Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - Michael Jackson: Superstar pedophile, shocking evidence continues to emerge [Part 2]

Episode Date: January 30, 2020

Michael Jackson: Superstar pedophile, shocking evidence continues to emerge Allegations of rape and child molestation followed superstar Michael Jackson. He repeatedly denied any abuse, but still settled one case out of court for millions of dollars. More allegations surfaced and Jackson was arrested, but found not guilty at trial. Why didn't the public believe Jackson could be a pedophile?Joining Nancy Grace to discuss: Jason Oshins: NY Defense Attorney Steven Lampley: Former Detective, Author “Outside Your Door” Dr. Bethany Marshall: Psychoanalyst, Beverly Hills Francey Hakes: Former Federal Prosecutor, first-ever National Coordinator for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction  Joe Scott Morgan: Forensics Expert, Professor of Forensics, Author of "Blood Beneath My Feet"   Alexis Tereschuk: Investigative Reporter Radaronline.com  Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Why did it take a documentary, a Hollywood documentary, to convince the world what so many of us knew at the time and were berated? I recall I got hate mail, death threats, the works for saying, hey, I'm a Jackson fan, but Jackson's a molester. Bam! Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Michael Jackson, there is no doubt about it, was one of the most talented musicians in the world.

But he was a child molester. I mean, see, Grace, this is crime stories. Well, as a matter of fact, he was arrested. Take a listen to the district attorney. Yesterday morning at around 8.30 a.m., investigators from the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department, Santa Barbara District Attorney's Office, served a search warrant at Neverland Ranch in Los Olivos.

Simultaneous to the service of the warrant at Neverland Ranch, two search warrants were also served in Southern California. Approximately 70 investigators from the Sheriff's Department and the District Attorney's Office were involved in the service of this warrant at Neverland Ranch. The operation was concluded around 11 p.m. last night. The service of the warrants was part of an ongoing investigation alleging criminal misconduct on the part of Michael Jackson. The basis for this investigation regarding Mr. Jackson

involves allegations of child molestation 288a of the California Penal Code. Additionally, an arrest warrant for Mr. Jackson has been issued on multiple counts of child molestation. The bail amount on the warrant has been set at $3 million. Take a listen to our friend Mark Garagos. This is ABC News correspondent Brian Rooney. Michael Jackson got out of a car behind the Santa Barbara County Jail in handcuffs. His lawyer said the singer is enraged.

He considers this to be a big lie. He understands the people who are outraged because if these charges were true, I assure you Michael would be the first to be outraged. Jackson had arrived on a private jet from Las Vegas. The plane rolled its nose into a hangar where Jackson got into a waiting car out of view of television cameras. He was taken into custody there at the airport. Jackson had his mugshot taken and he was fingerprinted here at the county jail before he posted a three million dollar bond. You are hearing what happened when Jackson pulled in

and stepped out of a private hangar in a private jet. Jackson was ultimately indicted on four counts of molesting a minor, four counts of intoxicating a minor in order to molest him, one count of attempted child molestation, one count of conspiring to hold the boy and his family captive, and conspiring to commit extortion and child abduction. Jackson found not guilty on all of these. What? Joining me, an all-star panel, Stephen Lampley, detective, author of Outside Your Door, host of Crime and Forensics on KCAA LA, stevenlampley.com, Jason Oceans,

renowned defense attorney, joining me from New York, psychoanalyst, Dr. Bethany Marshall, drbethanymarshall.com, Francie Hakes, former federal prosecutor, first ever national coordinator for child exploitation prevention and interdiction at franciehakes.com professor forensics jacksonville state university author of blood beneath my feet on amazon joseph scott morgan but right now to alexis teres chuck joining me from la investigative reporter radar online.com who was the victim in the ultimate charges victim was a boy named g Arviso. He and Michael Jackson had met. He had cancer. Michael Jackson found out that this little boy had cancer, started sending his family gifts and showering them with attention, then brought them to Neverland. They brought

Gavin, his brother, his mom, and his dad. They all testified during this trial. And now what everybody is saying is they don't understand jury nullification, what happened was for some reason, this jury hated Gavin's mother. They said that she was combative on the stand. They didn't like her. And they believe that she had made her son lie about this. This is what a juror from Santa Monica, California said. I could never imagine being the kind of mother who would teach my children such bad morals. They believe that this mom told her son to lie about it. And they kept saying it was for money.

