MJ-Upbeat

.

.

VERDICT DAY!

VICTORY! JUNE 13 For All Court Photos

.

DAY 6 - JURY DELIBERATIONS (FULL DAY)

No Verdict at Week's End

.

.

DAY 5 - JURY DELIBERATIONS (Partial DAY)

Jury Deliberates for a Half Day, World Waits For Verdict

.

.

DAY 4 - JURY DELIBERATIONS (FULL DAY)

20 Hours of Jury Deliberations, Wait for Verdict Continues

.

.

DAY 3 - JURY DELIBERATIONS (FULL DAY)

Jury Deliberations Resume

.

.

DAY 2 - JURY DELIBERATIONS (FULL DAY)

No Verdict, Jury Asks Questions

.

.

JURY DELIBERATIONS BEGIN TODAY (Partial Day)

DAY 66

If you have any reasonable doubt about the lies, it's over. You must acquit Michael Jackson

.

.

DAY 65

Closing Arguments: "Mr. Jackson must be acquitted. That's the law."

.

.

DAY 64

Jury Instructions Delivered, Closing Arguments Begin Tomorrow

.

.

DAY 63

Judge Sets Jury Instructions, Lawyers Argue Final Motions Before Closing Arguments

.

.

DAY 62

Prosecution & Defense Rests, Video: Prosecution Questions Accuser, Promises a Criminal Case

.

.

DAY 61

Family of Accuser's Attorney Refused Delivery of Their Possessions, Judge Denies Old Photos

.

.

DAY 60

The Defense Rests, Chris Tucker Suspicious of Accuser and Family

.

.

DAY 59

Mother of the Accuser Admitted Fraud to Paralegal in Prior Case, Taught Children to Lie

.

.

DAY 58

Mother of the Accuser Commits Welfare Fraud and Curses Relative Offering to Help Her Son

.

.

DAY 57

Geragos Suspected Accuser's Mother, "sooner or later we'd get a false accusation"

.

.

DAY 56

Witness Testifies Accuser's Mother Praised Mr. Jackson as "A Great Man, An Angel"

.

.

DAY 55

Mr. Jackson's Cousin Saw Accuser Watching Pornography and Stealing Money

.

.

DAY 54

Mr. Jackson's Cousin Sees Accuser and Brother Steal Alcohol

.

.

DAY 53

Neverland Employees Say Accuser Broke into Wine Cellar, Had Pornography in His Backpack

.

.

DAY 52

Former Attorney Says Mr. Jackson was, "ripe as a target"

.

.

DAY 51

Former Attorney Says Mr. Jackson was 'Hoodwinked' & 'Willfully Misled'

.

.

DAY 50

Macaulay Culkin Denounces Allegations Against Mr. Jackson: "absolutely ridiculous"

.

.

DAY 49

Ranch Manager Testifies He was Never Asked to Hold Family Against Their Will

.

.

DAY 48

Ranch Employees: Mr. Jackson Never Behaved Inappropriately, Accuser Reckless & Destructive

.

.

DAY 47

Mothers Testify "To Know Michael Jackson is to Love Him and to Trust Him"

.

.

DAY 46

Witness Says, "I'M TELLING YOU, NOTHING EVER HAPPENED"

.

.

DAY 45

Prosecution's Anticlimactic Finish, Judge Considers Acquittal

.

.

DAY 44

Inflammatory Testimony from Prosecution's Accountant Falls Flat in Cross-Examination

.

.

DAY 43

D.A. Tries to Substantiate Weak Case, Says Jackson's Associates Made Too Many Phone Calls

.

.

DAY 42

Prosecution Struggles to Create Evidence Against Mr. Jackson, Shows Jury Art Books From 1993

.

.

DAY 41

Mr. Jackson's Ex-Wife Continues to Dismantle Prosecution's Claims

.

.

DAY 40

Michael Jackson's Ex-wife: "He's My Friend. No One Can Tell Me What To Say"

.

.

DAY 39

Family's Tickets to Brazil Never Purchased, Videographer Gives Accuser's Mother Money

.

.

DAY 38

Defense Says Prosecution Allowed to Call Debbie Rowe, in End of Case "Desperate Tactic"

.

.

DAY 37

"The (mother) perjured herself on the stand. because she lies for gain"

.

.

DAY 36

Security Guard Testifies About Ranch Policy To Protect Unsupervised Children

.

.

DAY 35

Accuser's Mother Says Prosecution 'Refreshed' Her Memory

.

.

DAY 34

Bizarre Testimony Continues -Accuser's Mother Tells Story of Possible Hot Air Balloon Escape

.

.

DAY 33

The Mother of the Accuser Admits Lies. and More Lies

.

.

DAY 32

Mother of Accuser Claims Held Against Her Will, Makes No Effort to Get Help

.

.

DAY 31

Judge Allows Mother of the Accuser to Plead the Fifth on Shady Past

.

.

DAY 30

Stepfather Testifies He Sought Money From Jackson & Tabloids

.

.

DAY 29

1993 Accuser's Mother Admits She Never Witnessed Any Molestation

.

.

DAY 28

'But your idea of justice was millions of bucks?' Defense Exposes Former Employees

.

.

DAY 27

Former Employees Sold False Stories to Fund Suit Against Mr. Jackson, Jackson Won

.

.

DAY 26

Witness to Police, 'They made me come up with a lot more stuff. They kept pushing...'

.

.

DAY 25

Defense Grills Former Accuser Over Statement Inconsistencies and Financial Motivation

.

.

DAY 24

Current Accuser's Family Consults 1993 Case Attorney Prior To Calling Authorities

.

.

DAY 23

Psychologist & Attorney for Accuser Take the Stand, Defense Questions Connections, Motives

.

.

DAY 22

Flight Attendent Says She Never Saw Mr. Jackson Serve Alcohol to A Minor

.

.

DAY 21

Jury to Hear Past Allegations for which Mr.Jackson Was Never Charged, Most Refuse to Testify

.

.

DAY 20

Experts Confirm Fingerprints Cannot Be Dated, Does Not Prove Mr. Jackson Showed Them

.

.

DAY 19

Possible Fingerprint Evidence Tampering and Degrading, Reliability Questioned

.

.

DAY 18

Judge Denies Prosecution Bid to Include Computer Material

.

.

DAY 17

Comedian Says Family Would "Latch on to anyone who would help them"

.

.

DAY 16

Psychologist Admits, Parents Can Manipulate Children to Lie

.

.

DAY 15

MOTIONS - Prosecution Tries to Substantiate Case by Looking to the Past

.

.

DAY 14

Former Housekeeper Says She Never Saw Mr. Jackson Serve Alcohol to a Minor

.

.

DAY 13

Defense Creates Doubts About Seized Evidence

.

.

DAY 12

Accuser's Contradictions Continue, Lead Prosecution Investigator Testifies

.

.

DAY 11

Accuser States, Repeatedly, Michael Jackson 'did nothing to me'

.

.

DAY 10

MOTIONS - No Visit to Neverland for Jury & Judge Says You Can't Turn Jury into Accountants

.

.

DAY 9

Michael Jackson Suffers Back Pain and Hears Accuser Minimize His Benevolence

.

.

DAY 8

Accuser Takes Stand, Brother of Accuser Changes Recollection of Events

.

.

DAY 7

Changing Stories - Accuser's Brother States "I don't know exactly what I said"

.

.

DAY 6

Brother and Sister of Accuser Testify, Contradictions Take Center Stage

.

.

.DAY 5

Michael Jackson is 'an ideal family man', said Accuser's Mother

.

.

DAY 4

The Sister of the Accuser Takes the Stand

.

.

DAY 3

Prosecutor's Witness Describes Possible Plot Against Michael Jackson

.

.

DAY 2

I'm angry. I'm good, but I am angry

.

.

Opening Statement's

The jury will find Michael Jackson not guilty of all charges, Mesereau says

.

.

April 10 , 2005

Day 26: Witness to Police, 'They made me come up with a lot more stuff. They kept pushing...'


Created: Wednesday, 06 April 2005

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 Day 26 brought Michael Jackson's former maid to the stand. Only after the financial settlement was made with the first accuser in 1993, did this former maid's son bring an accusation of groping against Mr. Jackson. They received a $2.4 million settlement from Mr. Jackson in 1994. And before the woman took the stand, defense attorney Thomas Mr. Mesereau Jr. raised the issue of whether she also had a financial stake in his story by showing she had been paid $20,000 to appear on the TV show ''Hard Copy."

The woman, who was Mr. Jackson's maid for about five years, told of seeing Mr. Jackson in the shower with a boy about 8 years old who frequently stayed at Neverland and slept in the singer's bed.

The woman testified that whenever the 8-year-old boy stayed at Neverland he appeared to sleep in Mr. Jackson's bed and that once she found him and the performer watching television in bed together, naked from the waist up.

She also said that on several occasions she felt uncomfortable about the way Mr. Jackson was interacting with her son, but conceded on cross-examination by defense attorney Tom Mesereau that she never saw the entertainer molest him or anyone else.

Her son, now an auto parts salesman and a youth counselor, appeared muddled as he struggled to recall previous statements he gave to authorities, frequently responding "I don't remember" to Mr. Mesereau's questions

The former maid also told of seeing actor Macaulay Culkin at Neverland and said he also stayed in Mr. Jackson's bedroom. She called him ''the little kid from the movies" and said he often came with his father, mother, brother, and sister, but sometimes was brought alone by Mr. Jackson.

Although the prosecution was allowed to present testimony about Culkin, the defense has asserted that the ''Home Alone" star has denied being molested, and Culkin's spokeswoman has said he will not be involved in the court case.

Earlier, the former maid's 24-year-old son clashed with Mr. Mesereau as the attorney cross-examined him about inconsistencies between the story he told Monday and accounts he gave to authorities as recently as December.

''I don't mean to sound like I'm wasting your time," he told the lawyer at one point. ''It's hard being up here."

The jury was told he received a financial settlement but was not told the sum. The young man's attorney acknowledged that the terms of the settlement involved no admission of wrongdoing by Mr. Jackson.

He said he told no one until 1993, when detectives investigating another boy's allegations came to him. That interview was followed by others in 1994 and again in 2004.

Under cross-examination yesterday, he acknowledged that in his 1993 interview he initially said Mr. Jackson did not molest him. Mr. Mesereau asked whether investigators became aggressive, calling Mr. Jackson a ''molester" and cursing.

The witness said he did not remember details of the interview.

''It was only after you were pushed real hard by the sheriffs that you began to say anything like that," Mr. Mesereau said.

The witness also contradicted himself on a couple of points. Under questioning by Mr. Mesereau, he said Mr. Jackson would give him money whenever he read a book or got an 'A'. Under questioning by one of the prosecutors, he said that did not happen.

Mr. Mesereau confronted the witness with statements he made during one of his interviews in which he said: ''They made me come up with a lot more stuff. They kept pushing. I wanted to hit them in the head."

The witness said he did not remember the statements. Mr. Mesereau showed him a transcript and asked if that refreshed his recollection. The witness said no. He repeatedly answered Mr. Mesereau's questions by saying he did not remember, noteably similar to how the accuser and his siblings in this case have answered the questions posed to them by the defense during their cross-examinations.

The 24 year-old witness again claimed ignorance when asked about whether his accusations resulted in a criminal case. I don't know much. I don't watch the news he replied.

 
Source: /AP

.

April 5 , 2005

Day 25: Defense Grills Former Accuser Over Statement Inconsistencies and Financial Motivation


Created: Tuesday, 05 April 2005

Monday, April 4, 2005 Day 25 was marked by the testimony of the son of Michael Jackson's former housekeeper. The now 24-year-old man alleged that he was molested once in 1990. He won an out of court settlement worth a reported two million dollars from Mr. Jackson in 1994 but said he only learned of the deal in 1997. The defense says that the boy's mother had created the charges in order to get money from Mr. Jackson.

The judge told jurors the evidence of past uncharged crimes was being offered to show a "propensity" by the defendant to commit similar acts to the one with which he is charged. He said they need not decide beyond a reasonable doubt whether those acts were committed but must decide their weight "by a preponderance of the evidence."

"Complicated, yes," the judge said, and promised to give them the instructions again later.

Three of the five alleged victims -- including former "Home Alone" child star Macaulay Culkin -- vehemently deny they were molested.

In cross-examination, Mr. Jackson's attorney suggested that detectives, who came to see the witness after another boy sued Mr. Jackson, prodded the then-13-year-old boy to say he was molested when he at first denied that anything happened.

The witness said when sheriff's deputies arrived in 1993, "I knew that it was about Michael Jackson because it was on TV all the time."

"At first I was denying everything," the young man said, claiming he was scared and feared embarrassment at school.

"You weren't even saying you were touched at all?" said Thomas Mesereau Jr.

"No," said the witness. "But I knew."

"And do you remember telling the police, 'You're pushy?'" asked the lawyer.

"Yes," said the witness.

"And after telling the police, 'You guys are pushy, you said, 'Yes, he touched me.'"

"Yeah, I think that's how it went," said the witness.

The appearance of the man was allowed under a ruling last week by Melville that prosecutors may present witnesses to alleged molestation or inappropriate behavior before the time period of the current allegations.

