Last Shot At Jackson Jury

CBS' Andrew Cohen Previews The Closing Arguments

(CBS) 

What The Defense Should Say

The following is a summary of what lead defense attorney Thomas Mesereau should - but probably won't - say during his closing argument in the Michael Jackson child molestation and conspiracy case.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: on behalf of Michael Jackson and our entire team, I know this trial hasn't been easy on you or your families but we are grateful for your service and for the attention you have paid over these long months of testimony.

The prosecution says that where there is smoke there is fire; that because Michael Jackson behaves differently than most when it comes to his relationships with his young friends it necessarily means that he has committed the crime of molestation and the cover-up that goes along with it.

But this trial isn't about the science of how a fire begins. It is not governed by the immutable laws of physics. It's a trial, and a story, about human beings: their strengths and frailties. Sometimes, like in this case, where there is smoke there is only smoke, and no fire, and no amount of fanning by prosecutors or their witnesses can turn that smoke ablaze.

Just because Michael Jackson has odd beliefs doesn't make him a child molester. Just because he sees the world differently than you or me doesn't make him a criminal.

It is not a crime to have a girlie magazine or a book about the human form in your home. It is not a crime to sleep in a bed with young boys. It is not a crime to try to enhance or repair your image to the outside world and it is not a crime to defend yourself in the court of public opinion amid scurrilous reports about your reputation.

Mr. Jackson may not have handled himself perfectly during his relationship with his accuser and the young man's family. But he is not a criminal.

It is your job to determine whether prosecutors have proven their case against Mr. Jackson beyond a reasonable doubt. There is reasonable doubt all over this case. It's in front of you like plates of food at a Sunday brunch. You are free to take a little here and a little there.

Reasonable doubt surrounds this trial and envelops it. It is everywhere you turn.

There is reasonable doubt in the words and the deeds of the accuser, who came to this witness stand and was unable to be sure even of how many times he says he was molested. He told his school principal that he had never been molested and then he said that he had. And no one has disputed the impression others gave of him as someone capable, even eager, to stick up for himself and not allow others to take advantage of him. There is reasonable doubt in the notion that such a young man would permit himself to be molested by anyone, much less Mr. Jackson.

There is reasonable doubt in the words and deeds of the accuser's mother, whose testimony during this trial is an unforgettable as it was scattered and bizarre. Prosecutors want you to buy into what they say is a pattern of molestation by Mr. Jackson but the evidence at trial overwhelming shows a different pattern; a pattern of predatory behavior on the part of the accuser's mother, who used her son as bait in the hopes of luring a suckerfish like Mr. Jackson.

This is a mother who left her children alone with Mr. Jackson at Neverland even after what she now says were clear indications that bad things were happening there. I ask you, as parents, or as people who know parents, does that make sense? If things were so bad at Neverland, would you have let your children return there, and stay there, over and over and over again?