Gavin's family never asked Michael Jackson for any money. This was something that his lawyer said on the stand. There was no evidence to this. And this is what the jurors believed at the time. What did they mean in the charges by conspiring to hold the boy and his family captive and conspiring to commit extortion and child abduction? So he was, they were saying that they brought them to Neverland and that they, they didn't have a lot of money. Michael Jackson obviously had a ton of money and that he wouldn't let them leave. And he kept saying, oh no, just stay here, just stay here. It won't be anything.

So the, the prosecutors had said that he held them captive and then he would say, oh, no, just stay here, just stay here. It won't be anything. So the prosecutors had said that he held them captive. And then he would say, oh, don't tell anybody because the media will turn all this into something bad. And that is the extortion. The police will look at me and they'll all think this is bad when this is just something so wonderful and innocent, as Michael Jackson always says. Did the jury dislike Gavin's mom?

Take a listen to ABC GMA. She would look at the jury and snap her fingers and say, you know, this is the way it should be. And she was right in our faces. Yes. That was very intimidating because I was directly, Mike and I were directly across from the witnesses and she would turn right to us like she's just, you know. But Melissa, what did that say to you?

I mean, apart from how it made you feel, what did that say to you about what, who she was and the testimony she gave? Her testimony, a lot of the parts of her testimony, I wanted to just break out laughing, but I couldn't. She was up and down, up and down. And the parts that I felt that she should have been more, you know, more emotional about. She wasn't. So it's just not credible, you're saying?

It's just so hard for me to take in. You know, to Jason Oceans, veteran trial lawyer, here's another example. The, if it doesn't fit, you must acquit. Forget everything else that's happened in the trial look at this and i fully blame the state in that case for allowing the single person most likely to screw up your demonstration in court the defendant of course to hand over your evidence to the defendant oj simpson of course it didn't fit same Same thing here. And Johnny Cochran was a master at it. Look here, not there. So Mesereau, who was a great, of course he hates my guts,

that's obvious, but he's a great trial lawyer. And he got the jury to focus on the victim's mother and what's wrong with her. And this whole thing is a big fat conspiracy. Look at that, not at this. Don't look at the fact he's sleeping with one boy after the next. Don't look at the fact he gives them wine and his staff has seen him do it. Forget all that. But look at her. She's on welfare.

That's what happened. How does it work? It's like a magician, Jason. That's exactly the word, Nancy. A little prestidigitation, a little bit of magic right there. And that, as you said, you know, was great, great defense work and focusing on, you know, the victim's mother. But really what it was in many ways is that this jury wanted to be in the show. That's why they were out for, what, 13 days.

And they enjoyed that. I think they were fascinated. The case was probably lost at jury selection right there. The analysis of who to pick and where within that pool to throw in the black ball and reject those that might give you a hard time. But this was one right there, and they wanted in on this. They were part of it. They believed the story from the beginning, and they convinced themselves not to even think about Michael Jackson and those horrible sexual acts that were committed, but they convinced themselves to look elsewhere, and that was the sleight of hand. That was the magic. Don't look here. Here's all the evidence.

Look over there. It was bad theater for the state and for justice, but great theater for Michael Jackson. Well, Francie Hanks, federal prosecutor, he's right. But I have always said you've won or lost your case by the time you get 12 in the box. It's all about jury selection. Of course, you can totally screw it up or you can do a Hail Mary and win a case after jury selection. But I generally believe it depends on who is on your jury. And in this case, many of the jurors were starstruck. They had to choose to look at the mom and not the victims. Well, you're right, Nancy. I mean, one of the dirty little secrets of trying cases as a state prosecutor, I used to call jury selection weed the wackos. Because as a state prosecutor,

all you have a chance to do is get rid of the people you think are going to be a disaster on your jury. It's not really jury selection. You're not picking the jury. You're picking the people you don't want on the jury, and whomever is left are the people that you are stuck with. And it is a classic defense tactic in every single child abuse case I tried as a state prosecutor to blame whichever non-custodial, non-offending caregiver was supporting the child to blame them for the allegations. Was there a divorce pending? Was the mother crazy? Did she hate the offender for some reason? This was a revenge play. This was all about money. This was just writ large because Michael Jackson was a celebrity. But Mesereau's tactics were recognized by every state prosecutor in every jurisdiction in the country because it was classic tactics to make the jury look at the mother and ignore the actual allegations and the evidence. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace.

