The Web      Powered by
powered by Yahoo!


Return to Transcripts main page


Panel Dicusses Michael Jackson Trial

Aired April 20, 2005 - 21:00   ET


LARRY KING, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, reports that former child star Macaulay Culkin plans to take the stand in Michael Jackson's defense at his molestation trial in which former Neverland employees have testified they saw Jackson engaged in inappropriate conduct with Culkin. This, after five dramatic days on the stand by Jackson's accuser.

We've got all the latest with Court TV's Diane Dimond inside the courtroom today; CNN "HEADLINE PRIME"'s Nancy Grace, the former prosecutor; CNN's Ted Rowlands also in court today. He's got more on those reports about Macaulay Culkin. Plus, Michael Jackson's spokesperson, Raymone Bain; high-profile defense attorney Michael Cardoza, and BBC reporter David Wells, covering the Jackson trial from day one. They're all next on LARRY KING LIVE.


LARRY: A quick disclosure before we get started: yes, I have been subpoenaed by the defense in the Michael Jackson case, and no, I can't talk about it being covered by the judge's gag order in the trial.

Let's get on with the program. Ted Rowlands, what's with this -- what's the Macaulay Culkin story?

TED ROWLANDS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Larry, CNN is reporting that, according to a source close to the case, Macaulay Culkin is going to testify on behalf of Michael Jackson. It had been reported that the Jackson defense team was going to subpoena Culkin one way or another. CNN tonight is reporting that Culkin is expected to come, voluntarily, and testify on behalf of Michael Jackson as what has happened -- or what happened to him or didn't happen to him -- at Neverland, and his relationship with Jackson.

On your show, Culkin has said that nothing happened, and that he just came to Neverland as a friend with Michael Jackson, and spent a lot of time with Michael Jackson, but nothing inappropriate happened. During the course of testimony in this trial, however, two Jackson former employees have come forward and said they saw, with their own eyes, inappropriate behavior by Jackson against Culkin. One, a former chef, said that he saw Jackson with his hand actually inside Macaulay Culkin's pants while the two were playing a video game at Neverland, and then a maid said that she saw Jackson touching Culkin inappropriately.

We understand that Culkin will come here and say himself that nothing happened, in front of this jury.

KING: You referred to that interview -- Macaulay Culkin was on this show, and let's show a little clip of what he said, with regard to this question with Michael Jackson. Watch.


KING: What happened at the house? That's what all these things that people are concerned about.

MACAULAY CULKIN, ACTOR, TESTIFYING IN JACKSON TRIAL: It's -- you know, that's what's so weird.

KING: What did happen?

CULKIN: Nothing happened, you know, I mean, nothing, really. We played video games. You know, we played in the amusement park. Well, the thing is -- the thing is, with that whole thing, is that, you know, they've always -- oh, you slept in the same bedroom with him. I don't think you understand. Michael Jackson's bedroom is two stories, and it had like three bathrooms and this and that. So, when I slept in his bedroom -- yes, but you have to understand the whole scenario. And, the thing is, with Michael is that he is not very good at explaining himself, and he never really has been, because he's not a very social person. I mean, you are talking about someone who's been sheltered, and sheltering himself also, for the last, like, 30 years.


KING: Diane Dimond, then, despite the testimony by the two employees, do you think Macaulay Culkin will put the story away just by appearing himself?

DIANE DIMOND, COURT TV CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, every time we call his office, Larry -- I have to tell you, they tell us that he is not going to come here and testify, by subpoena or voluntarily. Now, maybe he has changed his mind, and, you know, that would be great for Michael Jackson's case. But, there have been more than just his name mentioned. A young man named Wade Robson, another one named Brett Barnes -- two Australian fellows -- they have also been testified about here in this courtroom, and I don't think that they are planning to come right now, nor is the '93 accuser, nor is -- well, actually we've already heard from the maid's son who is now 24 years old. He says molestation occurred. But if Macaulay Culkin were to come here during the defense case, that would be great for Michael Jackson.

KING: Nancy Grace, your overview -- how is the case going from a prosecutor's standpoint?

NANCY GRACE, CNN HEADLINE PRIME, FMR PROSECUTOR: Well, Larry, at the beginning when I realized, almost off the bat, that the similar transactions were going to come into evidence under California law, it was never really even a question. The state had a very, very strong case. The reality is, they've had one witness meltdown on the stand, that is the current accuser's mother, on cross exam. I am not sure, in the words of Michael Jackson, that one bad apple will spoil the whole bunch. And, what the state will have to do, if Macaulay Culkin comes in for the defense, they will have to have a rebuttal case with a child molestation expert to explain why very young children don't even realize sometimes, they're being molested.

KING: All this, Nancy, is going to be the jury's interpretation. It gets down to 12 people.

GRACE: You know it, and this jury has been so close to the vest with their emotions. They take a lot of notes. They pay attention. Earlier, before the mom took the stand, Diane reported that there was a lot of eye contact with some of the witnesses, especially the earlier accuser, now a 24-year-old young man.

