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.