Jurors also heard during Mr. Mesereau's questioning that the witness' mother went on the TV show "Hard Copy" and received $20,000 for telling her story.

The housekeeper's son, was asked at the outset of his testimony if he could identify Mr. Jackson in court.

"He's the light-complected gentleman," the witness said, smiling at Mr. Jackson.

The witness said he never talked about the incidents with anyone until 1993, when investigators came to him after another boy made allegations against Mr. Jackson in a civil case. No criminal charges were filed in either case and Mr. Jackson has never admitted any guilt.

The witness, who remained on the stand at day's end, repeatedly talked about being "molested" and Mr. Mesereau suggested he had been prompted to often use the word. He denied it.

Mr. Mesereau pointed out many inconsistencies between what this witness told authorities in 1993 and his testimony on Monday. Cross-examination of this witness will continue tomorrow.

Michael Jackson was never arrested or charged in connection with any past accusations of molestation or abuse.

Mr. Jackson fans who showed up over the weekend to rally on his behalf also stayed for Monday's court session, chanting and shouting when he arrived and later as he went home for the day.

On Sunday evening, Mr. Jackson spoke by telephone to some 200 fans who gathered in Santa Maria, about 150 miles north of Los Angeles on California's central coast.

"I really believe I have the most amazing fans in the whole world," Mr. Jackson told his cheering fans by speakerphone. "Thanks for believing in me. We will be victorious. God and the truth are on our side."

 
Source: / Reuters / AFP

.

April 5 , 2005

Day 24: Current Accuser's Family Consults 1993 Case Attorney Prior To Calling Authorities


Created: Saturday, 02 April 2005

Friday, April, 2005 On Day 24 jurors in Michael Jackson's trial were told for the first time of previous allegations made against Mr. Jackson 12 years ago, but for which Mr. Jackson was never charged.

The testimony came from Larry Feldman, the lawyer who represented a 13-year-old accuser in 1993.  The case was settled out of court and Mr. Jackson did not admit guilt in the 1993 case. Feldman told the jury that after Mr. Jackson paid the family in 1993 the boy stopped cooperating with authorities and never brought criminal charges against the singer. Additionally, he is currently unwilling to testify in this trial.

It was from Feldman that the family of Mr. Jackson's current teenage accuser sought legal advice first before alerting authorities to claims that Mr. Jackson had abused the then 13-year-old.

The attorney said the accuser's family was referred to him by another lawyer and that he then in turn referred the boy, his brother, sister and mother to a psychologist who was also involved in the 1993 case. On Wednesday, the referring attorney, Mr. Dickerman, testified that he has an agreement with Mr. Feldman to share fees if the family filed a successful civil lawsuit against Mr. Jackson in this case.

After their initial interviews with psychologist, Stan Katz, who earlier testified against Mr. Jackson but did not reveal what the family had told him, the family met with Feldman again to discuss the family's next step.

"The subject matter was what Dr. Katz was told and what Dr. Katz told me and possible courses of action," he told jurors.

Feldman described how he then called child protection services and prosecutors to report what the boy had said about his experience with Mr. Jackson.

Feldman told jurors that no one in the family of the accuser had asked him to seek money in the case. However, Mr. Jackson lawyer, Thomas Mesereau, pointed out, and Feldman conceded that the accuser had until he was 20 years of age to file a civil suit that he would be virtually assured of winning if Mr. Jackson was convicted in the criminal case.

Feldman followed telecommunications expert Jack Green onto the stand. Green told jurors that Mr. Jackson had a listening post set up next to his bed at his Neverland Ranch from which he could listen to phone calls being made to and from other parts of the estate.

"Could one listen surreptitiously ... secretly without letting people know?" prosecutor Gordon Auchincloss asked Green. "Yes," he replied referring to the eight-line phone system.

But under cross-examination from Mr. Jackson's lawyers, Green admitted it was not unusual to have such a business phone system on a ranch of that size.

Green admitted that the accuser's mother could easily have called authorities to raise the alarm from one of the telephones on the ranch.

"The question then is why didn't she call 911," said legal analyst Jim Moret, who is following the case.


 
Source: / Reuters / AFP

.

April 5 , 2005

Day 23: Psychologist & Attorney for Accuser Take the Stand, Defense Questions Connections, Motives


Created: Saturday, 02 April 2005

Wednesday, March 30, 2005 Day 23 featured a psychologist who was the first to interview Michael Jackson's young accuser as well as an attorney who testified that he would receive a kick-back for referring the family to another attorney if he was successful in receiving settlement funds for the case. 

 Dr. Stan Katz testified on Wednesday attempting to counter claims by lawyers for the defense that the molestation allegations were invented by the then-13-year-old accuser's mother. Defense lawyers have also pointed to the extreme lack of evidence.


Stan Katz said that in his career as a therapist specializing in child abuse he had found few false allegations made by adolescent boys against men. However, on cross-examination, Katz, was confronted by Mr. Jackson's lead attorney Tom Mesereau over a book he wrote in which he suggested that 40 percent of sex abuse claims were false.


The psychologist, who once penned an article titled "Stop the Witch Hunt for Child Molesters," insisted that he was referring in his book to children involved in custody disputes who were much younger than the boy at the center of the Mr. Jackson case.


Mr. Katz told jurors on Wednesday that a well-known civil attorney, Larry Feldman, who had sued Michael Jackson over child molestation allegations in 1993, has considered filing suit against him again on behalf of the accuser in the current case.  Jurors learned that Mr. Katz was also involved in this 1993 civil suit with Mr. Feldman. Mr. Katz said he reviewed tapes of an interview between the 1993 accuser and a doctor and reported back to Mr. Feldman.


He testified that Mr. Feldman referred the current accuser to him for an interview in June 2003. After Mr. Katz interviewed the boy's mother, the boy and his siblings, the psychologist reported to Los Angeles officials on June 12, 2003, that Mr. Jackson had allegedly molested the boy four months earlier at Neverland Valley Ranch.


On cross-examination, lead defense lawyer Thomas Mesereau asked whether the psychologist remembered his conversation with a Santa Barbara County sheriff's detective the day after the report was made.


"It was your belief when you talked to him that Mr. Feldman was filing a lawsuit against Mr. Jackson, right?" Mr. Mesereau asked.


"It was my belief that he was thinking about filing a lawsuit," Mr. Katz responded.


The admission bolstered the defense position that the boy and his family are after Mr. Jackson's money. Mr. Jackson's lawyers have maintained that the allegations of sexual molestation surfaced only after the boy's mother's failed to get a payoff from the entertainer.


Prosecutors have insisted since Mr. Jackson's arrest in November 2003 that the family in this case is not after money.


Mr. Katz was the prosecution's 39th witness since testimony began five weeks ago.


Senior Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen questioned Mr. Katz for about eight minutes, establishing that the psychologist had interviewed the family and then reported suspected child molestation to authorities.


Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville ruled this week that the prosecution could bring in testimony concerning Mr. Jackson's relationships with five other boys, ages 10 to 13, from more than a decade ago.


However, the boy at the center of the 1993 child molestation has declined to testify. That case fell apart when his family accepted a settlement from Mr. Jackson in Mr. Feldman's civil suit. The boy then declined to cooperate with authorities in the criminal case.


However, that boy's mother plans to testify at this trial. A former Neverland maid and her son who alleged Mr. Jackson inappropriately touched him on three occasions are also expected to take the stand. But three other boys, now in their early 20s, have indicated they'll cooperate with defense lawyers, not the prosecution, when they make their case.


Though Katz had interviewed Mr. Jackson's accuser and his siblings at length, he was not asked to recount their stories to the jury.


Katz was followed on the witness stand by William Dickerman, a civil attorney hired by the boy's family, prior to going to the authorities and after the broadcast of the 2003 documentary "Living with Michael Jackson."

Mr. Dickerman is a lawyer who said he referred the accuser's family to Mr. Feldman because he knew about his success with the 1993 civil case.

Mr. Dickerman testified that he has an agreement with Mr. Feldman to share fees if the family filed a successful civil lawsuit against Mr. Jackson in this case.

Prosecutors allege Mr. Jackson and his associates held the family captive until they agreed to participate in a video to rebut the British documentary in which Mr. Jackson is seen holding hands with the boy, stating that he shares his bed with children.

Jamie Masada, who owns the Laugh Factory comedy club and who organized fundraisers for the boy when he was ill with cancer, testified Tuesday that the mother called him from Neverland claiming she was being held against her will. Mr. Masada admitted he did not call police. Instead he took the boy's mother to see Mr. Dickerman.

The mother, her children and Mr. Masada met four times with Mr. Dickerman -- either at the attorney's office or at the comedy club -- during a period when the family said they were being held hostage at Mr. Jackson's ranch.

The mother retained Mr. Dickerman as her lawyer on March 24, 2003. He testified the mother told him that Mr. Jackson and his associates had taken some of the family's property and refused to return it. Two days later, Mr. Dickerman sent the first in a series of letters to Mr. Jackson's former lawyer, Mark Geragos, telling him he wanted the harassment of the family to stop and their belongings returned.

Mr. Mesereau reviewed each letter with Mr. Dickerman and asked if there was any mention of child molestation, alcohol, false imprisonment or extortion.

Mr. Dickerman answered "No" each time.

Two days after he was retained, Mr. Dickerman began sending letters to television companies involved in the production of the British documentary or airing it in the U.S., demanding that they not show it unless they had obtained consent from the family.

When Mr. Mesereau asked whether these letters were to lay the groundwork for royalty negotiations, Mr. Dickerman insisted it was to "stop the exploitation of the family."

The court will not be in session tomorrow, Thursday, because of the César Chávez holiday. Mr. Feldman is expected to testify on Friday.

Mr. Sneddon announced at the end of Wednesday's session that he intended to call witnesses from the 1993 case beginning on Monday.



 
Source: / Dawn Hobbs - Santa Barbara News Press / Reuters

.

March 30, 2005

.

March 28, 2005

Day 21: Jury to Hear Past Allegations for which Mr.Jackson Was Never Charged, Most Refuse to Testify

Created: Monday, 28 March 2005

On Day 21 of the trial, Judge Melville ruled that the jury can hear past allegations against Michael Jackson, although, prior to this trial, he has never been charged with any crime. In most criminal cases, evidence of past behavior is not admissible against a defendant. However, the California Legislature changed that in 1995, specifically in cases of child molestation and domestic violence. The District Attorney is attempting to show a pattern of abuse by Michael Jackson. The prosecution has been campaigning from the beginning of the trial to include prior allegations in order to support, what many say, is a non-existent case.

Mr. Mesereau offered this argument, challenging the court to consider the prosecution's motivation for insisting upon using the prior allegations to substantiate their weak case.

(Excerpt from Court Transcript)


Mr. Mesereau: "...what has the Court seen in this courtroom?  Is the case strong on credibility and substance or is it weak on credibility and substance?  If it's really powerful, the Court probably is less worried.  If there are credibility problems with their case and their witnesses, the Court has great concern to worry because the potential for lessening the burden of proof on the prosecution in this case would be great. Now, the Court is dealing with some unique situations.  First of all, you have a celebrity.  A celebrity who has been subjected to all kinds of innuendo, scandalous reporting and rumor, and a celebrity who has attracted all kinds of claims for money, who has developed a lifestyle at Neverland which he has advertised to the world, which he believes and contends, and many believe, is a benefit to society.  The prosecution has come in to try and turn all this on its head and suggest that Neverland is some magnet for molestation and criminal behavior.  Well, that's going to be an issue for the jury.  But certainly at this point the Court knows, based on the evidence alone, that Mr. Jackson has developed Neverland as a Disney-like type of world that he uses to help children from the inner city, children around the world, et cetera. There's a bigger problem than the uniqueness of the case, and none of the cases cited by Mr. Sneddon deal with celebrities or anyone remotely close to Mr. Jackson in terms of notoriety and attraction for greed and misuse of the legal process.

"The Court has seen three witnesses who the Court -- who the prosecution suggests are victims. And without going into a lot of the details, which I don't think the Court wants me to give a closing argument at this point, but there is no question all three of those witnesses have been riddled with problems in their testimony. All have agreed they lied repeatedly. All were caught lying on the witness stand. All were themselves repeatedly. Every witness was a problem. Now, if the Court agrees there are significant credibility problems with Gavin Arvizo, Star Arvizo, and Davellin Arvizo -- and I believe the Court does, because I don't see how anyone watching the cross-examination could disagree with that. If the Court thinks there are issues to worry about, I would ask the Court to add to that concern the following: Gavin alleges two acts of alleged molestation. There is no eyewitness to either one. And there is no DNA to support it. In fact, there's no forensic evidence at all to support it. Star, along with his credibility problems, alleges - it changes, the number. But he appears to allege two acts of molestation, separate from those of Gavin that he watched. There is no eyewitness. There is no DNA. There is no forensics to support it.

"So as the Court looks at the evidence so far, what do you really have? You have what, in effect, is a very problematic case, and I submit the prosecutors know that. It's extremely problematic. It's filled with credibility issues. And those credibility issues I submit to the Court at this point are compounded by the evidence they've tried to introduce so far about conspiracy."