KING: Raymone Bain, can you tell us -- CNN reporting it -- is Macaulay Culkin going to testify for your client?

RAYMONE BAIN, MICHAEL JACKSON SPOKESPERSON: Well, I know, Larry, he had been on our witness list. But I'm not certain that Michael has been advised by his attorneys, yet, as to whether or not that is actually the case. When I spoke to both Mr. Mesereau and Michael not long ago, that was not -- that issue was not raised. So, I can't say that it's true or it's not true, or whether or not Michael is even aware of any of the news -- breaking reports -- right now.

KING: Wouldn't Michael ask him to testify?

BAIN: Well, I know, Larry, that he is on the defense list, and he is a very good friend of Michael's, and of course, he has maintained Michael's innocence this entire time. He has indicated on your show and in other interviews that he has never seen Michael act inappropriately with children, and he has not acted inappropriately with him. So, certainly, we would welcome him coming into court, and I'm hoping that CNN's report is true.

KING: Michael Cardoza, do you think that will be very important, if he does come?

MICHAEL CARDOZA, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I think it is going to be very important, because -- can you imagine in an argument with the district attorney, Tom Sneden would do? He'd be screaming bloody murder about, where is Macaulay Culkin? If he wasn't molested, why didn't he come into the courtroom and testify to that? So, by Macaulay Culkin coming in, it's going to defuse that and it's going to give the jury at least some reasonable doubt about that one particular instance. So, yes, I think he's supremely important to the defense.

KING: David Willis, what's the interest in this in Great Britain?

DAVID WILLIS, BBC REPORTER: Considerable, Larry. You have an enormous interest here in our royal family, and, we have, as big an interest, I think, in your celebrities. I was talking to a colleague from tabloid, the best-selling tabloid in England today. She was saying that every time that Michael Jackson is on the front page they put on 100,000 copies. They sell an extra 100,000 copies that day. So, he is huge, make no mistake about this. This is our O.J. Simpson trial. There might be no cameras in the court, Larry, but it's huge back at home and we're seeing an awful lot of interest, not only from Britain, but Southeast Asia -- of course, Jackson is very big in Japan. We have seen Korean journalists here. This is much bigger, I think -- this case -- overseas, than it is here in the United States.

KING: We'll take a break, come back, ask Ted what happened in court today, get more analysis, go to your phone calls -- full hour devoted to this tonight. Don't go away.


KING: Ted Rowlands, what did happen today?

ROWLANDS: Well, it was a short day in court. But we heard some very interesting testimony potentially very good testimony for prosecutors in that -- in it could corroborate some of what the accuser's mother had testified to last week and earlier this week. And that this family was some how held against their will at Neverland Ranch. We heard from a police officer, a local cop here, who used to moonlight as a security guard at the Neverland Ranch. And he did it for years. He was a very trust worthy looking person, and a very conscientious witness. He seemed to be very truthful.

And he said that in -- February of 2003 on a message board inside a security office there was a message to the security employees that said "Do not let the name, the former -- the accuser in this case, off the Ranch." Basically saying, don't let this kid leave Neverland. And it was on this board. Then it was also in a log. And that log came into evidence as well today.

So clearly, a boost for the prosecution. And a potential element of corroboration with the mother who was a bit herky-jerky in her testimony, that -- that some how this family was held, possibly, against their will. The question will be, why were they held -- if they were held.

KING: What on Earth, Diane Dimond, could that mean, don't let them off the property? What does that mean?

DIMOND: Well, indeed. You know, early on in this case, the Jackson side was saying that, well, you know, this mother wouldn't leave. And these children they liked Neverland so much they wouldn't, they wouldn't -- they wouldn't get off the property. Now we hear from this security guard, he's also a local police officer here, Brian Barron was his name, that in fact, the sign was exactly opposite. Don't let them out.

But I have to say, on cross-examination, Robert Sanger, the defense attorney got this man to say that right after the raid in December 2003, the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department tried to get him to stay at Neverland, and be an informant for them. He refused to do that. And he also said, you know what, really, I'm a sworn police officer. And if I ever saw anything wrong, I would have to report it. And I frankly wouldn't let any kid off of the ranch all by themselves, I would want them to have a parent with them. So, I think on cross they mitigated it a bit. But still there it was in two separate places, on the board and in a security log.

KING: Nancy, when does the prosecution wind up?

GRACE: I think they're going to rest next week, that's what they're intimating. Of course, I don't know if that's going to happen. In California, Larry, it always takes longer than it does in any other state in the union. It's a phenomena.

KING: Why?

GRACE: I don't know. And I have gone to California and watched the trials. It always is that way. Regarding this, I just want to point out, Larry, that if the policy was no children allowed to leave Neverland, why wasn't that posted. Why wasn't that on the log? Why was this little boy named specifically by name -- don't allow him to leave. And I'm still trying to get my head, Larry, around this videotape that surfaced yesterday. Videotape that some of Jackson's people had taken of this boy walking in and out of his school in his little school uniform. Of the mom going in and out of her apartment. Why was the King of Pop, literally, the King of Pop, worldwide an icon, videotaping this kid going in and out of school?

