The Web      Powered by
powered by Yahoo!


Return to Transcripts main page


Latest Developments in Michael Jackson Trial

Aired April 25, 2005 - 21:00   ET


LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, what are we going to hear about Michael Jackson from his ex-wife, Debbie Rowe, the mother of two of his children? The judge gave the OK today for her to testify for the prosecution in the molestation trial.
Meanwhile, a dramatic shakeup in Jackson's defense team. One attorney seen getting into it with Jackson's lead attorney outside court.

And a former Neverland security guard testifies about Jackson and his 1993 accuser and two wet swimsuits.

We'll get all the latest with CNN's Ted Rowlands inside the courtroom today. Michael Jackson's spokesperson Raymone Bain. High- profile defense attorney Michael Cardoza. Stacey Honowitz, assistant state attorney for Florida, specializing in child abuse and sex crime cases. ABC News senior legal correspondent and "Primetime Live" co- anchor Cynthia McFadden. And Jane Velez-Mitchell of "Celebrity Justice," also in court today. All next on LARRY KING LIVE.

Good evening. And of course, your phone calls will be included. Let's run it down.

Ted Rowlands, what happened?

TED ROWLANDS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Debbie Rowe is in. Officially, the judge cleared Jackson's ex-wife to come here and provide testimony for the prosecution. The judge did say that he will limit what she has to say on the stand, but she is in.

In somewhat of a surprise today, prosecutors announced that Chris Carter, a former bodyguard, will not testify. Carter, who they fought for last week to come in and testify, was going to allegedly talk about Jackson's relationship with the current accuser, and he was expected to be the only non-family member to say Jackson gave the boy and his brother alcohol. He has some problems of his own, does Carter. He's in Nevada, he's in custody facing bank robbery charges. And the prosecutors today say he's not coming, judge.

Meanwhile, on the stand, as you alluded to today, a former security guard brought up another uncharged allegation from Jackson's past, this back in 1993. He says one night after Jackson was in the Jacuzzi with the 1993 alleged victim, he saw them go into a bathroom. He later walked into the bathroom and saw two swimsuits on the floor, wet. He saw Jackson giving the boy a piggyback ride. The boy had only a towel or robe on. And then he said Jackson locked his bedroom door -- the house door, the back door, which he claimed was uncommon. On cross-examination, Mesereau argued with him about that, saying, wouldn't you think that Michael Jackson would lock his own doors? They got into it a bit there. He was on the stand for a good portion of today.

And then finally today, Brian Oxman, who is a longtime family attorney for Michael Jackson, has been relieved as part of the counsel in this case. Paperwork was filed today with the court, saying he is no longer representing Jackson. And outside court in the afternoon, what appeared to be a heated exchange took place between Mesereau and Brian Oxman. They did end up hugging. We don't know exactly what happened, but Oxman is out.

KING: Jane Velez-Mitchell, by the way, before we continue, as you probably heard, I have been served by the defense in the Michael Jackson case, but I cannot talk about the circumstances related to that subpoena. Jane Velez-Mitchell, what do you expect to hear from the former wife?

JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, CELEBRITY JUSTICE: Well, she has known Michael Jackson for decades and decades. She has quite a story to tell, but the judge is going to limit her testimony, we believe, to this rebuttal video that she made, trying to show that what happened to the accuser's mother, the current accuser's mother, is very similar to what happened to Debbie Rowe. Prosecutors are going to say that she was given a highly scripted interview to do, and that she did it because they dangled the possibility of more visitation with her children, Prince Michael and Paris. And that all the glowing things that she said about Michael Jackson were, in fact, scripted, and that she said them under duress. That would corroborate the current accuser's mother's story.

KING: Raymone Bain, the spokesperson for Michael Jackson. Is he concerned about this?



BAIN: No, because Michael is a good father. Michael and Debbie Rowe had a good relationship. He cares about his kids. He is a wonderful father. And it's nothing Debbie Rowe could say, Larry, other than the fact that Michael Jackson is a loving and caring father, and Michael Jackson was very, very, very kind and very good to Debbie Rowe. And I think that a lot is being overexaggerated. And I think they need to just wait until she shows up and says what she has to say. But if she tells the truth, then all she can say is that he's an excellent father and that he was a good person to her.

KING: Cynthia McFadden, should he be concerned?

CYNTHIA MCFADDEN, ABC NEWS: Well, you know, I don't think that he has -- she doesn't have to take the stand and say anything other than what Ms. Bain just suggested. She can take the stand and say he was a good father if in fact that's her opinion. That's not the reason she's being called. She's being called because they want to show a pattern of behavior that Michael Jackson or his associates told people what to say to defend him. And if she takes the witness stand and says that, that gives the jury some reason to believe that perhaps Michael Jackson or his associates did the same thing to the accuser's mother, and that's what's in conflict here, that's what's at stake.