(End of Excerpt)

This ruling involved Section 1108 of the California Criminal Code which allows prosecutors to introduce evidence similar past sexual allegations in order to show that the defendant had a "pattern" of similar previous behavior. The provision was added to California law in 1995 and promoted by District Attorney, Tom Sneddon, when a criminal investigation collapsed after Mr. Jackson reached a civil settlement with the boy in the 1993-94 case. However, judges may draw sharp definitions of what constitutes a similar case.

"The decision I have reached is I will now admit the testimony with regard to the sexual offenses and the alleged pattern of grooming," the judge said, making his crucial and long-awaited ruling on the issue.

Judges can also exclude testimony if would be unduly prejudicial. Mr. Mesereau says nearly all of the past cases fit that bill. The new material "could jeopardize the presumption of [Mr. Jackson's] innocence," he said. "The evidence they are trying to introduce [is] of an emotional and high inflammatory nature."   Despite the pitfalls, appellate courts have only overturned one case.

The District Attorney did admit that three of the instances involve young men who have absolutely denied Mr. Jackson ever molested them. The incidents allegedly occurred 12 to 15 years ago, and the prosecutor acknowledged only one of the five boys has even agreed to testify at Mr. Jackson's trial. Some of the other testimony would come from the mothers of the two boys who pursued and eventually won settlements.

Defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. asked Judge Rodney Melville to exclude the allegations, saying they were based on third parties, many of whom were after Mr. Jackson's money. The reference was to former Jackson employees who sued him in the past and lost, and were then ordered to pay Mr. Jackson $1 million in damages.

Additionally, Mr. Mesereau pointed out that Macaulay Culkin, one of the five called by the District Attorney and a frequent visitor to Mr. Jackson's Neverland Ranch, "has repeatedly said he was never molested."

The media-hungry uncle of the alleged victim in the 1993 case said Sunday his now 25-year-old nephew would not testify at Mr. Jackson's trial. Reportedly, he wants nothing to do with the case.

Before Melville's ruling, Mr. Mesereau said that "willy-nilly third party witnesses" are "99 percent" of the evidence Sneddon wants to bring in.  "The potential for prejudice there is overwhelming."   Mr. Jackson's lawyer called some of the witnesses "lying [former] plaintiffs" and he suggested that tainted bystanders were no substitutes for actual victims. "How can you allow a parade of third-party characters to come in without any victims?" he said. Mr. Mesereau told the judge he would put on a "mini-trial" on each allegation the jury is allowed to hear. "You can't stop the defense from putting on a full-blown defense and I mean just that," the defense attorney warned.

Mr. Jackson was not present during the arguments but arrived later to cheers from fans.

Culkin's publicist, Michelle Bega, said Monday the "Home Alone" star "is presently not involved with the proceedings and we do not expect that to change."

After the judge's ruling, comedian George Lopez took the stand and told about helping Mr. Jackson's current accuser as the boy battled cancer. Lopez said he came to believe the boy's father was more interested in money than helping his son. He testified the father accused the comedian of stealing $300 from the boy's wallet.

Lopez said he finally cut off the family because of the father's frequent and aggressive requests for help. When the father asked what he was supposed to tell his son, Lopez testified he responded: "Tell him his father's an extortionist."

The defense contends Lopez, star of the ABC sitcom "George Lopez," is among celebrities who were targeted by the accuser's family in schemes to make money. But prosecutors contend any such schemes were the work of the boy's father, who is now divorced from the mother.

Sneddon said one boy from the five earlier cases will come forward and his mother also will testify. That case involved a boy who was allegedly involved in a 1990 incident and received a $2.4 million settlement from Mr. Jackson in 1994.  The district attorney also promised testimony from the mother of a boy who reached a multimillion-dollar settlement with Mr. Jackson in 1993. It was unclear exactly what Mr. Jackson was accused of doing with each of the five boys.

The judge excluded two other boys named by the prosecution but did not say why.

In a hearing after jurors left the courtroom, Sneddon said he planned to begin presenting evidence of the past allegations in about two weeks. The judge said he would give jurors special legal instructions on the issue of past acts before that testimony is offered.


 
Source: / AP / AFP / Newsweek

.

March 26, 2005

Day 20: Experts Confirm Fingerprints Cannot Be Dated, Does Not Prove Mr. Jackson Showed Them

Created: Saturday, 26 March 2005

FRIDAY, MARCH 25, 2005

Day 20 in the Michael Jackson trial continued with more testimony by a police forensics expert regarding the fingerprints found on adult magazines.

Friday's witnesses -- including four other sheriff's employees -- discussed the procedures police used to process fingerprint evidence in the case, the second straight day that the trial has been absorbed with highly technical testimony.

Defense lawyer Robert Sanger earlier tried to undercut the fingerprint evidence, saying some of the magazines had not been tested for prints until after they were used in grand jury hearings, where the accuser could have touched them.

"You cannot tell when a fingerprint was left," Spinner said when asked by prosecutors.

Jurors heard detailed testimony from experts who dusted the adult magazines taken from Mr. Jackson's residence for fingerprints belonging to the superstar and his teenage molestation accuser.

While the court in the California town of Santa Maria has heard that hundreds of prints were discovered on adult material in Mr. Jackson's home, only one has been identified to jurors so far -- that of the accuser's younger brother.

Forensic experts were questioned on the stand over whether fingerprint evidence found on the magazines was processed properly and kept in uncontaminated conditions.

Jurors heard that detectives wore gloves when taking and processing the prints but that a clerk who checked the material into the court vault was not wearing gloves at all times when handling the evidence.

One of Mr. Jackson's lawyers, Robert Mr. Sanger, also got one expert to admit that the fingerprints could not be dated.

The defense claims that the accuser and his brother thumbed through the magazines when Mr. Jackson was not at home and that fingerprints on the publications in no way prove he showed the adult material to the children.

The next key arguments in the trial are expected to come on Monday, when Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville is set to rule on whether jurors will hear about the well-publicized 1993 accusations of molestation made against Mr. Jackson.

That case was settled out of court and Mr. Jackson never faced criminal charges.


 
Source: / Reuters / AFP

.

March 26, 2005

Day 19: Possible Fingerprint Evidence Tampering and Degrading, Reliability Questioned


Created: Saturday, 26 March 2005

 THURSDAY, MARCH 24, 2005

Day 19 was dominated by testimony regarding the fingerprint analysis in the Michael Jackson trial. Jurors heard Thursday that authorities did not do fingerprint analysis on adult magazines from the singer's home until many, many months after they were seized.

Defense Attorney Robert Sanger used cross-examination of the prosecution's forensic experts to try to undermine the reliability of fingerprint evidence that is expected to be shown to the jury, suggesting it could degrade over time.


One magazine allegedly has a single fingerprint from Mr. Jackson's accuser and one print from Mr. Jackson. The defense explained that the accuser handled the magazine during grand jury hearings before it was subjected to fingerprint analysis.


Witness Antonio Cantu, chief of forensics for the Secret Service, said he was not aware of the delay in the fingerprint tests and acknowledged it would have been preferable for the tests to have been done immediately.


Cantu did not test evidence in the Mr. Jackson case but was put on the stand by the prosecution to give jurors technical information about how fingerprints are analyzed by various methods.


Mr. Sanger asked Cantu if he would expect analysis to be done after the material had been presented to a grand jury.

"You would expect to do that analysis first," Cantu said.

"Were you aware that the fingerprint analysis in this case was not done until a year after the evidence was seized?" asked the attorney.

"I was not aware of that," said Cantu.


Santa Barbara County Deputy District Attorney Gordon Auchincloss sought to show that it wouldn't make much difference when the material was analyzed as long as it was properly bagged and preserved.

But the witness said that chemically, the residue from fingerprints can change over time.

Mr. Sanger raised the issue of evidence degradation and Cantu said it was possible that fingerprints could degrade.

Sheriff's technician Lisa Hemman, called by the prosecution to discuss methods of examining evidence from Neverland, offered an explanation of why fingerprint analysis was not done immediately.

"We wanted to preserve DNA evidence. Processing for fingerprints could destroy DNA. So you do the testing for DNA before you do the fingerprint testing," she said.

An attorney for Mr. Jackson grilled Hemman and three other fingerprint specialists about potential problems with the field. He noted that an Oregon lawyer was arrested as a suspect in the Madrid train bombings on the strength of a fingerprint match, only to be exonerated later when the print was shown to be a "false positive."

"So, fingerprint identification is really subjective?" lawyer Robert Mr. Sanger asked.

"Yes," Hemman said.

She later acknowledged that she and another examiner were at odds over whether a print was Mr. Jackson's and that they had changed their opinion on the brother's print from an initial finding of "inconclusive."

The jury has already heard that no DNA from the boy or his family was found.

"I think the prosecution has yet to show that this mountain of (adult material) they produced was shown to the accuser by Michael Jackson," said legal analyst Jim Moret outside the courtroom in the California town of Santa Maria.

"There has to be a connection between these materials and Michael Jackson and his accuser" in order for the prosecution argument to stand, he added.

Mr. Sanger stressed that all the raunchy literature found in Mr. Jackson's bedroom was legal in the United States, and suggested that police were overzealous in seizing the items.

But prosecutors pointed out it was illegal to show such material to children. Mr. Jackson has not been charged with showing adult materials to a minor.

Jurors who had earlier paid close attention and took copious notes during the explosive testimony offered in the first three weeks of Mr. Jackson's trial often appeared bored by the details and specialized testimony.

One alternate juror fell asleep as others fidgeted through the expert testimony.

"That is a problem for both the prosecution and the defense," Moret said, adding that "you don't want to lose jurors."

In past days jurors have been shown on a large overhead screen dozens of adult magazines and pictures, none of which involved pedophilia.


Actor George Lopez will take the stand next week, prosecutors said Thursday.

The comedian and star of the ABC sitcom "The George Lopez Show" is expected in the witness box at Mr. Jackson's child molestation trial Monday to testify about his dealings with the accuser, prosecutor Ronald Zonen told Judge Rodney Melville.

Lopez was among several celebrities, including Mr. Jackson, actor Chris Tucker and comedians Adam Sandler and Jay Leno, whom the boy met or sought to meet while he was being treated for cancer in 2000.

Mr. Jackson's defense has been demonstrating that the accuser and his family are a pack of grifters who used the boy's cancer to scam money from the rich and famous. His lawyers have highlighted Lopez in particular, eliciting testimony from several witnesses about an incident where the comedian apparently believed the family was trying to hustle him.

As Mr. Jackson walked toward his waiting vehicle at the end of the day, he greeted the waiting fans and reporters, "I'd like to say hello to the people of Santa Maria, my friends." When questioned about his health, he replied, "Still in a lot of pain."


 
Source: / AP / AFP

.

March 26, 2005

Day 18: Judge Denies Prosecution Bid to Include Computer Material

Created: Saturday, 26 March 2005

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 23, 2005

Day 18 of Michael Jackson's trial dealt a serious blow to the prosecution's floundering case when Judge Melville made the decision that adult material from Internet sites found on the computers in Michael Jackson's home, which could have been used by any number of people, employees and guests, would not be permitted to be used as evidence. 

Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville said he examined the computer material, and agreed with the defense it may have been automatically stored by the computers and saved by 'pop-ups' and didn't appear to be from the time of the alleged crimes.  and "there wouldn't be any way of knowing if anyone looked at the material or not."

The judge also agreed the material did not appear related to the time period of the alleged crimes.

The ruling came as District Attorney Tom Sneddon put into evidence hundreds of adult magazines, DVDs and photos, but none of it involved children or carried any DNA from Mr. Jackson's accuser or the boy's family. This was confirmed under defense questioning of Sheriff's Detective Craig Bonner, where he acknowledged that it was true no DNA from the accuser, his brother or any member of the family was found on any of the items. Additionally, the defense pointed out that the boy handled the magazine at the grand jury hearing.

In arguing for the computer evidence, the prosecution said technicians isolated material on three computers at Mr. Jackson's Neverland ranch that included teen-themed adult Web sites and information about adopting children.

Prosecutor Gordon Auchincloss said he felt the adoption sites related to Mr. Jackson's statements in a documentary that he was interested in adopting children.

In a highly presumptuous statement, the prosecution attorney said, "We intend to use this evidence to show ... Michael Jackson knows how to use a computer ... that he knows how to access adult materials on Internet sites." The prosecution is making the grand assumption that Mr. Jackson was the one using the computer.

Defense attorney Robert Sanger called the material prejudicial and noted that all of it was dated either two years before Mr. Jackson met his accuser or several months after his involvement with the child and his family had ended.

Mr. Sanger said there was no proof Mr. Jackson was the person who accessed the Web sites and suggested much of the material was "cached," or automatically saved by the computers, from material that popped up in e-mail when others used the computers.

The judge noted that the testimony from the young accuser and his brother stated that Mr. Jackson was not the one who operated a computer to show them sexually oriented material. He recalled testimony that linked a friend of Mr. Jackson, one of several people named as unindicted coconspirators, as the one named that showed the material to the boys.