KING: Michael Cardoza, how -- how this case is going where in your opinion? I mean, you've been -- you're a veteran on both sides of this. You've been a prosecutor, and criminal defense attorney. Where -- where are we? Is this -- does this look -- does it look like Jackson is really up against it?

CARDOZA: Well, here's -- here's what it looks look to me right now. Certainly, the mother imploded on the stand. That certainly bodes well for the defense in the case. So, now they have to look to the alleged victim in the case to see if they believe him beyond a reasonable doubt. They'll temper that with whether they believe the mother put words into the boy's mouth to come up with this story. Because they're certainly saying in the civil case, that's exactly what she did.

But here's what the defense really has to watch out for -- that's the emotion of this case. Because you have that 1108 evidence, and those five past alleged prior child molestations. If the jury believes one, two or any one of those, they could say, you know, he is a child molester. This case isn't that strong. So what am I going to do as a jury? Am I going to let this guy go, put him back on the street, be responsible for another child that could be molested?

So, what the defense has to do is argue strongly against that. And remind jurors you cannot do that. Look at this case alone without trying to bolster it too much with the other. And there are rules of law that will be given. And I want to address something that Nancy said, and that's the speed of California courts. I know that she takes shots at our courts here a lot. I have never understood why do we worship speed. I mean, here Jackson is facing 20 years plus in state prison. The case is important, to both the district attorney's office, the alleged victims and to Jackson. So why do we have to do it quickly? Isn't it more important to get it right than to achieve speed. KING: Well, what she -- Michael, was she saying, they have to do it quickly or was she just commenting they take it slow. Nancy, you want to respond? Let's let Nancy respond.

GRACE: The question it's more important to get a speedy verdict rather, as opposed to a true verdict is ridiculous. And if Michael can prove to me that California courts are not slower in their trials. Same trial, tried here in New York, Georgia it would move more quickly. I don't know what that ingredient is in California courtrooms. I've been there. I was there last week for Pete's sake. I feel strongly about justice being sought in California courtrooms. So, that assertion is ridiculous.

CARDOZA: Well, Nancy...

KING: David Willis -- I'm sorry, go ahead, Michael.

CARDOZA: That's right. And you always talk speed, and say we do it slow.

GRACE: No, I don't. I don't talk about speed.

CARDOZA: Look at what the judge is doing here. He's working -- he's working these attorneys awfully hard. I mean, they get 10 minute breaks. They're doing a forced march in this trial. So, why is it so slow? Why do you keep commenting on our courts?

GRACE: Because Larry asked me.

CARDOZA: (INAUDIBLE) done correctly here. It is done correctly here, and we get justice in our courts.

GRACE: OK. Michael.

KING: David -- David Willis do you expect Michael Jackson to take the stand?

WILLIS: Well, it would certainly be very interesting, Larry. I think there's a lot of persuasive evidence in favor of him doing so. But also it's a high-risk strategy, because he could be totally taken apart by Tom Mesereau and the prosecution, were he to do so. It could open a whole can of worms. I understand there's the potential though for Michael Jackson to take the stand to be briefly -- examined by his defense counsel, Thomas Mesereau, and then to be sat down. And, of course then, the -- the prosecution would be confined, if you like, to the area on which it could question Michael Jackson. So, that might be a clever ploy. I don't know. But it would certainly be very interesting indeed if Michael Jackson were to take the stand here.

KING: And we'll ask Raymone whether that might when we come back. We'll include your phone calls in a little while, don't go away.


QUESTION: Michael, what will you do for your day-and-a-half break you have?


QUESTION: Take care of your what?

JACKSON: My back.

QUESTION: How are you feeling, Mr. Jackson.

JACKSON: Pretty bad.

QUESTION: Eight or nine?




KING: Raymone Bain, a spokesperson for Michael Jackson. What's the talk about taking the stand?

BAIN: Well Larry, before I answer that, let me just say that earlier some one on the program indicated that Michael Jackson videotaped the kids. That is absolutely incorrect. An accusation was made on the stand that someone under Mr. Jackson's employment -- however, we can't even determine if that's true or false. But for the pronouncement to be made that it was Michael Jackson who videotaped, I think is absolutely outrageous.

GRACE: That's not what I said, Larry.

BAIN: That's what you said, Grace.

GRACE: Check the transcript, Ms. Raymone -- no ma'am. I said some one in the Jackson camp or worked for Jackson.

BAIN: That's not what you said.

GRACE: Yes it is.

BAIN: You said Michael Jackson videotaped.

GRACE: No, ma'am, he never leaves Neverland. He's always holed up in his bedroom. I don't believe he was out taking video.

BAIN: That's what you said.