In the beginning, pictures we saw of her when she did the Michael Jackson rebuttal thing, she had her hair done, she had makeup on, and she was the the Michael Jackson rebuttal thing she had her hair done she had makeup on she was the most attractive woman when she came into court she looked like Mother Teresa after a bad brain bad meaning meaning she looked drained her hair was straight she didn't have any makeup on so you thought that was false? she was trying to be pitiful to us I felt but what does this have to do with her son's testimony I mean what did you do you worry in any way do you worry

that how you felt about her in some way influenced how you felt about his testimony did you feel he was lying did you feel the son was lying um i thought he was gonna answer go ahead mike um yeah there were there were times you could tell but i mean it all had to go back to the evidence wow wow so they never really addressed was the son lying they just beat up on the mom so midstream michael jackson not only Mark Garagos, celebrity lawyer that tried Winona Ryder, she was convicted, that tried Scott Peterson, he was convicted, but Ben Brofman. Now, Ben Brofman, if I were in criminal trouble and I had the money, that's who I would fire, Benjamin Brofman. But out of the blue, Michael Jackson says, quote, it's imperative I have the full attention of those who are representing me.

So he fires Gergos and Brofman. That suggests to me he thought he was not the center of brothman and garagos's world and then he hires thomas mesereau um before jackson's statement legal experts speculated his decision was prompted because garagos had a conflicting schedule. And he was not used to a trial lawyer that had other clients. Jackson wanted a full-time lawyer. And he thought Mesereau would be a full-time lawyer. Now recall, he's facing nine felony charges in the alleged molestation of a boy who was then 14. And he had pled not guilty so

to you alexis tereska writer online.com what do you what does it mean he wanted a full-time lawyer you cannot be a full-time lawyer if you are covering if you are handling scott peterson's case which he lost and michael Jackson's case, but which eventually was won. So I'm curious about what else Gary Goetz was handling at the time, why he felt that way. Scott Peterson's. Yeah. Scott Peterson, who killed his wife, Lacey. So Gary, wait, let me, let me get the timeframe. You're telling me the peterson case and the jackson case were happening around the same time correct oh my goodness he was jealous he was jealous of his lawyer to joseph scott morgan forensics expert what do you make of any forensics in the case uh yeah i think that a lot of this goes back to uh to identification you know they they made a lot about the vitiligo that he had allegedly been

diagnosed with, you know, identification of his body parts, this sort of thing, the color changes and all of this. And so can you specifically identify this body part? And that's part of what we do in forensics, you know, this tie back that we have. And that puts them in place. Only these particular witnesses would have information relative to those specific characteristics of that individual. Dr. Bethany Marshall, psychoanalyst joining us out of Beverly Hills. We know that the boy victim's fingerprints, as well as Michael Jackson's fingerprints, were found on porn, porn magazines in Jackson's home. How do you explain that? Okay, Nancy, to me, that was very compelling evidence. And I was on your show on HLN the

night the verdict came in many years ago in New York City. And we actually discussed the jurors and the issue of the magazine with the fingerprints on it. And what the jurors did not understand is when you molest, when a pedophile molests a child, it's not just penetrating the child. It's not just fondling the child, but it is also stimulating the child to feel feelings that the child cannot yet handle. So they often hand porn to the child. And this was part of Michael Jackson's offending pattern. He would give them the so-called Jesus juice, which was the wine, the alcohol, and then he would show them pornography to excite them. And this was sort of his foreplay before going on to a full-on molestation.

The name of the magazine we're referring to is titled Hustler Barely Legal Hardcore. Jackson's prints and those of his accuser, the little boy, were found on different pages of the magazine. In all, 12 prints from Jackson were found on eight different magazines. Five prints from the little boy were found on three magazines and two prints from the little boy's younger brother were found on a magazine. And it is significant, is it not, Joe Scott Morgan, that the prints are found not just on the outside of the magazine, but on the pages inside. Now, prosecutors are trying to use that fingerprint evidence

to corroborate the boys' testimony earlier in the trial that Jackson had shown them porn while they were there overnight in Jackson's bedroom. I mean, Joe Scott, the boys' fingerprints were on inside pages of porn. Hard-core, quote, barely legal porn. Yeah, and that is significant, Nancy, because you're tying back that child, and let's use that word to describe this victim, this know, when you place your hand onto a surface like these pages here, it's going to leave behind a print that's transferred through the oil of our skin. So this is very significant. The police did a very good job with this because, you know, getting a print