Ordered to bring in other witnesses, Sneddon called to the stand detectives who searched Neverland and had them identify dozens of packages of magazines and books.

With no explanation as to its relevance, prosecutors also introduced a portrait of a Mr. Jackson friend, actor Macaulay Culkin.

Mr. Jackson arrived about 20 minutes early Wednesday. He acknowledged a "We love you Michael" shout from a fan by waving, and walked slowly inside without leaning on others as he has at times.

The day ended with an ambulance being summoned for one of Mr. Jackson's attorneys, Brian Oxman, who leaned forward and put his head down at the counsel table after testimony concluded. Mr. Jackson, clearly very concerned for his attorney, had turned around to fan him and check his condition.

Mr. Oxman was taken to Marian Medical Center. Mr. Oxman's wife said he had a touch of pneumonia. The hospital said he was stable and resting comfortably.

 
Source: / AP

.

March 26, 2005

Day 17: Comedian Says Family Would "Latch on to anyone who would help them"

Created: Saturday, 26 March 2005

TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2005

Day 17, which Judge Melville announced would only be a half day, featured the testimony of a comedian who gave $20,000 to the family of the boy now accusing Michael Jackson of molestation. She testified Tuesday that she received a tearful phone call from the boy's mother that led her to believe the family was being held against its will.  

Comedian Louise Palanker said she tried to get in touch with the mother after seeing the TV documentary "Living With Michael Mr. Jackson" in which Mr. Jackson and his accuser held hands and Mr. Jackson acknowledged letting children sleep in his bed.

Palanker was called by the prosecution in an effort to support the charge that Mr. Jackson conspired to hold the family captive after the documentary aired on Feb. 6, 2003, in order to get them to make a rebuttal video praising Mr. Jackson.

On the witness stand, Palanker said soon after she left a message with the boy's grandparents, the mother called her and sounded frightened.

"She was extremely agitated and she was almost whispering. ... This was fear-based agitation," Palanker said.

The mother told her not to call her back at the same number, the witness said. Palanker quoted the mother as saying: "Don't call me back here. They're listening to everything I say. These people are evil."

Palanker said that she believed the boy's mother suffered from a "hostage syndrome" that made her feel trapped. She did not say where the mother was at the time of the call. The comedian said she called her attorney after the call. She did not call the police.

The defense contends the boy's mother exploited relationships with Palanker and other celebrities to get money. With Palanker's testimony, the prosecution sought to show it was the now-estranged father who did that.

Louise Palanker said she believed the woman had felt like a hostage since she became married at age 16 to a man who allegedly abused her. The comedian told jurors how the accuser's family, who claimed to be poverty-stricken, joined classes in 1999 at the Laugh Factory comedy club in Hollywood and received help from comics including George Lopez and Chris Tucker.

Palanker said she once gave the family $10,000 so they could take time off work and cover personal expenses while the boy was being treated for cancer in 2000.

"I was in a position where I could help this family and I didn't want someone to ever be alone in a hospital," she said.

But within two weeks of the first gift, she said, the father asked her for another $10,000 to fix up a germ-free room for the boy when he came home. She obliged and later visited the room, where she found the family had bought a large-screen TV and DVD for the boy, expenditures she considered to be poor money management.

She said the contractor sent to fix up the room was never paid, and eventually decided to consider his work a gift to the boy.

Palanker said she and Jamie Masada, owner of the Laugh Factory, organized two benefits for the family at the father's urging but by the time of the second benefit Lopez refused to perform because the father and boy had accused Lopez and his wife of stealing $300 from the boy's wallet.

"They were irate," Palanker said of the Lopezes. "They thought (the father) was lying."

When Lopez refused to perform at the final benefit, she said, the father picked up a pile of cash that had been raised. "He threw it at Jamie and said, 'I don't want your money,'" Palanker said, adding that the father eventually took it.

After that benefit, she said, her contact with the family "became less and less" until the call from the mother.

Mr. Jackson's attorney questioned Palanker about the family's interest in meeting celebrities.

"Did you say at any time that they were trying to latch on to celebrities to get out of their situation?" Mr. Mesereau asked.

"Latch on to anyone that could help them," said Palanker.

Palanker acknowledged the family "liked to make phone calls" to celebrities - including Jay Leno, who contacted Palanker. "He told me they had left three messages on his voice mail," she said, acknowledging that Jay Leno did ask her to tell the family to stop calling him.

 
Source: / AP

.

March 26, 2005

Day 16: Psychologist Admits, Parents Can Manipulate Children to Lie

Created: Saturday, 26 March 2005

MONDAY, MARCH 21, 2005

On Day 16 Michael Jackson arrived at court to begin another week of his trial, two minutes after eight-thirty in the morning and clearly in excruciating pain. A doctor, dressed in his scrubs directly from the hospital, accompanied him into the courtroom. The judge delayed court for 45 minutes to confer with the attorneys and then began the day's proceedings without additional explanation. 

"I'm very much hurt. I'm in pain. I'm in pain," Michael Jackson commented as he left court at the end of the day, his brother Jackie, and his mother and father at his side. Several fans, who fill the back of the courtroom each day during the trial, wept openly as Mr. Jackson left.

Monday's session followed three weeks of often explosive testimony, in which Mr. Jackson's now 15-year-old accuser admitted giving contradictory stories about the alleged abuse.

Under direct questioning by the prosecution, Psychologist Anthony Urquiza said on Monday child abuse victims often contradict their own stories.  The testimony of the University of California, Davis psychologist was intended by prosecutors to help explain why Mr. Jackson's young accuser denied the abuse to a school official and gave sometimes inconsistent accounts to police.

But in a tough cross-examination by Mr. Mesereau, the psychologist admitted children sometimes made false abuse claims, and they absolutely could be manipulated by their parents.

"It is possible for kids to be supported in false allegations by parents," Urquiza said.

Mr. Jackson's legal team claims and promises to prove with testimony and evidence that the accuser is a liar who is being used as a pawn in his mother's schemes to extort money from celebrities.

The jurors also heard testimony from a flight attendant, Lauren Wallace, who admitted Mr. Jackson liked to have wine served out of soda cans when he traveled by chartered jet, but said she had never seen him serve any alcohol to a minor. Wallace said she would empty out three of the cans before each flight, fill them about half-way with white wine and serve them to Mr. Jackson. She also admitted that Mr. Jackson did not request that she provide any other alcoholic beverages on the flights.

On cross-examination by Mr. Jackson's lead attorney Tom Mesereau, Wallace said she never saw children drunk on the flights. She also stated that the reason Mr. Jackson requested that the wine be served in soda cans was so that he could be discreet about drinking alcohol in front of his own two kids.

She left the courtroom smiling and waving discreetly at Mr. Jackson.

 
Source: / AP

.

March 18, 2005

Day 15: MOTIONS - Prosecution Tries to Substantiate Case by Looking to the Past


Created: Friday, 18 March 2005

Day 15 in Michel Jackson's trial consisted of a series of motions and decisions pertaining to, the 1993 case, the possible fingerprint contamination of the evidence and Mr. Jackson's finances, among other things,  On the heels of two weeks of highly contradictory testimony from the accuser and his siblings, the prosecution, once again, asked the judge to consider bringing in the alleged, but never charged, 'prior acts' levied against Mr. Jackson, in an attempt to substantiate their fledgling case.

Intent on demonstrating a pattern of child abuse in Mr. Jackson's past, Prosecutor Tom Sneddon asked Melville to allow him to tell jurors of the previous cases and call the alleged victims to the witness stand. The Judge said he would not allow any witnesses to appear for this, that he would only hear arguments from both sides. At the insistence of the prosecution, Judge Melville said they could have witnesses available if they wanted. However, he specified, he was highly unlikely to allow them to testify at this time.


Settlement of the 1993 case prompted the collapse of the case against Mr. Jackson, also led by District Attorney Tom Sneddon, and led to a change in California law to allow evidence of previous uncharged allegations to be presented in evidence in a child molestation trial. Mr. Jackson was never charged with this, or any, crime.


The judge said he would hold on March 28 a mini-hearing with the lawyers, but out of the jury's earshot, before he decides whether to allow the crucial testimony.


The defense urged the judge to consider whether evidence presented by the prosecution, including the highly contradictory testimony from Mr. Jackson's accuser and his siblings, was credible enough to warrant raising the previous uncharged cases.


Mr. Jackson's lawyer Robert Sanger said the judge would have to determine "if the evidence is so inflammatory as to be prejudicial" in the current case against Mr. Jackson. He also asked Melville to consider the risk of confusing the jurors and causing major delays in the trial.


At Friday's session, which neither Mr. Jackson nor his trial jurors attended, Melville also rejected a motion for mistrial based on defense claims the prosecution violated a court order in naming the 1993 accuser.


The defense complained that the prosecution on Thursday called the 1993 accuser by name, against the judge's prior ruling.


"Of course there was intent to infer something by this testimony," attorney Robert Sanger told the court.


But, surprisingly, the judge said he did not consider the line of questioning "was helpful or harmful to the prosecution."


Mr. Jackson has never been convicted of a sexual offense, but prosecutors want to present witnesses they believe will show that the current case is part of a pattern.


Also on Friday, Judge Melville agreed on Friday to allow testimony that the boy accusing the singer of molestation once claimed comedian George Lopez stole his wallet.


Defense attorney Robert Sanger said Lopez and the boy met at a comedy club, but later had a falling out. Sanger said the boy, pressed by his father, then accused Lopez of stealing his wallet and demanded $300.


The defense claims the incident shows a pattern of the accuser trying to get money and other things from celebrities. Mr. Jackson's attorneys have said the boy invented molestation claims against Mr. Jackson after the boy and his family were evicted from Mr. Jackson's Neverland ranch.


District Attorney Tom Sneddon sought to block the Lopez evidence, saying the boy tried to resist his father's plan to say there was $300 in the wallet.


In another key decision, Melville also said he would allow prosecutors to summon some of Mr. Jackson's financial records in their attempt to prove that Mr. Jackson was motivated by his alleged financial situation.


Additionally, the defense maintains that fingerprints belonging to Mr. Jackson's accuser found on at least one adult magazine seized in his bedroom were placed on the book during the grand jury hearings, thereby contaminating the evidence.


Prosecutors, meanwhile, withdrew a request to summon the foreperson of the grand jury that handed down the indictment against Mr. Jackson in April 2004, when the defense challenged that is that was the case then they would be forced to call the rest of the grand jury to the stand.


As a compromise for both sides, Melville said the prosecution could bring in a district attorney who was present at the hearings.


Mr. Jackson has pleaded innocent all counts of sexually molesting the boy, plying him with alcohol and conspiring to kidnap him and his family and hold them against their will at Neverland two years ago.


The prosecution said Friday it would conclude presenting evidence of the molestation claims by the end of next week, and would then address the other charges.


No testimony was heard Friday; it will resume on Monday

..
Source: / AP / AFP

.

March 18, 2005

Day 14: Former Housekeeper Says She Never Saw Mr. Jackson Serve Alcohol to a Minor

Created: Friday, 18 March 2005

March 17, 2005

Day 14 in the Michael Jackson trial was highlighted by two very important statements by a former housekeeper at Michael Jackson's Neverland ranch who testified Thursday. Firstly, she said that she had never seen Michael Jackson serve alcohol to a minor.

Kiki Fournier said children who remained at Neverland anywhere from a few days to months at a time would sometimes stay in Mr. Jackson's room, and she described kids running willing there without parental supervision and little discipline from Mr. Jackson, being permitted to stay up late, eat candy, watch movies and play games.

"They would get in candy-throwing fights in the theater," she said, describing how she nicknamed Neverland "Pinocchio's Pleasure Island." "Sometimes they would get pretty rowdy. ... He did let them have a free hand, so to say. They could get pretty rambunctious."

Mr. Jackson's accuser and his brother were among the children who became wilder the longer they stayed at Neverland, Fournier said. She said that initially the accuser was very polite but she soon noticed that the room he shared with his brother was increasingly dirty. The defense highlights the significance of this when they questioned the former housekeeper about the time frame. She testified that it was near the end of the boys' stay that their room became so terribly messy that she had to alert Mr. Jackson about it. The defense questioned if the beds, in this guest unit, were unmade and appeared slept in by both boys, towards the end of their stay at the ranch. She answered 'yes'. The importance of mentioning this fact is in the timing of the molestation allegation. The accuser is currently claiming that this occurred towards the end of their stay at the ranch and that he was sleeping in Mr. Jackson's room. Another possible contradiction for the prosecution.


(Excerpt from Court Transcripts)

MR. MESEREAU: And I think what the government prosecutor was suggesting was the kids must have been somewhere during the evening, right?

KIKI FOURNIER: Yes.

MR. MESEREAU: But I'm curious. You also said that you looked at Gavin's room and it often was a mess, right?

KIKI FOURNIER: Toward the end, yes.

MR. MESEREAU: Suggesting that Gavin was staying in the room, right?

KIKI FOURNIER: I believe it was he and his brother that were staying in there.

MR. MESEREAU: And they made a real mess out of that room, didn't they?

KIKI FOURNIER: Yes.