BAIN: But you know, Larry, there's been a lot of conflict. I mean, we've had one witness after the other who have come in, and the credibility hasn't quite been up to par. And I think that you can always read scripts and you can always listen and look at what somebody else has said, but I think that -- personally, I think it's being a little overexaggerated.

KING: Yeah, but if he did order her to say something, that's germane to the case, don't you think, Raymone?

BAIN: Well, you know, Larry, there are so many people that are saying he ordered them, but then on cross-examination...

KING: Well, let's see what she says.

BAIN: ... on the cross-examination, they have ended up looking very, very, very weak. So I think that we should just wait and see what happens in the court.

KING: Well, the truth is -- we don't know anything until the jury decides. Stacey Honowitz...

BAIN: You're absolutely right.

KING: Stacey, you're an assistant Florida state attorney for sex crimes and child abuse.


KING: Help us with something. The only charge in this case is the current one, right, by the current accuser and the current mother?

HONOWITZ: That's correct, Judge -- Judge -- Larry. That's correct.

KING: OK, make me a judge.

HONOWITZ: I know...

KING: Here's what I want to -- here's the question. Hypothetically, supposing you're a juror, supposing you believe all the past things but have doubts about this, what do you do?

HONOWITZ: Well, certainly the judge is going to read an instruction to the jury that limits them with regard to considering the 1108 evidence. And he's going to tell them that that evidence has to be used for certain purposes. And if they don't find that the charge that has been proven in this case beyond the exclusion of every reasonable doubt, then they cannot find him guilty as to this case. And that's really the purpose of the other evidence. They want to try to show a pattern in this case.

So that's what they're going to have to do. They're going to have to stand alone on this. But the court has permitted them to bring in all this other evidence to show a pattern of conduct.

KING: Got you. But Michael Cardoza, they still must prove this case, right?

MICHAEL CARDOZA, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: They have to prove this case. Here's how it works. You've got those five other instances, the 1108 everybody has been calling it. What the jury will be instructed is the -- you as jurors have to look at that evidence and decide -- and here's the twist -- by a preponderance of the evidence whether you believe any or all of those five past instances. If you believe any one or all, then you as a juror have to decide. From that, can we draw an inference that he has a propensity to commit child molestation? If you can draw that inference, then you take that inference, you put in it the basket with all the other evidence that the district attorney has presented to the jury, and then you decide, does that prove beyond a reasonable doubt if he's guilty or not?

And as I said the other night, what I'm afraid of here is the jurors could look to that and say, heck, yeah, that proves to us he's a child molester. This case is not good enough, but I'm not letting him go. I'm emotionally going to convict him, even though this is not a strong case.

That's a big, big caveat that the defense has to watch out for in this case. And they can argue it away. And it will have to be artfully argued away.

KING: We'll take a break and come back with more about the lawyer leaving the case. We'll be including your phone calls as well. Don't go away.


KING: Ted Rowlands, what did you learn about what happened between the two lawyers?

ROWLANDS: Well, Brian Oxman who has been a family attorney for Michael Jackson for a number of years has sort of played a limited role in this current case. He's behind the other three attorneys, Thomas Mesereau, Bob Sanger and Susan Yu. But he's been there. He's been on the defense side. He's been at the defense table until today. When he arrived at court, he was instructed to sit in the front row with the family. And then court papers were filed on behalf of Mesereau's law office that Oxman was no longer a part of the Jackson defense team. What's behind it, good question. We don't know specifically what happened.

KING: What's the guess?

ROWLANDS: Obviously, something -- something went wrong there between Oxman and Mesereau. I would hate to guess what happened. Maybe Raymone would be able to fill us in if she knows anything. But the bottom line is, Oxman is out, at least, for the criminal trial right now that Michael Jackson's facing.

KING: Raymone, what do you know?

BAIN: Well, Larry, I know that Michael has a great deal of respect for both Brian Oxman and for Tom Mesereau. And I think that in the next day or two, things will be a bit clearer. I'm not going to say that Brian Oxman is no longer a part of the team. He's been...

KING: He's been taken off today.

BAIN: But he has been, Larry, inherently hands on with the Jackson family for 14, 15 years. So I think that either he or Tom Mesereau would be the most appropriate people...

KING: I understand. You don't know.

BAIN: Well, I'm not going to say that. But I think that the appropriate people...

KING: But do you know or don't you know?

BAIN: I know but I don't think that it is appropriate for me to say right now. I think that the statement should come from either Brian or Tom.

KING: Jane, have you learned anything?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I think as Raymone said Brian is a very, very loyal guy who has a soft spot in his heart for Michael Jackson and vice versa. But I do think that this is a very high stakes trial, the tension, you could cut it with a knife inside the courtroom. Tom Mesereau is in charge in there. And he has a right to call the shots. There's a lot at stake. And he wants to pick his people to argue this case. And he's going to have his way, I believe.

