she sued JC Penny, extorted money from celebrities, lied to collect food stamps, etc. Some of this turned out to be true, some of it didn’t. Chris Tucker and George Lopez both testified that she hadn’t extorted money from them but it didn’t matter anymore. Janet Arvizo was regarded as a scumbag after that and nothing anyone could say was going to make any difference in MJ fan’s closed minds.

Considering Janet Arvizo was found guilty of welfare fraud in 2006 and ordered to repay $13,606, I’m not going to try to change their minds either. I feel sorry for those kids. I think this was a case of a bunch of vulnerable, star struck kids being surrounded by a bunch of adults behaving badly, Michael Jackson included! He swung the gates to Neverland open wide for anyone that was willing to hand their child over to him. Is it any wonder that “bad people” found their way inside?

If it’s true that the more money a person has, the bigger target they become, how can you feel sorry for Michael Jackson? He should have realized that and not put himself in such a precarious position in the first place, let alone twice! Now we’re supposed to feel sorry for him because he invited “bad” people into his house? He laid out the welcome mat for strangers so he could play with their kids, for Pete’s sake! When will we hold Michael Jackson accountable for his actions?

Not in my lifetime, it seems. As everyone knows, “The King of Popular Opinion” was found not guilty on all 10 felony and 4 misdemeanor charges. While the child molestation and the abduction charges may have been weak, the “administering intoxicants to a minor” charge was not. The evidence that kids got drunk at Michael Jackson’s parties was so compelling, his defense team knew better than to try to say that it didn’t happen. The only question was if Jackson was there at the time.

Michael Jackson’s alibi for how his under aged guests managed to get bombed on his booze was that those little scamps broke into his wine cellar while he was away. It’s pretty weak considering Neverland was built like a fortress. Jackson installed high tech alarms and motion detectors to alert him if anyone uninvited was approaching his bedroom and code controlled locks to keep the “undesirables” out but the Mickey Mouse lock he had on his wine cellar was such a joke, kids could break into it!

If anyone unauthorized managed to gain entrance into Fort Neverland and came anywhere near Jackson’s secret sleeping quarters, bells and whistles went off everywhere and alerted his security guards to come a-runnin’! Yet somehow, (According to the defense.) Jackson conveniently slipped out back, leaving the kids entrusted in his care to fend for themselves and while he was absent, they picked the lock on his bar, got rip roaring drunk and his security staff didn’t see nor hear a thing!

Gavin testified that Jackson masturbated him on several occasions after giving him alcohol. Despite this and his own employees testifying under oath to seeing drunken kids in his presence, the judge tried to give Jackson a break and instructed the jurors that they could find him guilty of the lesser charge of providing alcohol to a minor (a misdemeanor) rather than the felony of plying his then 13-year-old accuser with alcohol in order to abuse him. What did that jury do instead? They let him off the hook completely! They announced that Michael Jackson wasn’t guilty of…of…well…ANYTHING! It makes me wonder what other evidence they ignored!

The “King of Pop” had grown reclusive and rarely went out. Jackson’s friend, Freddie Mercury confirms this. He claims that he met Jackson when Michael used to come to see his band “Queen” play. He added, “Michael would actually go out in those days. I remember having dinner together. I think now he just stays at home, he doesn’t like coming out. He says that whatever he wants, he can get at home.” But we’re supposed to believe that Jackson deliberately invited children to spend the night in his home and then conveniently went to town during the same period those minors got drunk on his alcohol? That sounds like reasonable doubt to me!

Michael Jackson alone made the incredibly ill advised decision to invite other people’s kids inside his house to spend the night. He accepted responsibility for them. He convinced their parents to stay home by assuring them that he would take good care of their children. He promised to provide them with suitable lodging in his nice, safe, supervised guestroom. You can imagine the shock it must have been when they found out that some of them were actually sleeping in HIS unsupervised bedroom instead!