off of a piece of paper is not very easy. They got it just externally and internally. So that puts the two there because when you factor that in with the child and as well as Michael Jackson touching the same magazine, and you mentioned this even younger child that was there. So how is it possible for the defense to explain away this connectivity within the context of the scene? Take a listen to this. Michael Jackson reportedly owned a collection of child pornography and graphic images of animal sacrifices. This according to a new report. The report comes from Radar Online which obtained documents from the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department. The authorities who raided Jackson's Neverland Ranch

after multiple child sex abuse claims. One unnamed told the documents exposed Jackson as a manipulative drug and sex crazed predator who used blood, gore, sexually explicit images of animal sacrifice and perverse adult sex acts to bend children to his will. Jackson who was under constant scrutiny from local authorities after multiple child molestation accusations. Then that they found photographs and books of young boys who were undressed. No, it didn't happen. No, not that I know of, unless people sent me things that I haven't opened. People know my love for children, so they send me books from all over the world.

The information published in the Radar Online report was supposedly uncovered when investigators raided Jackson's house in 2003 following a child molestation accusation. He was not found guilty on all 14 charges. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. I bet they found photographs and books of young boys who were undressed. No. Didn't happen? No, not that I know of, unless people sent me things that I haven't opened. People know my love for children, so they send me books from all over the world.

The information published in the Radar Online report was supposedly uncovered when investigators raided Jackson's house in 2003 following a child molestation accusation. He was not found guilty on all 14 charges. To Alexis Tereska joining us from RadarOnline.com. What about it? So yep we obtained videos of the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department going into Michael Jackson's home his Neverland Ranch and this is the raw body cam footage. Like this is the investigation where they first went into Michael Jackson's house. They go into his, his house looked like a hoarder's house. It is stacked high, like his bedroom. You think of a celebrity bedroom, which we see in pictures all the time, you know, this beautiful place. No, this was like stacked

with magazines, you know, 25 high all over the room. There were videotapes. There was like a secret closet that had little creepy little dolls in it. And all these things that you would think of would be in like a child's room, baby dolls and things like that. But instead they were in a grown man's room. There was pornography. There were videos and pictures and magazines, as we said, of animal sacrifice. And the police found all of this. This is everything the Sheriff's Department took in

the raid leading up to the trial. This is from 2003 when they raided Neverland Ranch. And it was horrifying. They were stunned to find all of these things in his bedroom and in little closets off his bedroom, little secret rooms off of his bedroom. And it didn't look like a grown-up's bedroom. It looked like a creepy hoarder's den, sex den, torture den. We also know that the hallway leading to Jackson's bedroom was a serious security zone. It was wired for video and sound so that Jackson would know if anyone approached his bedroom door, there would be ding-dong sounds that would erupt in his room if anyone came near his door. Let me ask you how this little boy, Arvizo, met Gavin Arvizo, meets Jackson. And what role does another witness, Martin Bashir, play in this?

So Gavin had cancer. And Michael Jackson actually found him. He had found that this family was a little boy who was suffering from cancer and had no money at all. So he started reaching out to him. And he started giving him gifts and sending him money. And then he eventually flew them out to California, brought him to Neverland Ranch. The thing is, Martin Bashir is a very famous British documentary. And he does lots of videos over the years, exposés about celebrities.

And they got in contact. And he did the interview with Gavin's family and Gavin's mom. And they spoke for the first time about Michael Jackson sexually assaulting Gavin. So this child cancer victim is the one that testifies at trial. And it is his mother that the jury seemingly focuses on and hates. Now, the documentary, Living with Michael Jackson, and that was by Martin Bashir, catches Jackson inviting Arvizo to be part of his documentary. Jackson and Arvizo were seen holding hands and Bashir asked Jackson in the documentary about the appropriateness of a grown man having sleepovers and sleeping with a little boy and he insisted that it was not sexual so what was different years later in leaving Neverland Alexis Treschuk

so these were different people Gavin has never again spoken. After the trial, despite repeated attempts, no one has been able to get him to speak. However, 20 years later, Wade Robson and James Safechuck both spoke out about Michael Jackson for leaving Neverland. And they detailed the abuse that they had. And the thing was, Wade said, I testified against Gavin and for Michael Jackson in 2005. I stood on the stand. I was so confident. I looked right at Michael Jackson.