KING: We'll check the tape and see what she said. Let's check the tape. Let's check the tape.

BAIN: That's exactly what she said.

KING: Is he going to testify, Raymone?

BAIN: Well, as I have been saying, Larry, I believe that Michael will follow the instructions of his attorneys.

KING: All right. Does he want to testify? It is still his case, it's his life.

BAIN: He has said to me if necessary he will testify. He has said that to me on several occasions, but the decision will rest with his attorneys and whether they feel that it is appropriate or if he should.

As I have indicated as well, all Michael Jackson will do is tell the truth. But there have been so many people who talk about how awful Michael Jackson will be on the stand. I take issue with that, because Michael Jackson is a grown man who is very articulate. And he will be able to take the stand and articulate the truth.

And he can't be as bad as some of these other witnesses as we've heard, Larry, because frankly they have been absolutely pathetic.

KING: Diane, wouldn't you think he would want to take the stand?

DIMOND: Well, you know that is your first gut feeling. If somebody is accused of something they didn't do why don't they take the stand. But almost any defense attorney will tell you that is really a risky business. It could be really risky for Michael Jackson.

Because this really has been a trial within a trial within a trial. The maid and her son came. And then the mother of the '93 accuser. Now this mother here. And the boy and his brother. And, you know, the odds are really against him.

I think it all depends on how the case is going toward the end of the case. If it doesn't look good for Michael Jackson what has he got to lose? Then he may say, Mr. Mesereau, I'm going on. It really, the, at the end of the day it's the client's decision, not really the attorney's.

KING: Michael Cardoza, in California if you are convicted of being a pedophile, can you be out on appeal or do you immediately go to incarceration?

CARDOZA: Well, that's really up to the judge. If he's convicted...

KING: What's the usual case?

CARDOZA: In jail immediately. I mean, as soon as that verdict comes back you are whisked right out of the courtroom and put in jail.

And I would think in this case, because of the money that Michael Jackson might have at his disposal once he's convicted they think uh- oh he may leave the country. No. You're going in, bond is withdrawn, everything. He's going right into the jail.

Getting to the testimony, whether he is going to testify or not. That's a real interesting question. And remember what Mesereau did at the beginning in opening statement. He said, Michael will say, Michael will say. And everybody inferred from that he's going to put Michael on the stand.

I tell you what I recoiled from Mesereau saying that. And I think Tom Mesereau is an outstanding attorney. But when he said that, I thought why are you telling, at least implying he might testify in this case? That decision shouldn't be made until later. I don't think he, if you asked him now he would say let me see how the evidence goes in before I decide whether I will put him on. But he may have painted himself in a corner with the comments.

KING: Nancy, what would you gather, gut feeling, as to whether he would testify?

GRACE: I would say no way. Why? Forget about the fact that he wore pajamas to court. Forget the fact that he wore sunglass to court today -- bad look in front of a jury. Forget about the fact that he is on a documentary saying as a grown man he likes to climb up in a tree to think. Forget all that.

Here's the legal reason. I don't think he should take the stand for the defense. The reality is he has got too many things to explain.

Right now, he has the illusion, the presumption of innocence. Once he takes the stand, if he is caught in one lie, the whole focus is on his testimony. It's just not worth it.

KING: Ted Rowlands, what's expected there. Is there talk about what he might do? You talk to the people.

ROWLANDS: Well, you know -- Michael Cardoza made a good point that Thomas Mesereau seemed to indicate that you will hear from Michael Jackson on a couple different issues. Of course, that can be hypothetically Michael Jackson will tell you if you asked him and you saw him on the street that X, Y and Z happened. And, of course, Michael Jackson's story could be told through other witnesses.

One of the things that McCauley Culkin could bring to the defense is -- is sort of a window into this relationship between a grown man and children. And he talked about it publicly before that Michael Jackson and he just had fun hanging out. But it is something that people have a tough time grasping how Michael Jackson actually enjoyed hanging out with children when other people don't understand it.

Michael Jackson could provide that for the jury. But also if McCauley Culkin comes up and testifies, he could also provide a window into that relationship and probably help out the defense.

KING: We will reintroduce our panel when we go to phone calls. The subject is the Michael Jackson trial. And will be the subject throughout the program.

Tomorrow night by the way, an important program note. We're going to do another program on a disease affecting 22 million Americans, the disease is depression. That's tomorrow night on LARRY KING LIVE.

We'll be right back with your phone calls for our panel. Don't go away.


KING: Let's reintroduce our panel. We'll go to your phone calls.

In Santa Maria at the courthouse is Diane Dimond. Diane is executive investigative editor of Court TV and she's been covering the Jackson story for 12 years.

In New York is Nancy Grace, the host of "NANCY GRACE" on CNN HEADLINE NEWS. She's Court TV anchor as well, a former prosecutor, and author of the forthcoming book "Objection."

At Santa Maria Courthouse is CNN correspondent Ted Rowlands.

In Washington, D.C., is Michael Jackson's spokesperson, Raymone Bain.