If it’s true that Michael Jackson made those kids call their parents before he’d let them near his bed, what do you think a normal reaction would have been? Only chiselers like Janet Arvizo and June Chandler would have allowed something like this to happen and only if they were getting something out of it. It’s hard to imagine that any good parent would have willingly gone along with this. Normally, if a 13-year-old boy (or girl) called to ask if it’s okay if they go to bed with an unrelated 46-year-old man, I want to believe that most parents would race over there as fast as they could to retrieve their vulnerable children!

Those youngsters didn’t just take a friendly tour of Michael Jackson’s bedroom; they stripped down to their skivvies and crawled into his bed! Gavin said that he gave them tequila and Skyy vodka, making them promise not to tell their parents about it. Jackson, the boys reported, often concealed wine (a/k/a: “Jesus Juice”) in cans of Diet Coke and Sprite. Gavin tried to tell Jackson that drinking alcohol wasn’t a good idea for someone with one kidney. He was afraid that the alcohol would show up in a medical test. Good old Daddy Michael had an answer for this one too. He said, “Doo-Doo, just don’t take the test!”

Imagine one of your children’s classmates has invited your child over to their house for a nice friendly sleepover but when you came to pick him or her up the next day, they had a hangover! Whom would you hold responsible, the neighbors? Just about any kid will drink alcohol if they can get their hands on it. That’s why it’s the responsibility of mature adults to take precautions to prevent it from happening. It isn’t uncommon for adults to have alcohol and even pornography around the house. It’s generally okay unless they’re in the habit of inviting children to spend the night and they keep getting drunk there! Then it stops being okay, ya know what I mean?

I rang up Child Protective Services in California and asked them if I invited someone’s child into my home, left them unsupervised and while I was gone, they drank my alcohol, who would be at fault? The social worker I was speaking with gasped and cried, “Did you do that?” I answered, “No, Michael Jackson did.” I told her (Like I needed to tell her.) after the party was over, the adult host of that party ushered those minor children into his unsupervised bedroom, shut the door behind them and in the absence of their parents, pulled back the covers of his bed for them and she exclaimed, “What he did was a serious crime!” In spite of this, that star struck Californian jury determined that Jackson was not guilty of doing the exact same thing!

It was HIS party. It was HIS house. HE was the homeowner. Had it been anyone else, no jury would have concluded that the host of that party had nothing to do with HIS underaged guests getting drunk on HIS alcohol! It wasn’t cute. It wasn’t charming. IT WAS A CRIME!

Considering the police department confiscated a whole spank bank of porn and sexually graphic books, a stash of illegal prescriptions, half empty bottles of hard liquor and a number of items stained with semen from several unidentified males in Jackson’s secret, securely locked bedroom, it’s always amusing to hear his blind, deaf and dumb fans say, “They found nothing!”

Yeah, MJ sympathizers expect the world to ignore all of this and just feel sorry for their poor baby! Why? Because they claim that he had the mentality of a child! This is exactly what this reclusive party animal wanted them to think. Whenever he felt the public was getting too nosy about what he what considered to be HIS business, (Which often included other people’s children.) he preyed on his fan’s sympathy.

There’s a video showing Jackson fighting back the tears as he recalls how devastated he was when other kids made fun of his pimples. Why would a man in his mid-forties film himself whining about adolescent insecurities like zits? Because he knew it would make his juvenile fans feel sorry for him, that’s why! He was counting on them being too busy crying for this sad little rich boy to notice that he was getting away with things we wouldn’t tolerate from anyone else!

He sure knew his audience. It’s a shame that he used their emotions to cover his tracks but they don’t seem to mind. When he lost touch with reality, his fans were convinced that they felt his pain. They just knew that he was already perfect and pitched a fit until they let Peter Pan fly back to Neverland. It turns out that was the last thing he needed! He was given miles of rope to play with until he hung himself with it. Even Tinkerbell would have to wonder, “Why are the rules different for this guy?”
© Facts Don't Lie. Pedophiles Do.
© Facts Don't Lie. Pedophiles Do.
Back to content