And I said that he never molested me, that I never saw him do anything. And he says, I lied. I lied for Michael Jackson for all of these years. I felt like I had to. And I am now telling the truth. And James said the same thing, that he had lied for decades about the abuse, but that they finally realized, you know, they've grown up, they've got, you know, when James has children, Wade says, I just couldn't keep up the lie any longer. Take a listen to our friends at PBS, John Yang. Because Wade was an adult when

he testified in Jackson's favor in 2005, because Wade was an adult when he testified in Jackson's favor in 2000, because Wade was an adult when he testified in Jackson's favor in 2005 during the criminal trial. The reason why Wade changed his story, and that's what it looks like, and I can understand why people query that, that story of Wade's awakening is the story of the film. That's, you know, it takes four hours to unpack that. And when you reduce it to That's, you know, it takes four hours to unpack that. And when you reduce it to its simplest, you know, Wade, as a child and as a victim of Michael Jackson,

formed a deeper attachment to his abuser. He fell in love with Michael, and that relationship shaped his teenage years and his adult life up to, you know, until he was mid-20s. So he's 22, he stands up in court, and he's mid-20s. So he's 22, he stands up in court and he knocks it out the park in defense of Michael. And, you know, he's defense witness number one, probably one of the important reasons why Michael was acquitted of the child sexual abuse charges against the 13-year-old Gavin Alvizo. Why did he change his

mind? Well, he didn't want his mentor, the man that he'd been in a sexual relationship with, his idol, the man he really admired, he didn't want him to go to jail, and so he lied. And then it wasn't until a few years later that he had a child of his own, he had a young son, and he describes the moment when he looks at his son and he imagines Michael doing to his son the things that Michael did to him, to Wade, as a seven-year-old, and becomes enraged and can't stand the thought. And then that prompts him to look deeper into the way he thought about his own relationship with Michael. And that's when he started beginning to consider it as abuse, because up to that point it was just like a special relationship with Michael that had a sexual component but was also about a bunch of other things and was a deep emotional attachment. And, of course, Wade Robinson testified at Jackson's trial as the first

defense witness that he had stayed over in Jackson's bedroom many times, but had never been molested. Okay. He says he slept in Jackson's bedroom on all but three or four of 20 visits. They played video games, watched movies and had pillow fights. Well, that's not what he said in the documentary. We even hear at trial from child star of Home Alone, Macaulay Culkin. To Alexis Teresha, what did Culkin say at trial? The same thing. Michael was his friend. They hung out. Michael didn't do anything to him, that he was just a mentor, an older person who had a childlike appreciation for him. Take a listen to this rebuttal video from the Arvizo family. My children and me know

what rejection is, to be neglected, to be spit on, to be talked about, to be made an outsider, only because of our status in life or what we were going through. And Michael did not have that. He said, come to him, not just Gavin, but Star and David and me, and called us his family. And Gavin was the one that asked him, could I call you Daddy? Crime Stories with Nancy Grace.

I was seven years old. Michael asked, do you and the family want to come to Neverland? We drive in and you forget about all your problems. You were in Neverland. It was a fantasy. I have a storybook, right? I have a fairy tale. Hello, Wade. Today is your birthday. So congratulations.

I love you. Goodbye. There's no thoughts of this is wrong or anything like that. He told me if they ever found out what we were doing, he and I would go to jail for the rest of our lives. Secrets will eat you up. You feel so alone. I want to be able to speak the truth as loud as I had to speak the lie for so long.

You are hearing Leaving Neverland, the documentary. To Francie Hakes, why do children lie for their molesters? Well, Nancy, you know, this is a really complicated issue. I mean, it's all tied up in the feelings that the children describe of love. They believe at the time that they love their offender, and so they are willing to support whatever the offender asks them to do. And can I also say, Nancy, I have always been very, very angry as a prosecutor over this evidence of Macaulay Culkin and Wade Robson testifying at the Arvizu Jackson

trial that Michael Jackson did not molest them. I have to say, in our own home state of Georgia, that evidence would have never been allowed because, Nancy, it is wholly irrelevant. Let's take it as an example in a bank robbery case. In what bank robbery case have you ever heard of a bank robber's defense being, oh, I didn't rob that bank because I didn't rob the other one on the corner the day before? It's never admissible. It is not relevant whether or not the defendant molested X, Y, and Z, it's only relevant whether he molested the child in the indictment. And so it's one more example of California being crazy, pro-defendant, and being allowed to tell a jury evidence that is wholly irrelevant.