MR. MESEREAU: Quite often, didn't they?

KIKI FOURNIER: Toward the end, yes.

(End of Excerpt from Court Transcript)


Mr. Mesereau proceeded to question the former housekeeper regarding disciplinary problems that the Neverland staff may have had with the accuser and his siblings on the premises of the ranch.




(Excerpt from Court Transcripts)

MR. MESEREAU: And they were known -- they had a reputation at Neverland for having disciplinary issues with the staff, didn't they?

MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Calls for hearsay and calls for a conclusion; improper characterization of the evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

THE WITNESS: Not really with me. I mean, Gavin was always respectful with me. Always. Star could be a little bit ornery. And Davellin, we'd talk every once in a while. But I never experienced any problems.

MR. MESEREAU: But you knew other employees did, didn't you?

KIKI FOURNIER: Well, I knew that they were becoming demanding, yeah, but I don't really remember a specific incident.

MR. MESEREAU: Now, when you say you learned that they were becoming demanding, could you tell the jury what you mean?

KIKI FOURNIER: Well, every night we'd make dinner, and he always wanted something other than what was made for dinner.

MR. MESEREAU: Who was this, now?

KIKI FOURNIER: Star. 

MR. MESEREAU: Would make demands on you personally?

KIKI FOURNIER: Yeah. They'd want certain kinds of foods made at certain times. And usually it was chicken noodle soup, which wasn't that difficult, but -- 

MR. MESEREAU: Would you get upset at those demands?

KIKI FOURNIER: Honestly, I got irritated sometimes because of the demand. There was so much to do. There was so much to do, and I -- when the kids got a little ornery, it was -- it was a lot. It really was. It was -- and I felt like there was no respect. 

MR. MESEREAU: And they seemed to sort of get very spoiled there at some point, didn't they?

KIKI FOURNIER: Yes. 

MR. MESEREAU: And weren't there complaints about their throwing candy?

KIKI FOURNIER: Yes. 

MR. MESEREAU: There were complaints about their throwing objects from the amusement rides?

KIKI FOURNIER: Yes. 

MR. MESEREAU: There were complaints from other employees that they were almost acting like they owned the place?

KIKI FOURNIER: I don't remember that one, but I know that they were getting a little ornery. 

MR. MESEREAU: Do you remember their crashing carts?

KIKI FOURNIER: All of them crashed the carts. I don't remember specifically if they did or not. 

MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Okay. Now, did you ever learn that they were caught with adult material?

MR. AUCHINCLOSS: 403 ruling. 

MR. MESEREAU: I think the Court said I could ask.

THE COURT: Overruled. 

MR. MESEREAU: BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever learn that?

KIKI FOURNIER: No, I don't remember that. 

MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever learn that they were caught masturbating in the unit?

KIKI FOURNIER: No. 

MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Okay. You never had any discussion with anyone about that?

KIKI FOURNIER: No. 

MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Okay. Do you recall learning that they had driven off the property at one point into town?

MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. 

MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever hear about that?

MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; foundation. 

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

THE WITNESS: I know that they left with Chris Carter one time. 

MR. MESEREAU: You don't have any knowledge of their going into town on their own, do you?

KIKI FOURNIER: No.


(End Excerpt from Court Transcripts)


Also, today, a TV weatherman who befriended the accuser's family testified that he gave them gifts and helped raise money even though they never asked him for anything.  

Fritz Coleman, the weather forecaster for KNBC in Los Angeles and a standup comedian, had been mentioned in opening statements by the defense, which suggested he was misled by the family into thinking they needed money for medical expenses when they actually had sufficient funds from the father's union insurance.

But Coleman was called to the stand by the prosecution, which has said the boy was introduced to Mr. Jackson through the owner of a Hollywood club who ran a comedy camp for underprivileged youth.  

Coleman said of the accuser, his brother and sister: "I found them personable and polite and charismatic."

He said that he first encountered them in 1999 when he was teaching a class at the Laugh Factory in Hollywood, where word spread that the family was impoverished and needed help.  

Coleman said he and a friend bought hundreds of dollars worth of gifts and took them to the family's home at Christmas.

"I got the feeling this might be the only Christmas they would have," he said, describing how he went to their one-room East Los Angeles apartment, where living spaces were separated by sheets.  

Later, he said, he heard that the eldest son had cancer and went to visit him in the hospital.

After that, he said, he participated in a fund-raiser and blood drive for the boy and made announcements on his TV broadcast urging people to come.

On cross-examination, Coleman said he did not know that the family had collected more than $100,000 in a lawsuit against J.C. Penney and that the mother mentioned him in that suit and had told Los Angeles police that he was going to help her in a domestic violence dispute with her husband.

Another witness, Deputy Shawn O'Grady, with the Santa Barbara Sheriff's office, was called to the stand to testify regarding specific books that prosecution had deemed to be sexually explicit. Using one particular book as an example, Mr. Mesereau brought clarification to this erroneous assumption in a short cross-examination.


(Excerpt from Court Transcripts)


MR. MESEREAU: Mr. O'Grady, you seized a book titled "Bidgood," and the name is "Taschen" at the bottom; is that correct?

DEPUTY O'GRADY: Yes, that's correct.

MR. MESEREAU: And do you know where that book came from?

DEPUTY O'GRADY: No.

MR. MESEREAU: Do you know that Mr. Taschen is a German photographer who was going to photograph the Jackson family?

DEPUTY O'GRADY: I have no idea, no.

MR. MESEREAU: Are you aware that Mr. Taschen sent this to Mr. Jackson?

DEPUTY O'GRADY: No, I do not.

MR. MESEREAU: And that's Peter Pan on the cover, correct?

DEPUTY O'GRADY: I don't know. It looks like a person playing a pan flute. Could be like a mythological person or something.

MR. MESEREAU: Okay. No further questions.

(End Excerpt from Court Transcripts)




Mr. Mesereau also questioned the apparent lack of formal and controlled procedure with regards to the seizure and fingerprinting of the items taken from the ranch.

.

.
Source: / AP

.

March 17, 2005

Day 13: Defense Creates Doubts About Seized Evidence

Created: Thursday, 17 March 2005

.
..

.

Day 13 in the Michael Jackson trial focused, for the most part, on the evidence that was seized from Mr. Jackson's residence.  The defense noted disqualifying details in the dates of some of the pubications as well as a lack of evidence to support their relevancy. 


Prosecutors showed jurors in the Michael Mr. Jackson case a series of sexually explicit magazines, DVDs and videos, not yet proven to belong to Michael Mr. Jackson, but yet were seized from Neverland Ranch. Upon questioning, witnesses reluctantly acknowledged that there was absolutely no evidence that Mr. Jackson had shown them to the boy he is accused of molesting.  The salacious impact on the jurors, clearly intended by the prosecution as they showed the 'adult' photos on the screen in the courtroom, was minimized by the expert cross-examination by the defense, where the evidence was clearly brought into serious doubt.

With his parents seated behind him, Mr. Jackson watched attentively Wednesday as prosecutors used a large screen to display movie and magazine covers featuring provocatively posed women in various stages of undress.

.

.

Jurors were stone-faced as they viewed the items and listened to detectives testify that they were found in Mr. Jackson's bedroom suite during an exhaustive Nov. 18, 2003, search.  Previously, it was revealed that law enforcement had originally asked the judge for permission to search Mr. Jackson's residence over a period of three days. This was denied and only one full day was permitted. However, law enforcement compensated by bringing very large numbers of personnel to the ranch to carry out the invasive search, led personally by District Attorney Tom Sneddon..

Prosecutors allege Mr. Jackson showed adult magazines to the accuser while trying to lure him into molestation. But witnesses acknowledged that one of the magazines and one DVD had dates on their covers indicating they were not available until after March 12, 2003, when Mr. Jackson's accuser left Neverland for the last time.

Witnesses also said under cross-examination that all the items were completely legal and sold in stores.

Defense attorney Robert Mr. Sanger noted that one Penthouse magazine had a cover date of July/August 2003 and asked Lt. Victor Alvarez, who participated in the search of Mr. Jackson's home, if the boy or his brother had alleged that Mr. Jackson showed them the magazine.

"This particular one?" Alvarez said, "I don't know."

The DVD had a printed release date of March 27, 2003 - 15 days after the family left the ranch.

Last week, the accuser's brother testified, with conviction in his voice, that a copy of Barely Legal magazine shown by the prosecution was the exact one Mr. Jackson had shown him. The defense pointed out that it was dated August 2003 over four months AFTER the final departure of the complaining witnesses from Mr. Jackson's ranch.

.

.

The new questions about the number of alleged molestations followed Robel's testimony Tuesday that the boy twice told investigators he was molested five times. The boy himself testified earlier to only two molestations but said he believed there may have been more.

Robel said Wednesday that the boy told him "it happened between five and seven times but he could not articulate exactly" what happened every time or when they took place.

The investigator said that since the first interviews of the boy in July 2003 he has only been able to provide detailed accounts of two alleged molestations.

.

..

..
Source: / AP

.

March 17, 2005

Day 12: Accuser's Contradictions Continue, Lead Prosecution Investigator Testifies

Created: Thursday, 17 March 2005
.

.

. Day 12 of Michael Jackson's trial began with the fourth and last day of testimony from the accuser. The teenage boy who says Michael Jackson molested him left the witness stand Tuesday after telling jurors that he denied the abuse to a school administrator because he was tired of the other kids making fun of him.

The conversation with the administrator occurred after the TV broadcast of a documentary that showed Jackson with the boy. The boy, now 15, testified he was harassed by schoolmates who said he had been "raped" by Jackson, and he got into fights as a result. He was then sent to see the school's dean, who asked him whether Jackson had molested him.

"I told him that it didn't happen," the boy said. "All the kids were already making fun of me at the school, and I didn't want anyone to think it had really happened."

The testimony came during direct questioning by District Attorney Tom Sneddon, just before the boy left the witness stand after four days. A day earlier, the defense got the teen to admit under cross-examination that he told the school official nothing happened during his stays at Jackson's Neverland ranch.

Sneddon also sought to counter a video showed by Jackson attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. showing the boy saying Jackson "was like a father to me." Sneddon asked the boy what he thinks of the pop star now.

"I don't really like him anymore," the boy said. "I don't really think he's deserving of the respect I was giving him as the coolest guy in the world."

Prosecutors claim the boy and his family were held captive for about a month at Neverland while Jackson used them to make a video rebutting the damaging TV documentary.

When Mr. Mesereau began his re-cross examination, he reminded the accuser of his very casual attitude surrounding the very serious grand jury proceedings, he reminded the accuser of the fact that he went so far as to joke about the proceedings that would ultimately throw many lives into turmoil.



(Excerpt from Court Transcript)

MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Do you remember when you were in front of the Santa Barbara Grand Jury, Mr. Sneddon told you there was an order that you not talk to the media, and your response was, "Oh, man, I was going to have a press conference"? Do you remember that?

ACCUSER: That was probably a joke.

MR. MESEREAU: That was a joke?

ACCUSER: Yeah.

MR. MESEREAU: So you're in front of the Santa Barbara Grand Jury talking about this case and you're telling a joke?

ACCUSER: Yes.

(End of Excerpt)


Under cross-examination, the boy said he did not take advantage of several opportunities to escape -- during trips to the dentist and a toy store -- because he did not want to leave.

"Those first few escapes you talked about -- I liked being at Neverland. It was like Disneyland," the boy said. The family left for good in March 2003.




(Excerpt from Court Transcript)


MR. MESEREAU: I see. So you went into town with Michael Jackson, correct?

ACCUSER: Yeah. Michael took us to Toys R Us.

MR. MESEREAU: You picked up some fans, correct, on the way?

ACCUSER: Yeah, Michael invited some people into our -- the thing.

MR. MESEREAU: You never complained to anyone in the store or any of these fans that anyone was being held against their will, correct?

ACCUSER: I was actually happy to be at Neverland all the time.

MR. MESEREAU: And you were happy to go --

ACCUSER: That's something you don't really understand, is that the majority of those times was -- the first few escapes that you talk about, I liked being at Neverland. That was like Disneyland. I loved being there. I had lots of fun. I mean, my mom was the one always worried. It wasn't until the last time that I realized "I don't want to be here."

MR. MESEREAU: Your mother was worried, but she always came back, right? Right?

ACCUSER: I guess so.

(End of Excerpt)




Mr. Mesereau also brought attention to, not only the accuser's lack of sensitivity for Mr. Jackson's skin condition (vitiligo), but through questioning, he exposes the accuser's apparent lack of knowledge of Mr. Jackson's vitiligo. Considering the fact that the accuser claims to have seen Mr. Jackson naked, he is surprisingly unaware of the effects of the disease.




(Excerpt from Court Transcript)

MR. MESEREAU: Finally, Mr. Arvizo, in your direct examination, you commented a couple of times on Mr. Jackson wearing makeup. Do you remember that?

ACCUSER: Here?

MR. MESEREAU: When you were answering Prosecutor Sneddon's questions, a couple of times you used the word "makeup" in referring to Michael Jackson, right?

ACCUSER: I said one time when he was -- a story about a time when we were in the room where his makeup was, but I don't remember me saying it a lot of times.