KING: Cynthia, do you know anything that we don't know?

MCFADDEN: I know this, Larry, a team can only have one captain. The ship only has one captain. I know that we know who the captain in that courtroom is going to be. Michael Jackson has to have one lawyer who is making these decisions in the courtroom. And I think we know today, based upon the court filing. Who that lawyer is going to be. And the longstanding history that Mr. Oxman has with the Jackson family, he's allowed to sit with the family now. But I think this is a very clear ruling about who's going to be calling the shots in the courtroom.

And you know, frankly, it's -- no slam intended against Mr. Oxman, but I mean, it's a good decision. You have to have clarity, especially as you approach the defense case. I mean, they're coming up on probably a two-month defense, and somebody's got to be running it. BAIN: Now let me say, Larry. Larry, let me just interject something here. Tom Mesereau has always been in charge. He has always been the lead counsel from day one. And that has remained very, very clear.

KING: Yes, but if there's some difficulty -- something had to happen.

HONOWITZ: Sometimes, Larry...


KING: One at a time.

HONOWITZ: Sometimes, Larry, when you have a personal friend like Oxman's been to the family. Just the fact that he's loyal to the family doesn't mean that he really can take charge in the courtroom when it comes to the criminal case. And I think that's what Mesereau was trying to show him. You can be as loyal as you want to be and we appreciate that, but when it comes to the legalese of the case, let me handle it. And that's probably what happened in this case.

KING: And Michael, you're a defense attorney, what's your guess?

CARDOZA: I'll tell you what, about a month ago there was a tape that was aired that one of the stations got where Oxman was out in front of his hotel in Santa Maria screaming on the telephone. And it was words to the effect of "I will get rid of him. I'm not going to stand for that attorney to be on this case." So I don't think this is something that just happened. Bad blood has been brewing for a while. My guess would be having tried a lot of the cases like this, that there was egos involved. Oxman's the old family attorney. Here comes Mesereau not -- yes, Mesereau involved with this case. He takes over. Oxman sort of protecting his territory, wants to play a bigger role than he really should be allowed to in this case. And Mesereau puts his foot down and says you've got to step out of the way. You've got to let me do their job. And apparently they had it out today. And it ended with sort of an attorney hug out in front of the courtroom. And they separated at that time. And you know, I got to think Mesereau, remember, was one of those tough guys that went to Harvard. He was on their boxing team. Don't fool with him, Mr. Oxman.


KING: Stacey Honowitz -- Stacey, hold it. Stacey, you're new to us -- so -- and you're 2,500 miles away. But as a prosecutor of these kind of cases, what's your read on this -- on the prosecution's case so far?

HONOWITZ: Larry, you know you can never tell. The prosecution have great days. They have horrible days. They have runaway witnesses. They have great witnesses. I think, we really have to sit and wait. I think the fact that Debbie Rowe's testimony is coming in this week is a bombshell. Because as prosecutors we know we want to save our strongest points for the end. As a matter of fact, probably the 1108 evidence could have been used at the end because it was strong. So, I think, her testimony is going to be crucial if she can corroborate what the mother said, who everybody said was a lousy witness and a runaway witness, I think they're going to end up pretty strong. Then again, we have to wait and see. It's probably a two- month defense. And I think it's hard to read it right now. We really have to wait and see what the close is like.

KING: Are these generally tough cases, Stacey, to call?

HONOWITZ: They're very hard. They're very hard cases to call. Child molestation cases are difficult in their own right. And when have you a celebrity as big as he is in this case who knows everybody and has every connection and has been wonderful to the world and wonderful to his children, it is very hard for people to understand that he could, quote, "be a child molester." So in and of itself, to get people to testify to have to listen to these uncomfortable facts, this isn't water cooler talking, this is things that prosecutors talk about and defense attorneys talk about, but it's new to the jurors. So I think it's new for everybody to have to listen and it's difficult.

KING: We'll take a break and be back with more of your call at the bottom of the hour. We'll talk about that witness that they decided not to call in just a moment. Don't go away.


KING: Ted Rowlands, what was Kassim Abdool's testimony about?

ROWLANDS: Well, he's a former security guard that worked back in '93 when the '93 accuser was spending -- or alleged victim was spending a lot of time at Neverland ranch. And he was used by prosecutors to corroborate earlier security guard's testimony, that Jackson was seen involved in inappropriate behavior with that young boy.