In San Francisco is Michael Cardoza, defense attorney and former Alameda County prosecutor.

And at -- also, the Santa Maria courthouse is David Willis, BBC west coast reporter. That's the British Broadcasting Corporation; he's been covering the Jackson trial from day one.

Before we take our first call, Ted Rowlands wanted to add something. Ted?

ROWLANDS: Yes, just some documents that were made public within the last hour here, details what one of the prosecution witnesses yet to come may offer to this case. And it -- they are some very salacious details which could be very devastating to Michael Jackson. This is a former employee of Michael Jackson who alleges that he was asked by Jackson one evening to go to a car and get some Vaseline and -- I won't finish the story, but he ended up in Jackson's room, and he said that he saw some disturbing things, including one of the victims.

The defense is trying to keep this out. They're going to hash this out and argue it as part of the proceedings tomorrow, but, if the judge allows this witness in to talk about this in its totality, it could be a devastating -- after taking a look at papers and looking at the details, they really turn your stomach.

Larry: What's the grounds that the defense is going to use to keep it out, Ted?

ROWLANDS: Well, this is a former employee who sued Michael Jackson along with some other employees and lost the lawsuit, and I believe that the defense is arguing here that this person is lying, and to allow this person to come in and say this stuff with such detail, would really hurt Michael Jackson and there is no place for it, and they can't substantiate it, given his lawsuit and the fact that he could be a suspect witness, he shouldn't be allowed in. But we shall find out when Judge Melville rules.

KING: Diane, though, haven't others testified who had a -- prior suits with him?

DIMOND: Yes, this is one of the group that I call the "Neverland Five." His name is Kassim Abdool. I heard this Vaseline story many years ago. He is also important to the state because he was the supervisor to Ralph Chacon. Chacon was a security guard who came here not long ago and told the jury that he saw a sex act performed by Michael Jackson on a '93 accuser, and it's my understanding, he went immediately to his supervisor, Kassim Abdool -- Abdool Kassim, rather -- and told him the story and brought him back to the location and showed him some evidence. So, that witness is important for a couple reasons for the state.

KING: New Castle, Delaware, hello.

CALLER: Hello. I was wondering, is the state of California going to prosecute this so-called mother for welfare fraud, and if not, how could they justify ever going after anybody else? And, to Nancy, does it make her feel better making fun of Michael every day before her show on Court TV?

KING: Do you make fun of him, Nancy?

GRACE: No, Larry. And I'd look to respond to the welfare fraud.

KING: Yes.

GRACE: I think that, once this case is done, I think the state will most likely take action against the mother. They really have no alternative. She has taken the Fifth on the stand regarding welfare fraud, and if they turn their back on that, they are -- they are practicing selective prosecution.

KING: To Denver, Colorado. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, my question is to Nancy and Diane. If Michael Jackson is found innocent, would you two be willing to give him a public apology, being that you two are the only ones that are ridiculing him and judging him in the media?

KING: Now, why are they saying -- I -- let's clear this up. Diane, do you ridicule him?

DIMOND: No, I don't. I am here every day. I absolutely do not. I just have told you on this -- on this broadcast tonight about cross- examination -- that I thought helped to the defense today. I am in this court every single day, and I report what happens in this court.

Now, it's been the state's case. It's been really negative against Michael Jackson. That's not my fault. I'm a reporter. I'm doing my job. I don't have anything to apologize for.

KING: Nancy, have you made any presumptions? GRACE: Well, I will plead guilty to having a tiny bit of a field day the way -- the day he wore his pajamas to court. OK? But he asked for that.

KING: But that had nothing to do with the case?

GRACE: Had nothing to do with guilt or innocence. It does have to do with how you present yourself to a jury, and...

BAIN: But may I...

GRACE: ...if you want an acquittal -- I'd like to finish -- and if you want an acquittal, it's best not to wear your pajamas to court. That has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.

KING: Unless the jury likes pajamas...

BAIN: Well, may I say something?


KING: ...and we don't know that.

GRACE: True.

KING: Raymone?

BAIN: Yes, let me say something, Larry. I think the reason why the last couple of callers have said what they have is because Nancy knows full well that Michael Jackson left the hospital, and he was not allowed to go home and change clothes. There had been a bench warrant issued for his arrest, and his bail was about to be revoked. Michael Jackson had no intentions of going into court with his pajamas on.

In fact, I have throughout the last several weeks, indicated that he left home at 5:45 a.m., thinking that he would be able to be treated for his back. They kept him longer than he expected. He was advised that if he did not get to court in a certain time his bail would be revoked and he would be arrested. They know that. Nancy, you know that.

DIMOND: (INAUDIBLE) got here in his pajamas is just to now know what a journalist does.

BAIN: But it's the way you are doing it. OK, he reported...

DIMOND: I'm saying...

BAIN: He came to court in his pajamas...

DIMOND: He came to court in his pajamas.

KING: OK, one at a time.