MR. MESEREAU: Now, you knew that Michael Jackson has a skin disease called vitiligo, right?

ACCUSER: He told me about it.

MR. MESEREAU: And he told you that he's an African-American man with a skin disease that eats up pigment in his skin, correct?

ACCUSER: Yes.

MR. MESEREAU: And you knew that that disease was causing certain patches of white and brown on his skin, right?

ACCUSER: Yes. I guess.

MR. MESEREAU: And --

ACCUSER: I don't know. It's not like I was making fun of him yesterday, if that's what you're trying to imply.

MR. MESEREAU: Well, you knew that his skin is vulnerable to sunlight, correct?

ACCUSER: Yes.

MR. MESEREAU: And that's why you see him with an umbrella, correct?

ACCUSER: Yes.

MR. MESEREAU: And you also knew, because of the patches that appear on his skin from that disease, he does sometimes put some makeup on, right?

ACCUSER: I didn't know about patches. I thought he was just all white.

MR. MESEREAU: Well, you discussed the skin disease with him, right?

ACCUSER: Yes.

MR. MESEREAU: You knew the skin disease was changing the color of his skin, right?

ACCUSER: That's what he told me.

MR. MESEREAU: And you knew that's why he put makeup on; true?

ACCUSER: Not really. I thought it was just because he had, like -- because he -- he didn't have pink on his lips, so he would put makeup on his lips. I mean, I wasn't making fun of him yesterday, if that's what you are trying to say.

MR. MESEREAU: You weren't making fun of him at all?

ACCUSER: No.

(End of Excerpt)


Mr. Mesereau did not hesitate to confront the subject of a civil lawsuit and the obvious financial opportunity that exists for the accuser until he is 18 years of age. The defense attorney ended his questioning by asking the accuser if he was aware of or had discussed this with anyone. The accuser denied any such knowledge.




(Excerpt from Court Transcript)

MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Now, you're aware, are you not, that you have until the age of 18 to file a lawsuit against Mr. Jackson if you choose to, correct?

ACCUSER: No.

MR. MESEREAU: You've never discussed that with your mother?

ACCUSER: No.

MR. MESEREAU: Never discussed that with Larry Feldman, the attorney?

ACCUSER: No.

MR. MESEREAU: And never discussed it with Bill Dickerman, the attorney?

ACCUSER: No.

MR. MESEREAU: Okay. You're also aware that if Mr. Jackson is convicted, you could automatically win that civil suit, right?

ACCUSER: No.

MR. MESEREAU: No one's ever discussed that with you?

ACCUSER: No. We said things like, oh, we don't want his money, and stuff like that.

MR. MESEREAU: Never discussed that issue with any attorney, right?

ACCUSER: No.

MR. MESEREAU: First time you've heard about it?

ACCUSER: About that I can -- you just told me now that I can sue him till I'm 18 or something like that? I didn't even know about that stuff.

MR. MESEREAU: Didn't even know about that, right? And never heard your mother mention it?

ACCUSER: No.

MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.

(End of Excerpt)


Later Tuesday, sheriff's Sgt. Steve Robel showed items seized from Jackson's ranch, including a black-and-white image of a nude woman and a sex magazine called Teenage, featuring a woman on the cover.

Under questioning by defense attorney Robert Sanger, Robel acknowledged that he didn't know of any witness who saw the items and that they were not illegal. Mr. Sanger noted the black-and-white nude is a collector's item.




(Excerpt from Court Transcript)

MR. SANGER: None of these items are per se illegal to possess, are they? I'll just put them up quickly. They're not contraband?

SERGEANT ROBEL: No, those are not illegal to possess, correct.

MR. SANGER: So when they say "teenaged," these are magazines that show models or people who are over -- who are 18 or over. However young they may look, that's -- they're 18 or over, as far as you can tell, correct?

SERGEANT ROBEL: They're supposed to be, yes.

MR. SANGER: And those are commercially available. You can go to a store and buy them, correct?

SERGEANT ROBEL: As far as I know, yes.

MR. SANGER: All right. Now, 283 -- I hate to just keep putting these up, but -- but 283 is a collector's item of some sort, is it not?

SERGEANT ROBEL: I really don't know.

MR. SANGER: Did you find some nudist magazines when you were looking around that were from the 1930s?

SERGEANT ROBEL: Inside that box?

MR. SANGER: Anywhere.

SERGEANT ROBEL: I believe some other people, some other searchers found that.

MR. SANGER: And you had no witness -- there was no witness that said they were shown that book or saw that book, as far as you know, right?

SERGEANT ROBEL: Correct.

MR. SANGER: All right. Now I'm going to put up 284. You seized that because it appeared to be a book that came within some concept of adult material; is that right?

SERGEANT ROBEL: Correct.

MR. SANGER: Do you know who Bruce Weber is?

SERGEANT ROBEL: I do not.

MR. SANGER: Now, when you were going through Mr. Jackson's home, did you see a number of items from notable people that were just lying around, or hanging on the wall, or sitting on a -- I'll give you some examples if you want. Did you see, for instance, a letter from Steven Spielberg that was just sitting on a table?

SERGEANT ROBEL: I did not see that, no.

MR. SANGER: All right. Did you see a letter from President Bush?

SERGEANT ROBEL: I believe I saw that, yes.

MR. SANGER: Did you see some correspondence from Ronald Reagan?

SERGEANT ROBEL: Yes.

(End of Excerpt)


Mr. Sanger continued his questioning regarding the books that were found at Mr. Jackson's house by 'walking' the witness through each room asking him how many books he thought were there. The investigator responded each time that there were hundreds, if not thousands, too many to count. He commented that it 'looked like a library.' Mr. Sanger pointed out the fact that Mr. Jackson receives many books as gifts and many are collector's items.


(Excerpt from Court Transcript)

MR. SANGER: All right. Now, this particular book, Mr. Weber, who's up there, Bruce Weber, The Chop Suey Club, were you aware that Mr. Weber sent this to Mr. Jackson unsolicited?

SERGEANT ROBEL: No, I'm not.

MR. SANGER: Were you aware that Mr. Weber was a photographer who had photographed The Jackson 5?

SERGEANT ROBEL: No.

MR. SANGER: Photographed other people, Nelson Mandela and a lot of other people?

SERGEANT ROBEL: No.

MR. SANGER: Inside that very book, there's an actual photograph of Elizabeth Taylor; is that correct?

SERGEANT ROBEL: It's been a while since I've looked at that book, so I couldn't say for sure.

MR. SANGER: Okay. And if I didn't specifically ask you on that, this, there was no witness that said they were shown this book or saw this book, is that correct, other than you and the officer that booked it into evidence?

SERGEANT ROBEL: To the best of my knowledge, yes.

(End of Excerpt)


Repeating and confirming the odd statement made previously by the accuser, the investigator admitted that in fact, when the accuser made the statement in this trial, "If men don't masturbate, they get to a level where they can -- might rape a girl." It was, apparently, the first time that the investigator had ever heard him attribute this to Mr. Jackson and that previously the accuser had said that he was told this by his Grandmother. Now, coincidently, the accuser stated that they both said the same thing to him.




(Excerpt from Court Transcript)

MR. SANGER: .This pertains to the story or the claims about masturbation. You were sitting here when Gavin Arvizo testified on the stand during this trial, correct?

SERGEANT ROBEL: Correct.

MR. SANGER: And he said that Michael Jackson told him, "If men don't masturbate, they get to a level where they can -- might rape a girl." Do you remember that?

SERGEANT ROBEL: I do.

MR. SANGER: Okay. That was the first time you ever heard Gavin Arvizo attribute that statement to Michael Jackson, was it not, sir?

SERGEANT ROBEL: I believe so.

MR. SANGER: And, in fact, Gavin Arvizo told you on August 13, 2003, that it was his grandmother who told him, "If men don't do it, men might get to a point where they might go ahead and rape a woman." Is that correct? Page 28, if you want to take a look at it.

SERGEANT ROBEL: I'd like to do that.

MR. SANGER: August 13th.

SERGEANT ROBEL: Is that 28 you said?

MR. SANGER: Yes. 28, line 4, starts, "My grandma explained it to me."

SERGEANT ROBEL: Yes.

MR. SANGER: And you remember him saying that because, in fact, you testified before the grand jury on April 14th that -- of 2004, that Gavin, in fact, told you that his grandmother said that; is that correct, sir?

SERGEANT ROBEL: That's correct.

MR. SANGER: And, in fact, in the August 13, 2003, interview, Gavin said, "My grandma explained it to me. She told me that -- that you're -- the only reason -- because like if -- if men don't do it, men might get to a point where they might go ahead and rape a woman. So instead of having to do that, so they don't -- so they don't get wanting to go do that." Did he say that?

SERGEANT ROBEL: Yes.

(End of Excerpt)


The day was not without its share of verbal sparring of objections between the prosecution and defense. The prosecution, most notably, found some creative reasonings for their objections.




(Excerpt from Court Transcript)

MR. SANGER: .Were there inconsistencies -- besides the one we just talked about, were there inconsistencies --

MR. SNEDDON: I'm going to object to that kind of talk from counsel. It's a conclusion on his part.

MR. SANGER: "That kind of talk"? I object to the objection as not being proper. Let me withdraw it, Your Honor.

THE COURT: There's no question there, so go ahead and make a -- do a question.

(End of Excerpt)

The defense also brought into focus the exact time frame and significant dates of the past few years using visual aids, with the witness' help, to clarify for the jury members. Mr. Sanger went through each significant event one, by one. He paid particular attention to the dates surrounding the molestation accusations, encouraging the investigator to be as specific as he could about his understanding of each alleged occurrence.


(Excerpt from Court Transcript)

MR. SANGER: Now, in January -- on January 19, '04 - again, you don't remember the exact interview. And you're going to review that and see if you recall more of it later - but did you become aware, as the lead investigator in this case, that Gavin Arvizo then told you he wasn't sure when these events occurred, and that you guys would probably know the dates?

SERGEANT ROBEL: I would have to read -- was that said during that interview?

MR. SANGER: Yes.

SERGEANT ROBEL: Okay. I don't recall that. I'd have to review that as well.

MR. SANGER: Were you advised that was now an issue?

SERGEANT ROBEL: No.

MR. SANGER: Okay. And you're aware of his grand jury testimony; is that correct?

SERGEANT ROBEL: Portions of it, yes.

MR. SANGER: And in the grand jury he went back to saying it was after the Calabasas trip from March 2 through March 12th; is that correct?

SERGEANT ROBEL: I believe that is correct.

MR. SANGER: And you determined, did you not, that Michael Jackson was not at the ranch during that entire period of time, did you not?

SERGEANT ROBEL: Which period of time are you talking?

MR. SANGER: From March 2 through March 12th.

SERGEANT ROBEL: Yes. Wait. Wait. I'm sorry. That he was not there or that he was there?

MR. SANGER: Was he there the entire time, every day? Did you determine whether he was or he wasn't?

SERGEANT ROBEL: Not -- from March 2nd through the 12th?

MR. SANGER: Yes.

SERGEANT ROBEL: There were some -- a couple of days, two or three days, that he was not there.

MR. SANGER: All right. There were two, three days that you were able to establish he was somewhere else?

SERGEANT ROBEL: Showing that he was off the ranch.

(End of Excerpt)


Mr. Sanger also attempted to have the investigator discuss any information he may have pertaining to the contradictions in the accuser's testimony. The investigator was prevented from answering due to an objection by the prosecution.


 (Excerpt from Court Transcript)

MR. SANGER: Okay. Well, there was -- there were conflicts in what they described. For instance, Gavin described his brother as wearing boxers, whereas his brother described that he was wearing pajamas, right?

MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I'm going to object. It's vague in terms of what incidents he's talking about.

THE COURT: Sustained.

(End of Excerpt)



Towards the end of the day, Mr. Sanger reviewed the initial meeting that the law enforcement had with the accusing family and the seemingly biased information and advice they were giving by the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Dept. After reading the investigators words from the transcript, justifiably, Mr. Sanger asks, ". So that's not the statement of somebody who has an open mind who's looking to see whether or not these people are telling the truth, is it?"


(Excerpt from Court Transcript)

MR. SANGER: All right. So June 20, you had information that had been obtained from Dr. Katz, and July 7th, you proceed to interview the kids, right?

SERGEANT ROBEL: That is correct.

MR. SANGER: And on that date, you indicated that, "We're going to try our best to make this case work"; is that correct?

SERGEANT ROBEL: Let me refer to that.

MR. SANGER: You can look at -- it's in Davellin's interview, page 33.

SERGEANT ROBEL: Okay. I'm on page 33. There was quite a bit more where that - in addition to what I said in regards to that.

MR. SANGER: Well, we can read the whole thing.

SERGEANT ROBEL: Okay. I already read the whole thing.