Just because someone didn't molest every child he ever came in contact with doesn't mean he didn't molest the child at issue. And I think that was one of the most powerful pieces of evidence the jury heard was the fact that he didn't molest these other two. And therefore, they were willing to believe that that meant he couldn't be a child molester. And that is just dead wrong. So at this point, Alexis Tereshchuk, why do you believe that it took a documentary out of Hollywood to convince the world that Jackson was in fact a molester? I think times have changed. I really do. when the movie came out, that they finally realized that maybe the star, the shine has worn off and that they believe these people because these two men were so credible. They were so honest.

They really were so raw in telling this. And I think that when people appreciate when someone tells the truth, but you know what? I lied. And I think so many people can recognize that, why they lied and that they were snowed by him because Michael Jackson's star has faded. And yes, his music has sold, you know, $400 million since he died. But there have been no other positive stories that have come out about him in those 10 years. Nobody's come forward and said, here's all these great things that he did for me when I was young. No, everything that has come out since then has been

bad. And I think that people were finally ready to see the truth. And it's terrible. And I think that, unfortunately, sometimes it does take the power of Hollywood because you have to see it. The trial is different. Not everybody, you know, people didn't watch it every day. And it's been so long. But to see it in movie form and where you can watch it, you know, in your own home and, and you can be able to be vulnerable and to see this, it makes a very powerful impact on you. And that's the power of Hollywood. And it protected Michael Jackson for so long. And now it's finally revealing what really did happen. People were ready. Dr. Bethany Marshall, do you remember all the hate mail, the emails, the threats? I, and maybe you would, during the Michael Jackson coverage,

I would suggest, when I would say, he's guilty, he did it. Nancy, I remember that clearly, and I think Alexis Tereschuk is so correct when she says, basically, it was a different era back then. Everybody rallied around Michael Jackson. They vilified these boys. They vilified the families. And what they didn't realize is that the reason victims lie for the perpetrator,

there are two basic reasons. One is, remember Michael Jackson showed the pornography to the children. He aroused these boys sexually. That was a part of the offending pattern. Because they were aroused, they felt that it was their fault. Because they felt it was their fault, they felt guilty and ashamed, and then they lied. The other thing is that Michael Jackson is also what we call an interpersonal offender. Not only did he offend sexually, but he offended psychologically by brainwashing these boys and developing very powerful bonds with them, much like priests did with boys in the Catholic Church. I have treated adults who are sexually molested by priests who felt guilty and protected the priests for years and years and years, well into their 50s and 60s, because they felt guilty about coming out.

So, yes, this was a whole ethos back then that Michael Jackson was great. He could never do anything bad. The boys were terrible. The mother was terrible. And you know, the times have changed. Nancy, you would not get the hate mail now that you got back then. I don't know about that. My question now is Jason Oceans has had so much time having passed. is there anything that then child victims can do now? In terms of obviously, you know, once the defendant is dead, that ends all criminal aspects, much like in Epstein. But the estate has a lot of money. I mean, to the extent that they could be held liable now in some way. California's statutory laws sometimes can be

affording the opportunity to go after any royalties or when they became known or, you know, to the estate. That might be the place since it is quite wealthy and it's done exceedingly well since his death. But as far as any other criminal acts, if there were any people that were complicit, I do believe statute of limitations has passed on that. What about it, Francie? I agree with that, Nancy. I think civil remedies are the only option open to victims now. Alexis, is there any way that they can sue now? Has the statute passed civilly as well? I mean, it's not indefinite on a civil lawsuit. I mean, you have to bring it within a certain period of time. We just changed the law in California.

Oh, good. Will that be retroactive? I believe it can be. Corey Feldman actually has been very active in this, and he was very prominent in getting a law passed that will help victims. Well, Alexis Tereschuk is right. Michael Jackson's sex abuse accusers can now sue his companies following a court appeal. Two guys who accused Jackson of sex assaulting them as children in the documentary Leaving Neverland can now sue. This is after a ruling made in California just this past Friday.

It's Wade Robson and James Safechuck tried to file a lawsuit in 2014, the case thrown out because of the statute of limitations that Jason Oceans had described, barring child sex assault accusers for filing claims after their 26th birthday. But now the age limit has been raised to 40 and a court of appeals has granted Robson and Safecheck permission to go ahead and sue. Changes in California law mean both of these men can now sue the Jackson estate. We wait as justice unfolds. Nancy Grace, Crime Story, signing off. Goodbye, friend.