BAIN: ...but, it's the way that you have said it...

KING: All right, let's not. All right, Raymone...

BAIN: ...and you continuously say it, as if Michael Jackson deliberately woke up that morning and put on his pajamas.

KING: Fair point.

DIMOND: That's completely absurd.

KING: Nancy, is that -- is Raymone correct, Nancy? He came right from the hospital because he had to?

GRACE: I don't know. All I know is he was late the first day of court. He didn't have his pajamas on that day, and there was no excuse for being late. He was late again. The judge was this close to revoking his bond. All that is a side show. It doesn't even matter. All that matters is what happened to these little boys.

BAIN: It's not a side show if you were ill.

GRACE: And I guarantee you -- I'd like to finish, ma'am. The point is not Michael Jackson's alleged back problem. The point is, did he molest little boys?

KING: Then why bring up pajamas at all?

BAIN: And nobody knows that yet.

KING: It's not germane, at all, what he wore to court.

BAIN: Exactly.

GRACE: Larry, if you want to win a case, you present the best case you can.

DIMOND: (INAUDIBLE)...if there was an arrest warrant put out for Michael Jackson and his bail was revoked. I mean, I think we would have been remiss if we hadn't reported. There was a warrant for his arrest.

BAIN: And that is exactly why he had to come to court in pajamas.

KING: But, Diana, the point...

DIMOND: That's fine, but to say we shouldn't mention it is absurd.

BAIN: I didn't say you shouldn't mention it.

KING: But if you mention it -- no, Diane, if you mention it, as if he deliberately wore pajamas...

BAIN: Exactly.

KING: opposed to having to go right...


KING: ...OK, but you imply that. You didn't imply it?

BAIN: That's exactly right, Larry.

DIMOND: Absolutely did not. I absolutely did not.

BAIN: They have implied it. Yes, you have and so has Grace.

DIMOND: Oh, Raymone, that's absurd.

BAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, it's not.

KING: All right, let me get a break. We'll be back with more. Don't go away.



BRIAN OXMAN, JACKSON FAMILY ATTORNEY: He was getting dressed. His back is in terrible pain. He was in terrible discomfort during the entire trial proceedings...

CROWD: Michael, innocent! Michael, innocent!



KING: We're back. Houston, Texas, hello.

CALLER: Yes, I'd like to say that I watch the Court TV and Nancy Grace, every day. And Nancy does make fun of Michael every day. Watch her show and you will see. And Diane and Nancy are both extremely biased against Michael. And I'd like to ask them -- Nancy, I agree with you about little boys being molested. I used to be a court investigator that investigated for the Harris County Courts child abuse cases here. And I totally am very, very much for prosecuting the guilty.

However, when you have the maid's son who was very, very young at the time come into court and tell his story, well that's just carte blanche believed, we don't need any psychiatrist to come in and interpret anything. But when you have some one who thinks he is innocent and says, nothing happened, this is all false, what they said against me -- meaning Macaulay Culkin -- then I think it's Diane Dimond that says, oh, no, we'll have a psychiatrist come in after Macaulay Culkin testifies...

DIMOND: I never said that.

CALLER: to interpret why they don't remember.

KING: What is your question? Where are we going ma'am?

DIMOND: I don't know what you're talking about.

CALLER: So, I would like to ask them why are they believing the maid's son, and they're saying that Macaulay Culkin must not remember.

KING: Oh, I see. Yes, I think said, Diane...

DIMOND: Macaulay Culkin hasn't been here yet. He hasn't been here yet.

KING: Well, lets -- let's assume he comes and says what he says on this show, nothing happened. Why do you want to take that any further?

DIMOND: I started -- the -- I didn't. I don't. I don't know what she's talking about. And the first question you asked me was about Macaulay Culkin, and what did I say? I said if he came here that would be great for Michael Jackson.

KING: Yes. Hampton, Virginia, hello.

Hampton, are you there? Go ahead.

CALLER: Hampton.

KING: Yes.

CALLER: Yes. What I'd like to ask -- and first I would look to say, Larry, Nancy, Diane, I love you both, all of you.

KING: That's three of, but -- there's other people on the panel. Go ahead.

CALLER: All right. Is the prosecution or the defense going to call the ex-wives, either Lisa Marie Presley or Debbie the mother of Michael's children? Are they going to call them and ask them to be on the stand?

KING: Let's bring in the others. Michael Cardoza, do think so -- they're coming?

CARDOZA: You know, I don't think they're coming. I've heard rumblings that Debbie Rowe may come into the courtroom. But I don't know that for sure. Diane may know better than I. So, far it's only rumblings.

KING: Diane, what do you know?

DIMOND: Well, In Tom Sneddon's opening statement, he said he would bring Debbie Rowe in here to testify about the conspiracy part of this case -- how she was brought in to help do this rebuttal video. And how she was told to follow a script, just like the mother said. So, let me put it this way, if Debbie Rowe doesn't come, then Tom Sneddon's in big trouble, because he promised it in his opening. I think she's coming next week.