Today, he got up on the stand, did -- this security guard, and he said that one night Jackson was going out to the Jacuzzi with this young boy. He saw him go out there. And then, he says that after the two got out of the Jacuzzi, they allegedly went into a bathroom near the arcade at Neverland, and he claims he went in there and he saw both of their swimming shorts down on the floor. And they were wet. And then he saw Jackson giving the boy a piggyback ride back into the house. The boy had a robe on. Presumably, all he had on was a robe, if you listen to this testimony and you get what the prosecutors wanted the jury to hear. And then he said that Jackson locked the door of his home, and he maintained that Jackson normally would never lock any of the doors, and it was his job to lock the doors, and he thought that that was odd.

Keep in mind -- and this was brought out on cross -- this is one of the individuals that sued Michael Jackson and lost, and actually owes Jackson more than $1 million. And in cross, that came out, his relationship with the other security guards who are alleging these things. And also, it came out on cross that he never did anything about this. If he thought it was that bad, why didn't he call police? He said that he never would have called police. So all in all, I think it was another one of these alleged actions from Jackson's past that the jury was exposed to.

KING: And, Jane, what is it about this person they were going to call and they're not going to call?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, Chris Carter, Michael Jackson's former bodyguard, is facing a string of armed robberies in Las Vegas. And they had won a victory. The judge said he could take the stand and testify without having to talk or be cross-examined about those alleged armed robberies. But then Tom Sneddon, the DA, comes in today and says, he's not going to testify after all, even though they won that key victory.

The sense is perhaps he has so much baggage, he is if not literally, sort of in a sense walking into court in shackles. And he may have heard that he's not getting any special consideration for this testimony. So he may have gone south on him and said, hey, hold me in contempt. Considering all the charges I'm facing, that's not going to really threaten me that much.

KING: Stacey, is that a good guess?

HONOWITZ: Yeah, I mean, you know what, Larry, to bring this guy in, for what purpose? You have to really look and weigh the pros and cons. He has got so much baggage. He probably had a hard time getting him out of federal custody. It is really hard to get in state courts someone who is in federal custody. And I think they probably went back, thought about it over the weekend and said, we don't think the testimony is really that necessary. It is not going to make or break the case, so you know, let's not even call him.

KING: Michael Cardoza, what's your assessment of the prosecution to this point?

CARDOZA: Well, the prosecution to this point, for what they have, I think they're doing a very, very good job with what they have. The mother of the accuser in my opinion, was awful. Debbie Rowe's coming up. And I'll tell you, we can talk about Debbie Rowe from now until forget about it, what's going to happen here is the jury is going to look at the tape. Because the defense said, they will play the three hours of tape of Debbie Rowe to see if it appears to be scripted. Therein will be what the jury decides what to do with her.

As far as Chris Carter not testifying, I'll tell you what he's doing, he's selling his testimony. He's talking to the DAs and telling them, what are you going to do for me? If I come in there and connect Jackson to the false imprisonment, and that's why they needed him, to connect Jackson to the false imprisonment -- you're not going to do anything for me, I'm not coming in. If they gave in to that, when he hit the stand, you bet that Mesereau would bring that out on cross. So it essentially destroys that particular witness. He's made himself useless to the prosecution.

KING: Raymone, what is your -- what is Michael most concerned about? BAIN: Well, you know, Larry, Michael is most concerned about the fact that he's hoping that the jury will, you know, find him innocent of these false charges.

KING: I know that, but is there anything particular that the prosecution has brought up that concerns him the most?

BAIN: Well, I think what has concerned him, based on my conversations, Larry, is just the string of people who have -- who Michael has actually been very, very good to, whom he has done a lot for, from employees to the accusers. I mean, here's a man...

KING: I know but what -- that bothers him but what...

BAIN: It bothers him, because he's being vilified by all of these people. They're making these false accusations, Larry, and that's very hurtful.

KING: Does he think it's a conspiracy of some sorts?

BAIN: Well, as he has said in his recent interviews, he has indicated that he thinks that could be a possibility, though he has not expounded on that, but he has certainly said it. And he has been very sincere in his thoughts.

KING: Cynthia, what...

BAIN: I think, Larry, if it were you or I, and we sat there every day and we were seeing all of these people who owe you money, who you have been very kind to and who you have opened your doors and your heart to, and they're out there vilifying you, it would be not a good feeling. And he has his good days and his bad days.

KING: Cynthia?

MCFADDEN: Yeah, just a point, Larry, on the Chris Carter testimony. I went back and looked at what Chris Carter testified before the grand jury when he had the chance to do that, and one of the points that the prosecution lost by not calling him, and I think I agree with your panel that it was probably on balance a good decision not to call him -- but what they lost was Chris Carter's testimony in which he would have said, based on what he said to the grand jury, that Michael -- one day he saw the accuser drunk. And he went over to him and said, you know, you shouldn't be doing this, you shouldn't be drinking, you're a young man, you're a sick young man. And the accuser said to him, listen, Michael told me it's part of being a man, and that if I can handle it, that's a good thing.