MR. SANGER: All right. So you said to Davellin at the -- towards the end of her interview, "Okay. Okay. One thing I wanted to say and emphasize to you is that you guys are doing the right thing here. You know what, I know it's scary, and I realize -- really realize that you guys are going through a lot and you've been through a lot as a family. They're the ones that have done wrong, not you. And trust me in this, and trust Detective Zelis, we're law enforcement. We're going to try our best to make this case work. I can't guarantee it, where it's going to go from here, but that's why we're interviewing everybody involved. I don't care how much money they have" - do you want me to keep going? - "who he is, what -- but he's done wrong. You guys are the victims. Your family is. He is wrong in what he's done. We're going to try our best. Can't guarantee it. We're going to try our best to bring him to justice." Did you say that?

SERGEANT ROBEL: I definitely said that.

MR. SANGER: Okay. So that's not the statement of somebody who has an open mind who's looking to see whether or not these people are telling the truth, is it?

(End of Excerpt)



Michael Jackson said he was upbeat about the way his trial was going, but that his back was still giving him a hard time.

"I'm feeling pretty good, but I'm in pain," he told journalists outside the Santa Maria courtroom.

Jackson caused a stir Thursday when he showed up for court late and wearing pajamas and slippers after being treated briefly at a local hospital for back pain.

While his condition has since improved, the air-conditioning in the California courtroom has been affecting his back, his spokeswoman Raymone Bain said, adding that the condition may well be stress related.

But she also said that he was happy about the way the trial is going. "Mr. Jackson feels his defense team is doing a very good job," she told reporters on Tuesday.

She said that the star has been in daily telephone contact with civil rights activist Reverend Jesse Jackson, whom she described as his spiritual advisor.

She said that during their conversation early Tuesday, the two prayed together.

Jackson, who wakes up around 4:30 a.m. (1200 GMT), generally always plays with his children in the afternoon, following his court appearance. At times he will go out with the kids, usually to buy them ice-cream or popcorn, she said. Later in the evening the star focuses on his case, she said.

Jackson's parents have been accompanying their son to court, where a group of fans are always present and loudly proclaim the innocence of their idol, who usually acknowledges their support with a wave and his signature peace sign from under his equally emblematic black umbrella.

.
Source: / AP

.

March 15, 2005

Day 11: Accuser States, Repeatedly, Michael Jackson 'did nothing to me'

Created: Tuesday, 15 March 2005

On Day 11 of the Michael Jackson trial Attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. had to work very hard to get a straight answer out of the prosecution’s star witness, the 15 year old accuser, himself.   In a testimony which seemed to consist of numerous memory losses, restatements of events and many other incomplete sentences that seemed to be an avoidance of giving direct answers, the accuser presented his ‘side’ of the story under cross-examination.  

Mr. Mesereau was compelled, on numerous occasions, to show the accuser transcripts of his previous statements to law enforcement and various cards and letters that were referenced in order to ‘refresh’ his often, what seemed to be, a very ‘sketchy’ memory.  The accuser used the non-committal phrases “I think…” and “I don’t know” over 90 times each, over the course of the day. Additionally, there were 15 “I don’t think so’s” and 40 ‘Not Really’s”.

The accuser was undaunted by the persistent questioning of the defense attorney, often giving answers verging on sarcasm and confrontation, especially when discussing his repeated disciplinary problems at school and many encounters with various teachers that were forced to report his bad behavior.
 


(Excerpt from Court Transcript)

MR. MESEREAU: Who is Mr. Finklestein?

ACCUSER: He was my math teacher.

MR. MESEREAU: You had problems in that class also, didn't you?

ACCUSER: I think everyone in his class had a problem with him.

MR. MESEREAU: Let me just ask about you. Did you have problems in Mr. Finklestein's class?

ACCUSER: I was "everyone."

MR. MESEREAU: Pardon me?

ACCUSER: I was one of the "everyone."

MR. MESEREAU: You're saying everybody had a problem?

ACCUSER: If everyone had a problem, then I would be one of them, right?

MR. MESEREAU: I'm just asking about yourself. Okay? Did you have problems with your conduct --

ACCUSER: Yes.

MR. MESEREAU: -- in Mr. Finklestein's class?

ACCUSER: Yes.

MR. MESEREAU: Please tell the jury what those problems were.

ACCUSER: Same problems with every other teacher.


(End of excerpt from Court Transcript)


The teenage boy who has accused Michael Jackson of molesting him acknowledged under cross-examination Monday that he told Jeffrey Alpert, the dean at John Burroughs Middle School in Los Angeles, where the boy had a history of acting up in many of his classes, that Mr. Jackson "didn't do anything to me," and that Mr. Jackson was like a father to him.

Mr. Mesereau, during his cross-examination, quoted Alpert as telling the accuser: "Look at me, look at me. ... I can't help you unless you tell me the truth — did any of this happen?"

   
(Excerpt from Court Transcript)

 MR. MESEREAU:  Did Mr. Sneddon tell you he had been in an interview with a Mr. Alpert on Saturday?

ACCUSER: Yes. Well, I don't know if -- no, he said if I was -- if Mr. -- the dean, Alpert, interviewed me or talked to me.

MR. MESEREAU: And did he ask you questions about any discussions you ever had with Dean Alpert at John Burroughs School?

ACCUSER: Yeah, he asked some questions about it.

MR. MESEREAU: In fact, Mr. Arvizo, he asked you whether you had been interviewed by Dean Alpert and whether you had confessed to him that Mr. Jackson never did anything to you of a sexual nature, right?

ACCUSER: Yeah.

MR. MESEREAU: Why didn't you say that at the beginning?

ACCUSER: I told Mr. Alpert that he didn't do anything to me.

MR. MESEREAU: You told Dean Alpert that twice, correct?

ACCUSER: I don't know how many times I told him.

(End of excerpt from Court Transcript)


Striking at the heart of the prosecution's allegations of child molestation and conspiracy, defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. confronted the now-15-year-old boy with a video tribute by the boy and his family in which they credited Mr. Jackson with changing their lives and helping to cure the boy of cancer.

The video had already been shown in the trial twice. This time, Mr. Mesereau stopped it repeatedly to ask if the boy and his family were lying. In most instances, the boy said they were speaking the truth.

"Michael was nice to me," he testified. "I felt like he was a father to me."

Prosecutors allege Mr. Jackson's associates had the boy's family make the video after the broadcast of an infamous documentary in which Mr. Jackson said he allowed the boy to sleep in his bed while he slept on the floor. The prosecution claims the rebuttal video was staged and scripted.

Mr. Mesereau asked if the family turned on Mr. Jackson and invented the molestation and conspiracy story because they were being evicted from his Neverland ranch.

"We realized he wasn't as nice a guy as we thought he was," the boy said.

 


(Excerpt from Court Transcript)

MR. MESEREAU: Until you realized you were not going to be part of Michael Jackson's family, you never made any allegation of child molestation, correct?

ACCUSER: I didn't want to be part of his family. I just saw him as a father figure.

MR. MESEREAU: Until you realized Michael Jackson was not going to meet you in Brazil, you never made any allegation of child molestation, right?

ACCUSER: I didn't even really want to go to Brazil.

MR. MESEREAU: Until you left Neverland for the last time, you never made any allegation of child molestation, correct?

ACCUSER: I didn't tell anyone until I left for the last time, correct.

MR. MESEREAU: And never called the police until after you'd seen two lawyers, right?

MR. SNEDDON: Object as argumentative, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Yes, it wasn't until I saw two lawyers until I told the police what really happened.

 (End of excerpt from Court Transcript)

 
 

Mr. Mesereau also discussed the alleged conspiracy to hold the family against their will, in spite of the fact that they were constantly in public places, being treated to many gifts, courtesy of Michael Jackson. Mr. Mesereau highlighted the fact, by asking the accuser directly, that no one ever, not once, asked for help or told anyone that they were being held involuntarily.

 


(Excerpt from Court Transcript)

MR. MESEREAU: When you were at the Calabasas Inn, was there a phone in your room?

ACCUSER: I'm pretty sure there was.

MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever see anybody call the police?

ACCUSER: No.

MR. MESEREAU: When you were shopping near the Calabasas Inn, to your knowledge, did anyone ever scream "help"?

ACCUSER: No, I don't think so.

MR. MESEREAU: Ever see your mother do it?

ACCUSER: No.

MR. MESEREAU: Ever see Star do it?

ACCUSER: No.

MR. MESEREAU: Ever see your sister do it?

ACCUSER: No.

MR. MESEREAU: You didn't do it either, correct?

ACCUSER: No.

MR. MESEREAU: After you escaped from Neverland the first time, where did you go?

ACCUSER: I think we went to my grandmother's house.

MR. MESEREAU: To your knowledge, did anybody call the police and say, "We've been" --

ACCUSER: No, because the thing was, like I --

MR. MESEREAU: Let me just finish my question.

ACCUSER: Okay.

MR. MESEREAU: After you say you escaped from Neverland the first time, you went to your grandparents', correct?

ACCUSER: Yes.

MR. MESEREAU: And how did you get there?

ACCUSER: Jesus Salas drove us there.

MR. MESEREAU: Do you recall anyone ever calling the police and saying, "We've just been held against our will"?

ACCUSER: No. Because like I -- my mom was --

MR. MESEREAU: Let me just ask you the questions. Okay? Nobody did, right?

ACCUSER: No.

MR. MESEREAU: A few days later, you went back to Neverland, right?

ACCUSER: I believe -- yes.

 (End of excerpt from Court Transcript)

 
Also during cross-examination, the boy denied instances of being caught drinking wine at Neverland, reading "girlie magazines" and masturbating in a guest house while Mr. Jackson wasn't around.

 


(Excerpt from Court Transcript)

MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Arvizo, you were caught masturbating at Neverland when Michael Jackson wasn't even around, weren't you?

ACCUSER: No.

MR. MESEREAU: You were caught masturbating in a guest quarters, weren't you?

ACCUSER: No.

MR. MESEREAU: No one ever saw you do that?

ACCUSER: No.

MR. MESEREAU: No one ever talked to you about that?

 (End of excerpt from Court Transcript)

 
 
The accuser also denied he ever spoke to Jay Leno, but said he once placed a call to the comedian from a hospital and left a message on an answering machine.

The defense, which claims the family sought to get money from celebrities, has said that Jay Leno, himself, alerted police after a call from the boy because he thought the family was looking for a "mark."

Mr. Mesereau also cross-examined the accuser about similarities between a statement he testified Mr. Jackson made about masturbation and an earlier statement the boy attributed to his grandmother.

On Thursday, the boy testified Mr. Jackson had told him if men do not masturbate, they might rape women. Mr. Mesereau noted the boy told sheriff's investigators in an interview his grandmother had told him almost the exact same thing.

"Why did your story change between that interview and your testimony last Thursday?" Mr. Mesereau asked.

The boy denied changing his story. He said both his grandmother and Mr. Jackson had told him the same thing, but the context was different.

"She was telling me it was OK to do it, and Michael was saying you have to do it," the boy said.

Additionally, the accuser’s story has also morphed considerably regarding the alleged consumption of alcohol at the ranch. Mr. Mesereau noted that is has gotten more elaborate with each interview.

 


(Excerpt from Court Transcript)

MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Arvizo, do you recall discussing with the Santa Barbara Sheriffs your claim that you were drinking in the arcade with Michael Jackson?

ACCUSER: Yes.

MR. MESEREAU: Do you recall telling them the following: "We didn't drink a lot"?

ACCUSER: No.

MR. MESEREAU: Would it refresh your recollection if I show you a transcript from that interview?

ACCUSER: Yes.

MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SNEDDON: I'm sorry, Counsel, what page was that?

MR. MESEREAU: 26.

MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Arvizo, have you had a chance to look at that page?

ACCUSER: Yes.

MR. MESEREAU: Does it refresh your recollection about what you told the Santa Barbara Sheriffs?

ACCUSER: Not really.

MR. MESEREAU: You told them, "We didn't drink a lot," right?

ACCUSER: I don't know. It says it on there.

MR. MESEREAU: Do you recall saying that?

ACCUSER: No.

MR. MESEREAU: Pardon me?

ACCUSER: No.

MR. MESEREAU: Do you deny saying that?

ACCUSER: I don't know if I ever said that.

MR. MESEREAU: Would you agree that every time you were interviewed, your stories of drinking got worse and worse, correct?

ACCUSER: No.

MR. MESEREAU: You initially told them you didn't drink a lot?

ACCUSER: That's true.

MR. MESEREAU: Then you started telling them you drank a lot, and then you started telling them, "We drank every night," correct?

ACCUSER: Well, "a lot" would be every night, so it would really --

MR. MESEREAU: Pardon me?

ACCUSER: "A lot" would be every night.

MR. MESEREAU: And you're saying after Miami that you basically were drinking every single evening at Neverland, correct?

ACCUSER: No, I told him that every single evening that Michael was there. In those transcripts, probably when -- I still -- I don't know.

MR. MESEREAU: Isn't it true that every time you were interviewed, your stories of drinking got bigger and bigger and bigger?

ACCUSER: No.

 (End of excerpt from Court Transcript)

 
 


At he left court Monday, Mr. Jackson told reporters: "Mr. Mesereau did a great job."

 
Source: / AP

.