KING: David Willis, what do you expect? WILLIS: I think we might see Debbie Rowe. And again, Larry, I think it would be tremendous if we did. But just going back to the question that was raised a short while ago, about this -- the mother of the accuser in this case. I think Michael Cardoza made the point, he made it here, actually, when he came down to talk to us journalists here, that there would be blood on the wall he's reckoned when Thomas Mesereau got his hands on the mother of this young accuser. Well, I don't think it happened in actual fact. And I know my opinion differs from that of a lot of my colleagues. But I honestly thought that she was pretty robust on the stand. Sure she came across as a bit wacky, and a bit all over the place at times. But nothing wrong with that you might argue. I thought that -- the dire predictions that Michael and others raised, that she would be taken apart, actually, didn't turn out to be the case.

KING: Ted Rowlands, what did you think? What kind of witness was she?

ROWLANDS: Well, you know, I can see both sides. But I think that, clearly, anyone in the courtroom, and I'm sure David would agree with me, there were some inconsistencies at best with this woman. I that think that she clearly lied, and admitted to lying in the J.C. Penney case. And then when she detailed what she claimed happened to her in the J.C. Penney case, it just seems fantastic to believe that security guards were doing belly flops on top of her, and had -- strangling her at the same moment that they were sexually assaulting her. And the great detail that she provided, just didn't seem to be in tuned with reality in a public parking lot in an afternoon.

So ,I think that she did -- and I think everybody will agree, she does provide some clear problems for the prosecution and their conspiracy case, because jurors are going to be left with having to fight which -- which portions of her testimony to believe and which portions they should disregard.

KING: We'll be right back with more calls. Don't go away.


KING: Dallas, Texas, Hello.



CALLER: My questions are for Nancy Grace. The first is -- what the -- speaking what the other lady said. You saying that Jason Fancia is supposed to be accepted as a victim. But if Macaulay Culkin comes in and says he's not a victim, you want an expert to testify, well, he'll deny it. And what point...

GRACE: That's not what I said.

CALLER: Well, let -- please let me finish this time. At what point are we supposed to accept the people that are nothing saying happened to them? How can you accept the person's word, that they stood by and didn't do anything if the kid is saying nothing happened. And then secondly, and your making fun of Michael Jackson is (AUDIO GAP), you look like a trailer park whore.

KING: Hold on. Stop that. I won't have that kind of thing. These reports of making fun, Nancy. Can you explain this. Why are they saying, that you make fun of him? I don't know.

GRACE: Well, Larry, I do have to admit that the day he came to court in his pajamas, it was quite a spectacle. So, if everybody -- if everybody wants to focus on that instead of the five...

KING: You don't make fun of him?

GRACE: No. No. I want to go back to the facts though, Larry.


KING: The question about Macaulay Culkin -- what do you believe?

GRACE: Right. What I said at the beginning of the show was, in response to your question, as to what will happen. If Macaulay Culkin takes the stand, and says nothing happened -- what the state will then do -- and I'm not saying Culkin is right, wrong, lying or not lying -- but what the state will do, I'm a trial lawyer, and this is what they're going to do. In that event they will bring on a child molestation expert to talk about adults in denial of child molestation. Now, if the lady in Texas doesn't like that. I'm sorry. But that is trial strategy. That's the reality.

KING: That's the same as the defense attorney...

GRACE: Exactly.

KING: Countering the charger who's making the charge, right?

GRACE: Exactly.

KING: Mobile, Alabama, hello.

CALLER: Hello.

KING: Yes.

CALLER: This is Mobile, Alabama.

KING: Yes, go ahead.

CALLER: Hello.

KING: Go ahead!

CALLER: This is for Nancy. You are the top, Nancy. You are the greatest.

KING: What's the question?

CALLER : OK. Do you think, like I do, that they're trying to make this a trial of the accuser's mother -- of the mother? Like they did the OJ Simpson and the accused being sort of Mark Fuhrman?

GRACE: Yes. I think in this case -- and I also think it is a very wise defense strategy. They've been given on a silver platter, a witness that fell apart on cross-examine. There's no two ways about it. So, what the defense can do with that. And I'm sure the prosecution took this into account when they put her on the stand to start with, the defense can shift the focus to the mom and make the trial all about her. That's what they're going to do. And it's been handed to them as I said on a silver platter.

KING: So, why not do it?

GRACE: That's right. It's trial strategy.

Look, we may not agree with it. We may not think it tastes good going down. But this is the way trials are won or lost. This is a strategy that will happen in that courtroom.

BAIN: The mother is not the only one who has become discombobulated. I mean, if you look at, with all due respect to -- to what everyone is saying here, Tom Mesereau has done an excellent job. A number of these witnesses, not just the mother, have become discombobulated on that stand. And there is a very big credibility issue. And is -- like who?