Now, you know, they're trying to build this case. Each piece, you know, each brick helps. So that's I think essentially what they lost by not calling him to the stand.

KING: We'll take a break and come back and include your phone calls. Tomorrow night, a major discussion on a major problem -- migraine headaches. What happens, who gets them, why they get them, what to do about them. Migraine headaches tomorrow night. We'll be right back.


KING: Let's re-introduce our panel, then begin to go to some phone calls.

In -- at the Santa Maria Courthouse is the wind-blown Ted Rowlands, CNN correspondent covering the Jackson trial.

In Atlanta is Raymone Bain, Michael Jackson's spokesperson.

In San Francisco, Michael Cardoza, defense attorney, a former Alameda County prosecutor. He's been in court for many of the sessions.

In Miami is Stacey Honowitz, Assistant Florida State Attorney for sex crimes and child abuse.

In New York, it's Cynthia McFadden, ABC news senior legal correspondent and co-anchor of "Primetime Live," and at the Santa Maria Courthouse as well, but not wind blown, is Jane Velez-Mitchell, correspondent for "Celebrity Justice," who must be in a different spot.

San Jacinto, California, hello.

CALLER: Hello. This is a question for Ms. Bain. I have a problem with the -- Debbie Rowe because of the fact that -- didn't she recently do a -- something about a face lift on TV? And, for a person, that has children, a mother, she's had no contact with those children. Did she sell her children to Michael Jackson? And, I'm going to hang up to hear your response.

BAIN: OK. First of all, you are right. I think it was "The Insider" that Ms. Rowe was featured on, having gone through extensive surgery. But you know, that's her prerogative, and that is simply nothing to really judge her by. I can't speak to, because of the gag order, ma'am, as to whether or not she sold her kids. All I know is this -- and this is what I said to Larry earlier -- Michael Jackson is not that nervous about Debbie Rowe's testimony because he's a good father and he has been extremely kind to Debbie Rowe.

KING: When you say the gag order, you're not covered, are you, Raymone?

BAIN: Yes, Larry, to some extent I am. You know, I can't really get into all of the...

KING: Are you scheduled to testify?

BAIN: Am I scheduled to testify? Not to my knowledge.

KING: Then how can you be under the gag order?

BAIN: Well, we have to talk to the various lawyers, Larry, because some of them say that it's a very fine line as to what I can say and what I can't. I can talk about Michael and how he feels about certain issues, and I can talk about things as they become public, but I can't do an actual legal analyst -- analysis -- of various aspects of the case because I understand I am under a gag order.

KING: Woodhaven, Michigan. Hello.

CALLER: Hi. I'd like to know, has there ever been a DNA test to prove that those kids really are Michael Jackson's because they certainly don't look like him.

KING: Jane Velez, has that ever been questioned?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, it has been questioned, many times. In fact, in J. Randy Taraborrelli's book on this whole subject, it is brought up, very specifically, that people have always had their doubts about the paternity of Prince Michael and Paris.

Now, one of the things is that both of these individuals, Michael and Debbie Rowe, have said in the past that they were conceived in the natural way. There's also a lot of skepticism about that. Some of that could possibly come into testimony, because she apparently talked a little bit about that in the rebuttal video. So, that could open the door for all of this to get in. Questioning has to be very, very careful to make sure that we don't open a Pandora's box which could extend this trial a lot with all that Debbie Rowe has to offer in terms of testimony potentially.

KING: Stacey, how could that be germane? Supposing they weren't his natural children? So what?

HONOWITZ: Well, I mean, the whole idea -- what Jane was just talking about, whether or not Debbie Rowe and Michael Jackson actually had "natural" relations or if the children were received in vitro, artificial insemination -- this is really going to go to the heart of the matter in this case, is what his sexuality was all about. Is he able to have normal relations with a woman, or does he favor not having sex with a woman, which would lead to the inference that he likes to have sex with boys. So, that's why the issue in the case about whether or not the sexuality is going to come in, they're really going to try to limit it.

BAIN: That's so insignificant.

HONOWITZ: Wait a second. It's not insignificant if she can describe that she never slept with him, she never had relationships with him, that he didn't want to have sex...

BAIN: But that doesn't mean he's a pedophile.

HONOWITZ: I'm not saying that he's a pedophile. But it doesn't mean that he wants to have sex with women, leads to be inferred about...

BAIN: Well, just because he doesn't want to have sex with Debbie Rowe doesn't mean that he doesn't want to have sex with women. HONOWITZ: Listen, I'm not saying that in this case that, just because he didn't have sex means he's a pedophile. But if Debbie Rowe was going to take the stand and say that we did not have normal relations, he did not want to have sex with women, then certainly the jury can infer that he want to have sex with...

BAIN: Well, I don't know that Debbie Rowe can get out there and say that..


