POLICE DOCUMENTS FROM A 2003 RAID ON MICHAEL
JACKSON'S AT NEVERLAND RANCH INDICATE THAT HE WAS IN
POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AND OTHER DISTURBING PORNOGRAPHY
THAT WAS ALLEGEDLY USED ON CHILDREN THAT WENT TO HIS RANCH.
>> LET ME GIVE BOTH SIDES TO THE STORY.
FIRST OFF, SO HE HAD
PICTURES OF GAY MEN, SO WHAT?
AND HE HAD PICTURES OF ADULTS,
SO WHAT?
THAT SHOULD BE PART OF THE STORY.
ANIMAL CRUELTY IS
WEIRD AND WRONG, AND WE'RE ALL DISTURBED BY IT, BUT THEN LATER
THEY DO EXPLAIN.
I WISH THEY HAD NOT MIXED UP ALL THOSE THINGS.
ALL THOSE ARTICLES THAT ARE WRITTEN ON IT ARE TALKING ABOUT
IT HOW THIS IS SO DISTURBING.
HALF OF IT IS DEEPLY DISTURBING,
HALF OF IT IS PERFECTLY NORMAL.
I DON'T THINK IT IS FAIR TO CALL
IT A BIAS.
MY PERSPECTIVE IS THAT I ONCE INTERVIEWED MICHAEL
JACKSON'S LAWYER AND OFF THE AIR I HAD A LONG CONVERSATION WITH
HIM.
HE CONVINCED ME THAT MAYBE YOU SHOULD NOT BELIEVE
EVERYTHING YOU SAW IN THE PRICE BECAUSE THE SECOND KID THAT HE
WENT TO CRIMINAL TRIAL FOR, HIS FAMILY HAD A LONG HISTORY OF
OTHER ACCUSATIONS.
YOU GOT ME TO WONDER.
NOW FOR ME AT LEAST,
THAT ISSUE HAS BEEN RESOLVED.
AS YOU LOOK AT THIS, A LOT OF
PEOPLE WANT TO GIVE MICHAEL JACKSON A BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.
I AM IN THE CAMP AS WELL, I WANT TO GIVE THEM THE BENEFIT OF THE
DOUBT, BUT EXPERTS SAY ñ I THOUGHT THE PRESCRIPTION FOR THE
SEX EDITION MIGHT'VE BEEN HIM.
THEY SAY HE MIGHT HAVE USED THAT
ON THE KIDS.
SOME OF THAT STUFF MIGHT'VE BEEN TO DESENSITIZE THE
KIDS.
BUT THEY HAVE SEEN THIS PATTERN IN OTHER CHILD MOLESTERS
BEFORE.
SO YOU EXPOSE THE KIDS TO A LOT OF PORNOGRAPHY
SOMETIMES.
SOMETIMES CHILD PORNOGRAPHY TO GET THEM TO GO
OH, IT IS NO BIG DEAL.
SO IT IS A PATTERN.
THERE ARE ALSO OTHER
CHARGES A DECADE BEFORE THE CHARGES THAT GOT HIM IN A LOT OF
TROUBLE IN 2003.
THE ONE BEFORE, THERE WAS A KID AND MICHAEL
JACKSON SETTLED FOR $22 MILLION.
AND THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF
CHARGES.
WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF THEM GOT SETTLED FOR MONEY
OVERALL.
BUT IT IS NOT DEFINITIVE.
BUT NO MATTER HOW
MUCH MONEY I HAVE, I WOULD BE HARD-PRESSED TO SETTLE ON
CHARGES THAT I MOLESTED A KID FOR $22 MILLION IF I DID NOT DO
IT.
>>RIGHT.
>> WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TOTALITY OF IT, AND THE NEW POLICE
REPORTS THAT COME OUT, IT DOESN'T LOOK GOOD.
>> IT INTERESTING THAT ALL THIS IS COMING OUT NOW.
THERE ARE
MEMBERS OF THE JURY THAT ACQUITTED HIM.
I WISH THAT SAME
STANDARD WAS ACTUALLY APPLIED TO ALL PEOPLE WHO FACE CRIMINAL
CHARGES.
STEPHEN AVERY POPPED IN MY HEAD AS SOON AS I READ THAT
QUOTE.
BUT IF YOU ARE SOMEONE
LIKE MICHAEL JACKSON YOU HAVE
THOSE RESOURCES.
WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS IF THEY HAVE PROOF
INCLUDING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, AND THE PRESCRIPTION FOR SEX
ADDICTION, HOW DID THAT NOT PLAY A ROLE IN FINDING HIM GUILTY?
>> THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT GREAT LAWYERS BUY YOU.
WHETHER YOU ARE
THE AFFLUENZA KID, THE STANFORD SWIMMER, OR O.J.
SIMPSON.
IF YOU
ARE RICH AND HAVE GREAT LAWYERS THEY BUY YOU
REASONABLE DOUBT.
AND THEN THEY TALK ABOUT THE HISTORY OF PEOPLE THAT ARE
CHARGING THEM, SO THEY MAKE IT ABOUT THE VICTIM.
ALL OF A
SUDDEN YOU HAVE A LOT OF DOUBT.
I HAD DOUBT AFTER I TALKED TO HIS
LAWYER.
THEN THEY WORK EVERY ANGLE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE SO THE
JURY CAN'T SEE IT.
SO WE DON'T KNOW WHY OR IF THIS WAS
EXCLUDED.
BUT YOU SAW IN THE O.J.
SIMPSON CASE THAT A LOT OF
THE EVIDENCE WAS EXCLUDED.
NEXT THING YOU KNOW THE JURY DIDN'T
GET THE FULL PICTURE AND THEY REASONABLY HAD REASONABLE DOUBT.
WHEN YOU SEE ALL OF THIS, HE HAS PASSED AWAY SO THERE IS NO
CONVICTING HIM, BUT SOMETIMES THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION HAS
MORE EVIDENCE, NOT LESS.
DO YOU SEE WHAT I AM SAYING?
YOU SHOULD
NOT TRY ANYONE AND DECIDE FOR SURE.
IN OUR SYSTEM SOMETIMES
THE JURY DOES NOT SEE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE.
EITHER WAY I KNOW
PEOPLE ARE GOING TO STICK TO THEIR POSITION ON MICHAEL
JACKSON BECAUSE FOR SOME PEOPLE IT IS ALMOST AN IDENTITY ISSUE.
THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE OR ANYTHING ELSE OTHER THAN
THEY LOVE HIM, AND THEY ARE NOT GOING TO REJECT HIM UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES.
BUT A LOT OF THE EVIDENCE IS THERE AND IT IS NOT GOOD.