Denials All Around
Christian Robinson, who had been documenting Michael’s experiences on the road and at home on video tape for about two years, sat down with mother and son at a private home to ask questions about the star’s relationship with them. He asked if there had ever been any inappropriate behaviour on Michael’s part. ‘They [Gavin, his sister Daveline, brother Star and mother Janet] answered and were very upfront and said “absolutely not”,’ he later maintained. ‘And during this interview, I told them to speak truthfully probably more than thirty times. I kept reminding them, I want you to tell the truth, tell your story.’
‘They all felt that a miracle had taken place,’ Robinson recalled when speaking of Gavin’s recovery. ‘He says that Gavin and Star insisted to him that whenever they slept in the same room with Michael, they slept on the bed and he slept on the floor. They were so resolute in their answers, almost as if they were getting mad at me. “Why are you asking me this? Michael is innocent.”’ He says that ‘the family was not coached’, and ‘the family was incredibly passionate, talking about Jesus and God and Michael as the ultimate father figure.’
As mentioned earlier in this text, Michael’s rebuttal was finally broadcast – the awkwardly titled,
The Michael Jackson Interview – The Footage You Were Never Meant to See
– but it didn’t change the way people thought about him. His supporters still believed in him, and his detractors remained critical of him.
The footage of Michael’s accuser in the documentary is unsettling, especially in light of the new charges. Gavin is bald, a result of chemotherapy, and, according to the documentary, should have been dead by that time but was alive thanks to his association with Michael Jackson. There is footage of the youngster in his hospital bed, of him being pushed in a wheelchair with Michael at his side. There is more footage of him walking with Michael through Neverland, Gavin in a yellow baseball jersey and the superstar in head-to-toe black and holding an umbrella as a shield from the sun. The two are cocooned within the pleasant, familiar surroundings of Neverland, lost in conversation, in their own… world.
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.