BAIN: ...because I don't think that she would have that information or know that.

HONOWITZ: Certainly, if she didn't have sex with him, she would have the information.

BAIN: She would not -- if she did not have sex with him, but he had sex with somebody else, how would she know that?

HONOWITZ: How do you know he didn't tell her that he didn't want to have sex with women? These are all the things that are (INAUDIBLE) admissible in court..

KING: All right, let me...

BAIN: I mean, we can always stretch this, but, I mean, please.

KING: Vancouver, British Columbia. Hello.

CALLER: Yes, Larry, love your show. My question's for Michael Cardoza. I'm just wondering if the mother knew -- you know, the accuser's mother or the mother's that's making these accusations -- did she know about the 1993 charges against Michael Jackson before she let her son go over there and sleep? And will the jury take into consideration what her motives were? I see money signs in her eyes before she let her son go there. I can't see a person colluding with a crime and then claiming to be a poor little victim. I just see money signs in all these people's eyes.

KING: Well, let him answer the question. Michael?

CARDOZA: Well, let me start with, they really should prosecute this mother for what she did in this particular case with her children. Did she know about the 1993? According to everything I've read and what I've heard, she did not know about that, but she certainly found out about it later on when she went to the attorney that handled that 1993 case. And remember, the accuser's mother didn't go straight away to the police. She first went to two different civil attorneys to bring her civil lawsuit before she reported it to the police, and one of those attorneys, as I said, happened to be the one that represented the young man in 1993.

BAIN: But in fairness, she...

KING: We'll take a break. Let me take a break. We'll come right back with more and Raymone -- Raymone can comment. We'll take more calls. Don't go away.


KING: We're back. Pleasanton, California, hello.

CALLER: Yes, hello. My question is for Raymone. I would like her to answer it for me, please. I'd like to know -- I noticed that Michael Jackson wears a lot of makeup. I'd like to know if he does that himself, or if he has a makeup artist, and the part B is, I noticed his nails are always very dark, and that is not nail polish. Thank you very much.

KING: Do you know what the answer is, Raymone? And maybe Ted knows.

BAIN: I can't answer the question about his nails and why they might be dark. I do know that Michael is suffering from a skin disease, and as a result of that, he will have sometimes his makeup artist handle certain blotches that he might have discoloring.

KING: Ted, do you know more?

ROWLANDS: No, I don't. You know, clearly he wears a lot of makeup. And one would presume that he has someone helping him with his makeup on the way or before he leaves, but I have actually no knowledge of what that entails.

BAIN: Larry, I can answer that question. He has a woman who comes by sometimes and sometimes he will do it himself.


BAIN: I mean, it's no secret. But he does suffer from a skin disease.

KING: Watertown, Massachusetts. Hello.

CALLER: Good evening, Larry. I have a question for attorney Cardoza.

KING: Yes.

CALLER: I wanted to comment that I see the defense bar handling the prosecution witnesses very deftly in impeaching their credibility. However, when taken in aggregate, all their little unique vignettes seem to add up to a case. And how do you respond to the combination of all the witnesses together?

KING: Good question. Is it beginning, Michael, to act like a duck, look like a duck, walk like a duck?

CARDOZA: It's the old yes. I mean, where there's smoke, there's fire. That's certainly one thing a jury could do.

You know, there's an old story they trial attorneys tell to juries about the little boy that's blindfolded. They bring an elephant in front of him and make him feel each individual part, and with each, like the leg, he said, oh, feels like a tree; the ear, it feels like a fan. And the prosecution says, don't look at each individual part. Look at the totality. It's an elephant.

You know, that's what they want them to do here. Look at each individual witness. Because what they will say at the end is why would so many people conspire to come in to lie about Michael Jackson? And therein is what the defense has to fight. They have to get them to look at each individual witnesses and see their witnesses, see their motivation, and dissect the case that way. So it is going to be a battle of argument here. It's going to be (INAUDIBLE) wonderful arguments at the end of this case.

KING: Stacey, it will lead to what, in your opinion, as a juror is reasonable doubt here?

HONOWITZ: Well, certainly they're going to look at the motivation behind all of the witnesses testimony. I mean, just like Michael said, I mean, in a case like this, you know, the jurors are looking in aggregate, in whole at the totality of circumstances, but reasonable doubt can be found in almost anything, and it only takes one reasonable doubt. They might think that the mother has a motivation to do this. They might think that the gravy train stopped, and that's why she's bringing these charges. They might think that all of these bodyguards, these security people that came in, everything that Mesereau talked about, they have an ax to grind.

So they can look at anything. Any juror can rely on all of the testimony, some of the testimony, none of the testimony. If they can find something, there's going to some doubt. If there's a doubt, they can attach a reasonable reason to it, and it only takes one, they'll find him not guilty. So they'll look at everything that Mesereau has been impeaching them with.

