Michael Jackson (105 page)

Camaraderie was evident between Michael and Gavin, the kind that springs from shared experiences and genuine affection. However,
anyone who knows Michael and has a memory for the past could look at the footage – and also the scenes of the two in the Bashir
documentary – and sense that, once again, Michael had gone way too far with this kid. As he did with Jordie, he gave himself
over to the youngster. He has no boundaries with anyone under the age of fourteen. Michael Jackson puts himself right out
there – no walls of defence, no safety zone, maybe, it might be argued, no sense, either. He simply hopes that the boy, and
his family, will have the best intentions for him, just as he feels he has for them. In some ways, it’s commendable. For a
star of his magnitude to be so naive is somehow refreshing. However, there’s still a dysfunction attached to such bonding
with children who are not his own, and it’s something that should be addressed in his life because, obviously, it can lead
to big trouble for him – and also for the youngster. As a result of the footage, Gavin’s entire world changed.

‘Since Mr Bashir’s documentary aired, [Gavin] and his mother have gone into seclusion, after being bombarded for requests
for interviews from tabloids around the world,’ intoned Maury Povich, the documentary’s narrator. He also read a statement
from Janet Ventura-Arvizo: ‘I’m appalled at the way my son has been exploited by Martin Bashir. The relationship that Michael
has with my children is a beautiful, loving, father-sons-and-daughter one. To my children and me, Michael is a part of my
family.’ In addition, concluded Povich, Janet was considering legal action against Martin Bashir for including her son in
the special without her consent.

In truth, the boy should not have been on either show – Martin Bashir’s
or
Michael Jackson’s – and both are equally guilty of having exploited him for their own purposes. Some might argue that Janet
doesn’t acquit herself, either. However, parental guidance and direction in matters having to do with children at Neverland
is always a big part of the mystery surrounding sleep-overs at the ranch.

Michael’s documentary aired, and people quickly forgot about it. It was the Martin Bashir programme, however, that continued
to pose a problem, especially when concerned mental-health professionals began to lodge complaints about it.

A number of psychologists, psychiatrists and other child advocates, including Dr Carole Lieberman of Beverly Hills, wrote
letters of concern to the Santa Barbara Child Protective Services and the Los Angeles Child Welfare department. ‘I felt that
enough was enough,’ said Dr Lieberman, who lodged her official complaint on 11 February 2003. ‘I couldn’t believe that the
world was standing by and letting these children be potentially harmed.’ Others, like school teachers in Los Angeles county,
also voiced concern. One contacted the Los Angeles Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS) saying that she felt what
was seen in the Bashir documentary between Michael and Gavin Arvizo looked strange and inappropriate. Not only did the teacher
feel that the relationship between the two should be investigated, she also raised questions as to what kind of mother would
allow her child to be seen in such circumstances.

After receiving a few letters himself, Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon took the position that what appeared on
screen ‘was no substitute for credible cooperative victims’. He didn’t seem interested in pursuing Michael Jackson again.
However, he actually
was
interested; he just didn’t want to tip his hand in the matter, at least not yet.

On 14 February 2003, the DSCS began its investigation.

Four days later, on 18 February, the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s department began its own investigation, in secret.

Michael and his camp did
not
know about the Sheriff department’s inquiry. However, they found out about the DCFS’s immediately, because Janet Ventura-Arvizo
telephoned as soon as she was contacted. Michael was perplexed. ‘What the hell?’ he asked one of his representatives. ‘Someone
can call out of the blue, and they start an investigation?’ When told that such was the case, Michael decided he wanted to
know as much as he could about the questions that would be asked by the officials… and the answers provided by Gavin and his
mother.

Shortly thereafter, DCFS representatives arranged that two social workers meet with the family at the Los Angeles apartment
of Janet’s boyfriend. At the same time, Michael arranged to have his own representation present at the meeting – an investigator
and, also, the fiancé of comedian Chris Tucker. (Tucker’s future wife is a mutual friend of Janet’s and Michael’s.)

When the case workers arrived for the interview, the three children were sitting in front of a television, mesmerized by a
video of Michael. According to the tape recordings made that day by Michael’s camp, Janet said that she was unaware of the
nature of the allegations that had been made against Michael. She said she wanted to be present for the interview with each
of her children and wondered, ‘What are my rights? What are their rights?’ She seemed scared.

The social workers told her that their agenda would be made clear to her during the course of questioning. They also insisted
that the Jackson representatives leave the room. A frightened Janet asked for a moment alone with the Jackson investigator.
The two then discussed how to tape-record the interview with the DCFS in a manner, the Jackson representative told her, that
‘won’t be suspicious. You don’t have to do nothing,’ he told her, according to the tape recording. On the tape, it sounds
as if he was some how affixing a microphone to her clothing. ‘It’s working,’ he assured her.

The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department has, on file, details of the interview between the Arvizo family and the DCFS.
‘Michael is like a father to me,’ Gavin told the social workers. ‘He’s never done anything to me sexually.’ Gavin said he
‘never slept in bed with Michael.’

Furthermore, Janet said that she was ‘always aware of what goes on at Neverland’. She elaborated, ‘Michael is like a father
to my children. He loves them and I trust my children with him.’ She said that Michael was ‘kind and misunderstood’. She described
him as ‘an important part of [her son’s] recovery from cancer.’ She said that there were times when her children ‘would be
on Michael’s bed, watching TV and eating Smors. But for the allegations that they share a bed, it is no.’ She insisted that
her children ‘were never alone with Jackson… there’s always someone around.’ She concluded that Michael had ‘never been anything
but wonderful. My children have never felt uncomfortable in his presence. Michael has been a blessing.’