You are in there every day, Diane. I'm not going to sit here and name names, but I mean, everybody who has come in there, under the 1108 -- under the 1108 motion. I mean, well I mean just let me say this. I think that, if we listen to some of these calls they will wonder whether you are Diane, because frankly, I have been in there a lot and I also get all of the summaries and I question some times whether or not we're sitting in the same court.

KING: I have to take a break. Diane, has Tom Mesereau done a good job cross-examining witnesses other than the mother.

DIMOND: Absolutely. He is very good. And I say it all the time whether Raymone hears it or not. No. I think he has done a really good job. And I think he was really good on the mother.

There were a couple times where I thought, oh, you might be being a little bullying. But he was actually very gentle with her. He got all the points in he wanted to get in. And he's good at what he does.

KING: We'll be back with more moments right after these words. Don't go away.


KING: Ballpark figure, Michael Cardoza, when is this trial going to end -- end-end.

CARDOZA: End-end? You're probably looking at another two months at least, Larry, probably three months out to be safe.

KING: Why? Why?


KING: Yes.

CARDOZA: Because Mesereau has to answer each of the allegations. Remember they have that famous Neverland Five here now. So those are five mini-trials within this trial. He has got to bring witnesses in to say that didn't happen or counter that some how. Then he has got to answer what happened in this particular case.

It's going to take a while to get through all that. He's got a lot of evidence. I've talked to some attorneys that were involved with this case before. They say they have just a locker full of evidence to bring in. On the defensive -- defense half of this case. So, it's going to take a while to put the defense in.

I'm not a true believer that when the DA says he is going to end this case next week that it's going to really happen, because he made a lot of promises -- and we have heard them here tonight -- in his opening statement to the jury. And he hasn't come close to, you know fulfilling all of those promises. So, I bet he'll be another two weeks at least in his case.

KING: David Willis, what do you expect, when is this going -- you think it will go another few months, David?

WILLIS: I think it probably will, Larry. As certainly as the far as the accuser's mother was concerned, we saw evidence there of Thomas Mesereau, Michael Jackson's attorney saying, when you were at Neverland did you meet this person? Did you meet that person? Did you meet this person? No, no, no on practically every occasion.

Well, clearly some of those people, perhaps all of them, are going to be brought here to try to undermine her testimony. So, that is going to take a while as well. We talked about the 1108 as well. It is going to stretch out, I think. It could be a long, hot summer in Santa Maria.

KING: Diane, you agree?

DIMOND: I think the defense case is going to take six weeks. And I think the DA probably has eight days, maybe nine more days. He's got a lot left on the conspiracy to show. People who made that rebuttal video, people who worked with a man named Mark Chapel (ph) to sell it to FOX TV. A financial expert, perhaps, I'm not sure about that. I think the DA probably won't get done next week.

KING: Nancy?

GRACE: I give the state about -- I give the defense five weeks. And about a week for rebuttal by the prosecution.

KING: So, it'll go into the summer? Ted Rowlands, what's your read?

ROWLANDS: Oh, I think the prosecution is going to finish up next week. They seemed pretty confident of that yesterday in court, as did Tom Sneddon when he was forecasting the rest of the schedule here, or maybe spill into another day or two. But it's not that difficult to figure out what he has left and then tell the judge what his schedule is.

Plus, he said he was actually having trouble filling this week. We have Friday off because of that. And some scheduling issues. And then, you know it all depends on the defense case. If they do bring on all these witnesses, it's going to take some time.

Then you, the prosecution rebuttal case, extended if the defense goes that deep. So I think it's safe to say, as David said, a long, hot summer here.

KING: Raymone Bain what are they telling you, the Jackson people, how long?

BAIN: Tom has not indicated to me exactly how long, Larry. He has just indicated to me that he is going to bring in as many people as he can to show that Michael Jackson is innocent before this jury. And I don't think we're putting a time frame on it. I think what he wants to do is the best job that he can in showing that Michael Jackson is innocent of these charges. And if we have to be in there until December, Larry, we will do that.

KING: Is he giving you any hint of optimism or pessimism at all?

BAIN: Well, Michael has indicated to me his feeling very comfortable and confident in where he is thus far in this trial. Tom Mesereau is doing a good job, Larry. And Michael feels extremely grateful to him for the job he has been doing thus far.

KING: Thank you all very much. Diane Dimond, Nancy Grace, Ted Rowlands, Raymone Bain, Michael Cardoza, and great to have Davis Willis with us as well. As the trial progresses, we'll be hearing lots more from them.

Tomorrow night we'll have a major discussion about a major problem in this country, the problem of depression. It's become more and more to the forefront. It's estimated that 22 million Americans suffer from it.

One man who doesn't is here with us tonight in Los Angeles. Aaron Brown.


International Edition
CNN TV CNN International Headline News Transcripts Advertise With Us About Us
   The Web     
Powered by
© 2005 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us.
external link
All external sites will open in a new browser. does not endorse external sites.
 Premium content icon Denotes premium content.
Add RSS headlines.