KING: Cynthia, this looks like a tough call.

MCFADDEN: I think you're right, Larry. And listen, "The Washington Post" a couple of weeks ago had it boil down to just a few words. This is either an evil man or an easy mark. And those are really the stark alternatives that the jury is going to have to decide. You know, it's still early...

KING: Well said.

MCFADDEN: You remember in the prosecution case with Scott Peterson, it didn't look good when the prosecutor was concluding the first part of his testimony. But when the defense got up there, it didn't go so well. So you know, it's too early for anybody to call this.


KING: Yeah, Jane -- Ted? Or was that Michael?

CARDOZA: No, that was me, Michael. You know, I don't disagree with her, that's a great way to boil it down, but you could have literally an evil man that didn't do this one. And that's what you have to focus the jury on. And that's what the defense somehow will have to argue to the jury. Even if you might believe one of those five others, doesn't mean he did this one. And like I say, that's why argument will be a big thing in this case.

KING: Jane, it could be then a little bit of both, right? Jane?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: The prosecution is saying, can they all be lying? And wants a jury to say no. The defense is saying yes, they can all be lying. But they've all -- a lot of them have sold their stories to the tabloids. A lot of them had sued Michael Jackson. That's why they need some key witnesses that don't have all this baggage, and we could have one coming up -- Rudy Provencio. "CJ" broke the story of how this is a man who took journal notes. He was with the alleged unindicted co-conspirators, took journal notes during this entire alleged conspiracy, and may be able to tie it to Michael Jackson, which is one of the things the prosecution hasn't done yet. They haven't connected the dots on this alleged conspiracy to Michael Jackson himself. And they have to do that if they want to prove that conspiracy charge.

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


KING: We're back. Ft. Pierce, Florida. Hello.

CALLER: Hello?


CALLER: Thank you. A question for your panel. Is there some significance to the colored armbands that Michael Jackson wears on his left arm?

KING: Ted?

ROWLANDS: I'm sure there is a significance -- significance to each of the different colored armbands. I'm not privy to all of the different once. Of course, white means innocent, and his whole family came in white one day.

Maybe Raymone has more insights if there's an actual code for each armband, but he switches them up every day.

BAIN: Well, you know what, Larry, I asked Michael this question, because I've been getting so many calls about it. And he said that it's just -- it doesn't really have any special significance other than style. You know, he and his stylist, Michael Bush, they will sit down and they will go over, you know, various colors or what suits he's going to wear. And so many members of the media have said, well, there was a crest or there is a color, and what does it mean? And Michael basically said to me he wears what he feels comfortable with. And it's pure style...

KING: Adornment.

BAIN: ... and what he likes.

KING: Detroit, Michigan.

BAIN: (INAUDIBLE) put it together.

KING: Detroit, hello.

CALLER: Hi. How are you doing?


CALLER: This question was for -- I'm trying to find out about LaToya, and she said things against him on numerous occasions. And I wanted to know from the spokeslady, is it true that she's against him or is she -- does she believe that he did it or not?

BAIN: LaToya loves her brother very much. She has been in court on several occasions. She speaks to him quite often. Sometimes you say things in youth that you might look back in hindsight and regret. She has basically said that. But she is supporting her brother. She feels that her brother is completely innocent. She has said that publicly. As I've said, she's been in court and she's going to continue to come in with him. They're very close.

KING: Coral Springs, Florida. Hello. I'm sorry. Coral Springs, Florida, hello.

CALLER: Yes. If Michael is found guilty, is he looking at jail time? or is he looking at some type of treatment?

KING: Stacey.

HONOWITZ: Oh, he's definitely looking at jail time. He's looking at significant jail time out in California. It wouldn't even be an option if he's convicted on these cases just to give him treatment. There might be a period of treatment if he gets probation or something after the initial incarceration. But he's definitely looking at jail time on these charges.

KING: He wouldn't be -- he would get an appeal time out. He would go right to jail, Stacey?

HONOWITZ: I don't know how they have appeal times in California, but on a appeals case in Florida, he wouldn't get a bond. He'd be in custody until the appeal down here. Out in California, I don't know how they would handle it. But probably not, because he's not a flight risk. I mean..

KING: Michael, what would they do?

CARDOZA: What Judge Melville is going to do, he's convicted, he goes right in. Could he release him pending appeal, certainly, he could do that. In this case he won't because the way the judge will look at it is as a flight risk. And going back to the last question, you know, it's interesting that a lot of people that I've talked to are talking about and that's where's the Jackson family? Only the mom comes to court. Nobody else is there. Their absence is noticed by the jury. Where are they? why Aren't they there? I know from defending so many people that helps jury perception to show a family cares. So I've got to think that some of these jurors are looking at those empty two rows but for mom going hey, where's Jackson's family going why aren't they supporting him?