According to the report, Gavin’s older sister Daveline was ‘teary-eyed’ during the interview. ‘Michael is so kind and loving,’
she said.

Gavin’s father, David Arvizo, was interviewed by the DCFS, separately from the others. ‘There’s no reason to suspect any wrongdoing
by Michael,’ he said. He added that he, too, attributed his son’s recovery to Michael.

Some observers have wondered why Michael had his own representatives at the apartment for the inquiry by the DCFS. According
to DCFS standards, Janet Ventura-Arvizo and her children should have been interviewed without anyone present, and tape recordings
of their interviews should not have been made by her… for Michael Jackson, or even for someone working for him. Of course,
the Jackson camp wanted to be there for one simple and obvious reason: they wanted to know what was going to be alleged. If
they were able to get away with having someone present to find out what was being said, of course they were going to try to
do it. On the tape, Janet insists that Jackson’s representatives were there ‘per my invitation, per my request’.

Later, after reviewing all evidence available at the time, the Department of Children and Family Services concluded that the
case should be closed, that allegations of abuse were ‘unfounded’. There was not enough proof in the face of such denials
for anyone to continue looking into the matter.

At the same time, the Los Angeles Police Department opened and closed its own investigation quickly, and concurred that there
was insufficient evidence to move forward with any action against Michael Jackson.

Then, on 16 April, the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department reached its own conclusion. According to records in the Sheriff’s
Department, ‘Based on the interviews with the children and their father, it was determined that the elements of criminal activity
were not meant. Therefore, this investigation was classified as a suspected sexual abuse incident report, with no further
action required. Case Closed.’

Months later, Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon, in his press conference to announce Michael’s imminent arrest,
minimized the significance of the DCFS report and its findings saying, ‘to call that an investigation is a misnomer. It was
an interview, plain and simple. And that’s all it was.’ He also claimed, ‘that particular department [DCFS] has a lot of problems.’

It would seem that the District Attorney’s office has ‘a lot of problems’, too, because Tom Sneddon did not mention that the
Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department had actually opened – and
closed
– its investigation, based entirely on the DCFS’s findings. Sneddon didn’t interview the Arvizo family. Rather, someone from
his office merely spoke on the phone to the social worker who visited them, and obtained her notes. The fact that Tom Sneddon
then minimized the DCFS’s findings in his press conference, though he had relied on them to close an earlier investigation
of Michael Jackson, is important information, and it does little to enhance his case that he still hasn’t admitted it.

After the DCFS and Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s interviews of the Arvizo family, something happened to change their minds.
It’s not known yet what transpired, but whatever it was turned them all against Michael Jackson. Suddenly, the family was
whispering to others about sexual molestation having occurred, and stories getting back to the Jackson camp were worrisome.
However, when Michael heard about them, he didn’t seem concerned.

‘This could be a problem,’ noted someone on his team.

‘I’m used to problems,’ Michael said, dismissively. ‘My focus now is on my new album. I didn’t do anything, so this will go
away.’

‘You mean like Jordie Chandler went away?’ he was asked.

Jordie is rarely brought up in his presence. Michael’s brown eyes slitted. It was as if he was saying, ‘You know better than
to mention that name to me.’ He drew a deep breath and then exhaled, loudly. ‘Look, man, just take care of it,’ he said, as
he took his leave. ‘I don’t want to hear another word about it.’

There was nothing to take care of… yet. No one knew the details of what was being alleged… but, there was a sense that something
was about to happen, and it would not be good. ‘It was in the air,’ said a source in the Jackson camp.

In fact, people who have been in the Jackson camp for years were troubled enough to bring in high-powered attorney Mark Geragos,
and a team of investigators, to look into the matter. ‘He may want to continue to be naive in the face of danger,’ said a
person close to Jackson, ‘but people who care about him smelled big trouble. They did not want have another Jordie Chandler
case on their hands. It was determined that this thing would have to be nipped in the bud, whether MJ [Michael] took it seriously,
or not. Michael was told to keep his distance from those people, and he did.’

After Michael’s handlers drew a line in the sand between him and the Arvizo family, Janet Ventura-Arvizo made her move: she
and one of her attorneys sought out Larry Feldman for advice on how to proceed; Feldman is the same attorney who represented
Jordie Chandler against Michael Jackson. In the same conference room in which Feldman sat with Jordie Chandler and his father,
Evan, he sat with Michael’s new accuser and his mother. After he heard their story, he felt there was more to it than the
boy had even alleged – and so he arranged for the boy to be interviewed by psychologist Dr Stan Katz.

After several sessions with the psychologist, the bits and pieces finally came together and the boy started to remember all
sorts of things. Dr Katz’s notes are part of the material being used against Michael Jackson by the Santa Barbara District
Attorney. What the family told him was exactly
opposite
to everything they had ever said before about the pop star to Martin Bashir, Christian Anderson, and the DCFS.

In the records Dr Katz wrote, ‘The accuser says he drank alcohol every night and got buzzed… whiskey, vodka and Bacardi.’
When the youngster – suffering from cancer, don’t forget – got headaches from the drinking, ‘Michael said, “Keep drinking. It
will make it feel better.”’ Dr Katz reported that, according to the boy, ‘Michael showed him pictures of naked women on the
computer.’ He said that he once ‘saw Michael just standing there, naked for a moment.’ He added that Michael told him, ‘he
had to masturbate, or he’d go crazy’.