Text size:

A molester or a victim?

Closing arguments in Jackson sexual abuse trial underscore lawyers' opposite portraits of him

BY TINA SUSMAN | STAFF CORRESPONDENT

June 3, 2005

Michael Jackson arrives for closing arguments in his child molestation trial at Santa Barbara County Court in Santa Maria, Calif. (AP Photo / June 2, 2005)

SANTA MARIA, Calif. - In accusatory tones dripping with sarcasm and tinged with anger, attorneys in Michael Jackson's child molestation trial yesterday offered starkly different views of the defendant and his accusers in closing arguments following three months of testimony.

Prosecutor Ron Zonen went first, and he wasted no time getting to his point.

"This is about the exploitation and sexual abuse of a 13-year-old cancer survivor at the hands of an international celebrity," he told jurors, who were expected to begin deliberating Jackson's fate today.

Two hours later, defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. was equally blunt, calling the family "con artists, actors and liars" with a history of fraudulent lawsuits and "an almost compulsive addiction to celebrities."

In the six hours of arguments, which will conclude today, each side urged jurors to consider one basic question in deciding Jackson's fate.

Zonen, citing testimony from a 24-year-old man who claimed to have been molested by Jackson as a child, said if they believed him, "then Michael Jackson is a child molester."

Mesereau, reminding jurors of inconsistencies in the accusers' testimony and of their checkered pasts said, "The question is very simple. Do you believe the [family] beyond a reasonable doubt? If you don't, Michael Jackson must go free."

In reality, jurors face a much more complicated task as they try to decide on 10 separate counts against Jackson, 46, four of which allege he molested the boy in 2003 at his Neverland Valley Ranch. Jackson also faces one count of attempted molestation; one count of conspiracy to commit child abduction, extortion or false imprisonment; and four counts of giving alcohol to the boy with the intent of molesting him. If convicted on all charges, he could receive nearly 20 years in prison.

Prosecutors say the conspiracy stems from a desperate attempt by Jackson to clean up his image following the February 2003 airing of "Living With Michael Jackson," a documentary in which Jackson admitted sharing his bed with children. His eventual accuser in this case appears in the documentary with him and allegedly became a pawn as Jackson sought to force the family to make a rebuttal video to undo damage from the documentary.

When the family resisted, prosecutors say, they were threatened, held against their will at Neverland, and told they would be sent to Brazil to ensure they never did or said anything to harm Jackson.

The defense says that the family latched onto Jackson after the entertainer befriended the boy as he fought cancer in 2000-2001 and that they invented the allegations to get money. Mesereau says the family also eyed Jay Leno, comedian Chris Tucker, and other celebrities as possible targets.

In many ways, the closing arguments echoed the manner in which the opposing cases have been presented since testimony began Feb. 28. Zonen showed telephone records that he said pointed to the conspiracy to imprison the family, and he reminded jurors of past accusations of molestation against Jackson. Two such accusations led Jackson to reach out-of-court settlements with alleged victims in the 1990s.

Zonen also reminded jurors of pornographic magazines found at Neverland that he said Jackson showed to boys as he groomed them for molestation.

"Why is he in possession of all those magazines?" said Zonen, adding that much of the content was so "extraordinarily graphic" that he would not show it to the court. "It's because he has 13-year-old boys in his room. That is sexually exciting to a child, and that reduces [the child's] inhibitions."

Mesereau's closing, like his case, was narrower and focused primarily on the accusers' credibility and on Jackson's image as a naive goofball who wasn't sophisticated enough to realize he was the target of a shakedown.

"Does he look like the kind of person who's even capable of masterminding a criminal conspiracy?" Mesereau said. Referring to what legal analysts call the prosecution's most effective move - the showing of a video of the accuser's interview with police in 2003 - Mesereau said it showed a remarkable lack of emotion for someone who had supposedly been molested.

"You saw no emotion whatsoever. When did you see him get mad?" he asked jurors, dismissing as a "fake notion" the prosecution's claim that the boy and his siblings were "innocent little lambs" before they met Jackson.

"It's baloney," he said.