New Jacko Evidence Ahead of Trial?

This is a partial transcript of "The Big Story With John Gibson," Dec. 6, 2004, that has been edited for clarity.

Watch "The Big Story With John Gibson" weeknights at 5 p.m. ET!

JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO, GUEST HOST: Michael Jackson (search) is wishing the cops would just leave him alone. After searching his Neverland ranch on Friday, they came back the next day for a sample of his DNA.

Today is the deadline for this evidence gathering when the government must reveal whatever evidence it's uncovered against him.

Joining me now from Los Angeles, Harvey Levin (search). Harvey is the creator and executive producer of "Celebrity Justice." That's today's big question, Harvey: what are they hoping to find on the eve of Jacko's trial?

HARVEY LEVIN, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, "CELEBRITY JUSTICE": Well, Judge, a couple of things. One, you mentioned the DNA and they do need a controlled sample. They need some standard by which to measure everything else they have.

I know it sounds crazy that they didn't ask for this until now, but we know there have been roadblocks in terms of evaluating the evidence because of some defense motion.

So, they asked for it on Friday. A judge allowed them to go in, and they believe that this will be admissible even though they'll almost certainly pass the deadline.

But beyond that — I'm sorry.

NAPOLITANO: As I understand it from my buddy and FOX News colleague Geraldo Rivera (search), the prosecutor called up Jackson's lawyer about 40 minutes ahead of time and said, "We got a search warrant, we're coming."

The lawyer called up Michael Jackson and said, "Get out of there. I don't want you dealing with the cops. Get the kids away. I don't want them to see the police searching your property."

If all they wanted was a sample of his DNA, a piece of his hair; in this case a swab of saliva from the inside of his mouth, why all this entourage to the house? Why two days of searching 2,000 acres? Why not just ask him to come in and swab the inside of his mouth?

LEVIN: Because it wasn't just that. The other thing they wanted was photographs and schematics of inside the mansion. I can tell you why they wanted this.

One of the key witnesses in this for the prosecution is going to be the accuser's younger brother. And he talks extensively, or has talked to authorities extensively, about what he says that he saw that happened inside the mansion.

Specifically, he talks about times where he watched Michael Jackson take his older brother inside the bedroom. He talks about what he heard, and talks about where he was standing when he heard it. One of the things they need to do was show the jury where this boy was in relation to what he says was going on, and they need photos, they need schematics to do that.

Again, you could ask, "Why didn't they come up with something like this a lot earlier? Why didn't they do it when they did the first search?"

I can't answer that. I can simply tell you that they did it now and they believe that whatever they seized and whatever they took pictures of, they think will be admissible in the trial.

NAPOLITANO: All right. Did they have or do they have gaps in their case? Did they sit down and say, "My God, Monday," meaning today, "is the day we've got to reveal to the defendant everything we have on him."

"We don't have this, we don't have that. We don't know what the bedroom looked like. We don't know how high the ceiling is." Did they just discover a bunch of gaps last week and decide to attack to fill up those gaps?

LEVIN: You raise a great question. I can tell you, I've talked to multiple people inside that side of the investigation, and I think there's a split. I have heard one version, which is, "We are ready to go to trial. We have our evidence; our ducks in a row, and we are ready to go on January 31."

I have heard at least one other source inside that case say, "You know what? If the defense ends up wanting more time, we would happily oblige because we could use the extra time."

So, I think really it depends on who you talk to. There was a lot of stuff to go through, a lot of this evidence is circumstantial and my guess is the defense may just seize the moment here and say, "We're going full steam ahead on the 31st."

NAPOLITANO: How strong is the government's case against Jackson?

LEVIN: Well, a lot of this case is not built on physical evidence, it's built on testimony. It's built on the prosecution's theory that there was this gigantic conspiracy to muzzle this family, to exploit the family and then discard them.

They are saying that Michael Jackson was pulling the strings, and they're going to try and paint a picture of a family that was stripped of its home, its belongings, its money.

They were basically, they say, held hostage in Neverland, and ultimately they were going to be discarded right outside of Uruguay never to be heard from again. That was the theory. We'll see if the jury buys it.

NAPOLITANO: Is the trial going to be a circus?

LEVIN: I think this trial is going to be crazy. I covered the O.J. Simpson case, and this has all the trappings of something like that but bigger and zanier.

We saw what Michael Jackson did at the courthouse. But I think it's going to drive a lot of his fans out to Santa Maria to watch this, and I have a feeling that, it would be nice to say, as lawyers like to say, "You know what, this case is going to have the proper decorum." My gut tells me...

NAPOLITANO: Harvey, got to go.

Harvey Levin from "Celebrity Justice." Thanks very much.

Content and Programming Copyright 2004 Fox News Network, L.L.C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2004 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Fox News Network, L.L.C.'s and eMediaMillWorks, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.