Larry King interview with Thomas Mesereau, Michael Jackson’s senior attorney

Larry King: You said you weren’t surprised by Michael Jackson’s acquittal. That means you were confident of victory. But most lawyers believe you can’t predict the jury’s verdict, and you can never be sure. Please explain.

Thomas Mesereau: I was sure. I believed that we had discredited their case during the process of questioning witnesses in a very effective way. And I believed that we had called very persuasive witnesses as well.

Larry King: What kind of client was Michael?

Thomas Mesereau: He’s an extraordinary client. Out of all the clients I’ve had so far, it was very easy to work with him. He’s very kind. Very dignified and well-mannered, and very cooperative. He’s a highly, highly respected and honest person. And I truly enjoyed representing him, and I thought of him as a friend.

Larry King: Did anyone ever talk about calling Michael Jackson to the witness stand?

Thomas Mesereau: Yes. At first, I intended to call him to the stand, and he was willing to testify. But once the case moved forward, it became completely clear to me that Michael didn’t need to come to the stand.

Larry King: Some people believed the prosecutor had been thinking about Michael Jackson all the time. Do you share that view?

Thomas Mesereau: Yes. I completely agree with that. I think they focused on their own beliefs and opinions about this case and their witnesses, rather than the facts. They were also like that with the unprovable theories they were trying to prove. Because their theories were wrong. And I think their fixation on Michael really hurt them.

Larry King: Do you think this fixation goes back to the settlement regarding the case from years ago?

Thomas Mesereau: Larry, I don’t know where it started. It seems it began back then and developed during the current case. They never seriously questioned the accuser and his family, and even before they identified who they were, they believed their stories. In reality, it was us who uncovered all these objections about the witnesses, their records, and their background. The prosecutor’s team really had their eyes closed to the facts. And I even think that in the middle of this case, they tried to deny the truth, and that caused them trouble.

Larry King: How effective was Macaulay Culkin?

Thomas Mesereau: He was very effective. He was an extraordinary witness for Michael Jackson, and I always have a great deal of respect for Macaulay Culkin. He didn’t have to get involved in this matter, but he did it for his friend. He always said, “I want to be there. I want to help Michael. I want to tell the truth.” He was a very influential factor and has a very strong character.

Larry King: We invited one of the jury members to this program last night. He said he believes Michael has a sexual deviation regarding children, and that it was the prosecutor who couldn’t prove his allegations. What’s your reaction to such a statement?

Thomas Mesereau: Well, I think he’s wrong. Michael Jackson doesn’t have a sexual deviation with children. He’s never had one. For years, the prosecutor tried to put together a story about this and prove it in court, but they couldn’t prove it. Michael Jackson is not a sexual deviant. He has never sexually abused a child, and he’s never even imagined doing such a thing.

Larry King: The surprising point is that, when you have a client who’s different from everyone else—a man who sleeps in his bed with children—here you have to make your jury members put themselves in your client’s place. If they do that, you win. How can someone put themselves in Michael Jackson’s shoes?

Thomas Mesereau: Well, first of all, Larry, the idea that Michael sleeps with children was created by the prosecutor’s mind. What Michael has clearly said is that he allows families to stay in his room. His room is two stories. The mothers sleep in that room, the fathers sleep there, the sisters and brothers sleep there. The prosecutor only mentioned the boys, because he thought it could influence the jury—and ultimately it failed.

But yes, we had to explain to the jury who Michael Jackson really is. That he has a creative spirit and a kind heart; that he’s an outstanding musician and choreographer; and that he’s a very sensitive person who has many concerns about the world and its problems. And he has a childlike inner self and spirit that attracts children from all over the world.

We had to explain to them who he truly is, and we never tried to portray him as anything other than what he is. He never wanted to wear anything other than the court’s formal attire. The goal of all of us is to show who Michael is, and to be proud of him, and to believe in him.