BAIN: Mr. Jackson released a statement, Larry a few days ago through Angel Howansky, the Jackson family spokesperson. He has had the flu. And Tito has been out on tour with his jazz blues band. Marlin is in the TV industry. Jermaine has been out of the country. Janet is working on a new album. LaToya has been promoting her album. So, they all have their schedules. But let me just say that they're supportive of their brother and they will be back in court. We have a long way to go here. This is not over this week or next. They have been there. They were there through all the preliminary hearings last year. They have been taking turns coming in this -- for this trial. They will be back. But as I've indicated early on, all of them have their various schedules, and they will be back.

KING: You said that.

BAIN: Yes.

KING: We'll be back with our remaining moment on this edition of LARRY KING LIVE. Don't go away.


KING: Wilmington, Delaware. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Larry. I love you.

KING: Thank you.

CALLER: This question is for Stacey or Cynthia.

KING: Go ahead.

CALLER: According to the largest study done on pedophilia, the average pedophile victimizes 282 victims. And Jackson's 46-years-old. So he has at least had a 25-year sex life. So where are the other victims?

KING: Stacey, do you buy that?

MCFADDEN: No, I don't buy that. I don't know where you got the statistic from. But it would be virtually impossible actually. I've prosecuted pedophiles for the last 17 years. I can tell you, that I've never had that many victims, but I've had four, five, six victims. That seems to be the norm when you're dealing with pedophilia. In this case, they had five.

KING: And also -- also, Cynthia, don't a lot just never come forward just out of embarrassment. MCFADDEN: Sure. In fact, look for the defense. The defense is privately saying that they may call two of these alleged victims from the 1108 as defense witnesses -- witnesses when the defense gets its turn. Yes. I mean, a big question is do people say they weren't abused because they're too embarrassed to admit it or is it because they weren't abused? No, I take the viewer's point, yes pedophilia is a pattern which is why this 1108 testimony is allowed in in the first place.

KING: Coulterville, Illinois. Hello.

CALLER: Yes. I want to know from Raymone how much actual personal physical time she has spent with Michael Jackson?

BAIN: Well, when I'm out in California, I'm around him. I talk to him several times a day. I've been his publicist since February 5th of last year. So I've been representing him now a little over a year. I speak to him several times a day.

KING: OK, you said that.

BAIN: Yes.

KING: OK. Ted Rowlands, why is the defense going to take two months?

ROWLANDS: Well, they have a huge witness list. And they may not take 10 -- two months. I think that they have erred on the side -- the side of caution. And they wanted to project that they are going to put up a vigorous defense which I don't think anybody denies they'll do. The question is how many of these character witnesses can they bring on? The judge last week made a ruling saying that the defense had to basically submit to the judge a little paragraph about what each one of these defense witnesses is going to offer to their case. And the judge said he is not going to allow any negative evidence defense witnesses. Meaning, he's not going to allow them to bring up people that say I've been around Michael Jackson for 20 years, I've never seen a thing. Or, I've been with Michael Jackson for 10 years and worked for him, and he's always been great. The judge isn't going to allow that. So whether -- however that ruling affects the defense case may shorten this trial, it's safe to say we're not anywhere close to being finished.

KING: Michael, as you see it now, do you think that Michael Jackson will take the stand?

CARDOZA: No, I don't, and I'll tell you why. The '94 incident and the one where the deacon of the church came in and testified, he was very believable. Jackson hits the stand, it will be open season on Michael Jackson for the prosecutors to ask about those. If the jury believes either one of those and Jackson denies it on the stand, he loses all credibility. Why take that chance? The case is not going bad for the defense right now. And I've got to tell you, when I prosecuted for 15 years there were a number of times -- talking about depression, I'd walk back up into my office and go, my God, there is no way we're going to win this case unless they put the defendant on. They call the defendant to the stand -- I'll tell you, there were times I wanted to go over and kiss the defense attorney and say, "Thank you, you just made my case." That's what could happen here.

MCFADDEN: Don't you think there's a problem here because Mr. Mesereau did everything but write a valentine to the jury promising Michael Jackson.

CARDOZA: I know. I know, you're right. I know, you're right.

MCFADDEN: He said we will hear from Michael Jackson.

KING: All right, guys. We're out of times guys. I know, I'm right on this. We're out of time. Thanks. Thanks to all of you very, very much.

Tomorrow night on LARRY KING LIVE a major discussion on migraine headaches.

We now turn it over to the amiable host of "NEWSNIGHT," Aaron Brown, who doesn't get migraine headaches, he gives them.


KING: No, I'm only kidding. Just kidding. It was great seeing last week Aaron. A lot of fun. A lot of fun.

BROWN: We had fun. It's nice to see you thank you for your generosity. Talk you tomorrow.


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.