March 11, 2005

Day 10: MOTIONS - No Visit to Neverland for Jury & Judge Says You Can't Turn Jury into Accountants

Created: Friday, 11 March 2005

Day 10 of Michael Jackson's trial consisted of a series of motions from both sides. Mr. Jackson was not required to attend and remained at home to recuperate from a back injury, Friday, while his attorneys were in court battling prosecution efforts and questioning the relevance, to expose his private financial records. Judge Melville said he would allow only minimal evidence on Mr. Jackson's financial condition, saying "I don't want to inundate the jury with a lot of figures that don't tell a story. I don't think you can turn the jury into accountants."

In spite of defense denials, Assistant District Attorney Gordon Auchincloss repeated his assertions that Mr. Jackson is in "financial peril" and all of his troubles "will all come crashing down on him in December of 2005."

Defense attorney Robert Sanger angrily objected to Auchincloss' technique of providing "sound bites for the media" in his arguments rather than addressing issues pertinent to the case. He said the prosecutor's focus on Mr. Jackson's finances has no relevance to his finances in 2003, the year at issue in the trial.

The judge responded: "I do not wish to extend this trial with a lot of emphasis on his finances," and Auchincloss finally agreed that "all we are looking for is a concise snapshot of the defendant's financial condition."

Judge Melville suggested that is all he will allow. He said he understood the prosecution theory that Mr. Jackson had reason to "take drastic actions to protect his image" after the airing of a damaging documentary called "Living With Michael Jackson."

But he urged lawyers to confer and reach an agreement by next Thursday on the issue of financial records.

Defense attorneys also requested that the sexual conduct of two of the complaining witnesses be brought into evidence.  It is, as yet, unclear as to who these 'complaining witnesses' might be. The judge refused the motion to consider the female complaining witness, but advised Attorney Susan Yu, who prepared the motion, that he would consider it if she added a missing detail.

Mr. Jackson's spokeswoman Raymone Bain told The Associated Press that Mr. Jackson continued to be in pain Friday from a back injury that caused him to be late for court on Thursday, an incident that incurred the judge's wrath. There was no discussion of the matter in court Friday.

Meanwhile, Melville issued a number of other rulings, among them:


-He said that comedian Jay Leno, an expected witness in the molestation trial, can continue to crack jokes at Mr. Jackson's expense as long as he doesn't discuss the facts of his testimony.

-He refused to let the jurors take a field trip to Mr. Jackson's Neverland estate. Mr. Jackson lawyer Thomas Mr. Mesereau Jr. said it was essential for jurors to see the locations that have been central to testimony. "I don't think there's ever been a crime scene that cries out for a jury view more than this," Mr. Mesereau said, adding that he did not believe video "snippets" of tapes were adequate to give a proper impression of Neverland. The judge said the jury was seeing enough through videotapes. "I've never seen so many videotapes," he said, "and I'm sure I haven't seen the end of them."

-Judge Melville rejected a request by media attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr. to release video exhibits in the case for broadcast by TV outlets. "The public funds the courts, and the public has the right to see this evidence," said Boutrous. The judge said those who want to see the videos can come to court. Boutrous said he will appeal the ruling.

-Judge Melville reiterated that he won't let the defense "relitigate" a lawsuit brought by the accuser's mother against J.C. Penny stores that resulted in her receiving a $150,000 settlement after claiming sexual abuse and battery. The defense seeks to show the family has a history of making false claims to get money.

-The judge said rulings he has made in the past about testimony involving comedian George Lopez will stand, but added, "There is more involvement with Mr. Lopez and his family than was originally thought, and you might want to call him (as a witness) for other purposes." He did not elaborate.
.

.
Source: / AP

.

March 11, 2005

Day 9: Michael Jackson Suffers Back Pain and Hears Accuser Minimize His Benevolence

Created: Friday, 11 March 2005

Day 9 in Michael Jackson's trial brought with it unexpected events to the already highly-anticipated day of proceedings. Mr. Jackson arrived swiftly at the courthouse in Santa Maria at 9:40 am, an hour and ten minutes after court was scheduled to begin. Mr. Jackson was delayed at the hospital where he had been treated early that morning for severe back pain at the direction of his advisors. 

As a result of the unexpected amount of time he was kept at the hospital, Mr. Jackson was not afforded the time or opportunity to return home to change his clothes and was forced to wear his pajama bottoms, much to the apparent shock and horror of the eagerly waiting media troops.

Judge Melville informed the jury, "Mr. Jackson had a medical problem and it was necessary for me to order his appearance." He added that he did not want the panel to draw any negative inferences from the developments.

Mr. Jackson has suffered many back injuries over the course of his legendary career, including a sudden and dramatic fall from a four-storey 'bridge' during a concert in Germany in 1999 during a performance of 'Earth Song'.

(Exclusive to MJJsource Premium Members: MJJsource will soon be featuring exclusive video of this performance!)

At 8:35 am, Judge Melville issued a warrant for Mr. Jackson's arrest and threatened to forfeit his bail if Mr. Jackson did not appear in one hour, which would have been 9:35 am. Mr. Jackson's attorney, Tom Mesereau had, in fact, called the judge shortly after speaking to Mr. Jackson about the situation at 5:15am that morning. 

According to Raymone Bain, Mr. Jackson's Publicist, "Mr. Jackson fully expected, and had every intention, of being in court on time.  Mr. Jackson did not expect to be held at the hospital as long as he was. 

"Had Mr. Jackson had the time to change clothes, he certainly would have. But it was very important for him to get to the courthouse as soon as possible. 

"Mr. Jackson was looking forward to facing his accuser and is not, in any way, intimidated by his accuser. Mr. Jackson feels his attorneys have been doing an excellent job."

Mr. Jackson was clearly in pain and his attorneys confirmed that he was in terrible discomfort throughout the proceedings.

At the end of the day, Judge Melville, outside the presence and hearing of the jury, rescinded the arrest warrant for Mr. Jackson and restored the bail bond.

The other events of the days included the first full day of testimony from Mr. Jackson's accuser. As the most critical day of his trial so far, Michael Jackson heard his accuser level graphic allegations of child molestation at him.  It was a testimony filled with many "I don't knows" and  "I don't remembers" and  some interesting conclusions drawn from a chain of events and facts that would seem to logically suggest the opposite.  

He voiced accusations of lewd acts by Jackson and then engaged in a combative exchange with Mr. Mesereau, Mr. Jackson's lawyer.

"After you met with an attorney, you came up with a story that you were masturbated by Michael Jackson," attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. said in an attack on the most damaging testimony given against Jackson.

The boy denied that attorneys influenced him and he became defensive under the cross-examination. He said he once considered Jackson his "best friend in the world" but indicated he felt rejected by the star at one point.

Under questioning by District Attorney Tom Sneddon, in testimony that was hushed and sometimes mumbled, the boy said he remembered two sexual encounters.

In opening statements, the defense noted that absolutely no DNA from the boy was found anywhere in Jackson's bedroom.

Continuing the pattern of testimony discrepancies set by his brother and sister, the accuser's testimony differed from his brother's earlier testimony and it was unclear if they were talking about the same incidents. The brother said he saw Jackson and the boy in their underwear and that the boy was asleep. The brother also said the boy was on top of the bedcovers.

On cross-examination, Mr. Mesereau alleged the accuser was making up the story. Mr. Jackson's attorneys have said the molestation claims are an attempt by the accuser's family to get money.

"Only after you met with Larry Feldman you started talking about inappropriate touching," said Mr. Mesereau, referring to a lawyer who handled another boy's allegations against Jackson in 1993 that ended with a civil settlement.

"I never told Larry Feldman," the boy said.

He acknowledged that he and his family went back to Neverland several times after meeting with attorneys.

Mr. Mesereau also attacked the boy's testimony that he did not feel that Jackson had done much for him when he had cancer.

"I didn't see him much," the boy said. "He was my best friend in the world and my best friend was trying to avoid me when I had cancer."

Mesereau, however, said Jackson called the boy three times a week for conversations of two to three hours, gave him gifts, invited him and his family to stay at Neverland for weeks at a time, had them stay at a Florida resort and had them chauffeured in limousines and a Rolls-Royce.

"Did your family go back and forth and stay at Neverland for free?" Mesereau asked.

"Everybody stays at Neverland for free," the boy answered defensively.

He was asked whether he knew that Jackson conducted a blood drive for him at Neverland.

"I heard something about a blood drive but I don't remember," he said.

"Can you look this jury in the eye and say that Michael did nothing for you when you had cancer?" Mr. Mesereau asked incredulously.  

"I didn't say he did nothing," the boy said. He said he felt other celebrities he had gotten to know did more for him, although he acknowledged that none had invited his family to live with them.

*(See court transcript except below)

The session ended with Mr. Mesereau questioning the boy about a lawsuit that his mother brought against J.C. Penney stores, claiming that the family had been abused by security guards.

He noted that in a deposition in that suit the boy said he was told what to say by lawyers, but the boy denied that Thursday.

Mr. Mesereau's cross-examination of the boy will resume Monday; the court planned to handle pending motions Friday.

As he left court, Mr. Jackson was asked if he was in pain and he gingerly winced and nodded.


 (* Court Transcript Excerpt)

ACCUSER: Michael would call me during the -- probably -- during the beginning of my cancer, probably three times a week. And I would call him and we would talk for a long time. We would talk about video games. We would talk about people he knew, people I knew, stuff like that.

MR. MESEREAU: In the hospital, right?

ACCUSER: Sometimes he would call me in the hospital.

MR. MESEREAU: I'd like to explore your statement to the jury that he didn't do much to you -- much for you when you had cancer.

ACCUSER: Okay.

MR. MESEREAU: You've just talked about the calls, right?

ACCUSER: Yeah.

MR. MESEREAU: He invites your family to his home, correct?

ACCUSER: He invited us to Neverland in the beginning, yeah.

MR. MESEREAU: He lets your family stay at his home for weeks, correct?

ACCUSER:  Yeah.

MR. MESEREAU: He gives you a car to use, true?

ACCUSER: Yes, same car he takes back in the middle of the time that I really needed a -- that my family needed a car.

MR. MESEREAU: Gives your family an SUV so they can go back and forth to the hospital, right?

ACCUSER: Yes.

MR. MESEREAU: Gives you a computer, right?

ACCUSER: Yes.

MR. MESEREAU: Flies your family to Florida and lets them stay at a resort for two nights, right?

ACCUSER: No, he took me to Florida in result of the Martin Bashir documentary that was being aired.

MR. MESEREAU: Did your family stay at the resort hotel called Turnberry in Florida?

ACCUSER: Michael put us up in the resort, in the Turnberry.

MR. MESEREAU: Did you get a massage?

ACCUSER: Yes. Chris Tucker paid for that massage.

MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Did you get a massage?

ACCUSER: Yes. Chris Tucker paid for that massage.

MR. MESEREAU: Did you get a watch --

ACCUSER: Yes.

MR. MESEREAU: -- from Mr. Jackson?

ACCUSER: Yes.

MR. MESEREAU: Did you get a jacket from Mr. Jackson?

ACCUSER: Yes.

MR. MESEREAU: Did your family go back and forth and stay at Neverland free?

ACCUSER: Everyone stays at Neverland for free.

MR. MESEREAU: Well, who do you think pays the bills?

MR. SNEDDON: Object as argumentative, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, on both parts. Let's start another question. Don't --

MR. MESEREAU: BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Arvizo --

THE COURT: Just a minute. I'm sorry. I'll instruct both the witness and the attorney not to argue with each other.

MR. MESEREAU: BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Arvizo, your family would stay for weeks free of charge at Neverland, true?

ACCUSER: Yes.

MR. MESEREAU: Your meals would be paid by -- for by Mr. Jackson, true?

ACCUSER: Probably. Yes.

MR. MESEREAU: Do you know someone else that paid for it?

ACCUSER: No. But I was pretty sure it was Michael.

MR. MESEREAU: You would travel by limousine back and forth, true?

ACCUSER: Yes.

MR. MESEREAU: You also traveled by Rolls Royce on occasion, true?

ACCUSER: No, I only traveled in a Rolls Royce when I was escaping from Neverland with Jesus.

MR. MESEREAU: When you were escaping?

ACCUSER: Yes.

MR. MESEREAU: And you went back -- how long after you escaped did you go back there again?

ACCUSER: I think a few days later, when Vinnie and Frank came down.

MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Okay. When you escaped, where did Jesus take you?

ACCUSER: He took me to my grandmother's house.

MR. MESEREAU: And then two days later you went back with Vinnie?

ACCUSER: I don't know about two days, but maybe a few days.

MR. MESEREAU: So you went back, and then you escaped a second time, right?

ACCUSER: I think so. Whatever.

MR. MESEREAU: And then you went back and you escaped a third time, right?

ACCUSER: No.

MR. MESEREAU: Well, there were like three escapes, weren't there?

ACCUSER: I don't know.

MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Have you ever talked to Mr. Sneddon about how many times you people went back voluntarily and then escaped from Neverland?

ACCUSER: Mr. Sneddon?

MR. MESEREAU: Yes.

ACCUSER: I think we did. I'm pretty sure we did.

MR. MESEREAU: When you were at Neverland, you would use the amusement park when you wanted, correct?

ACCUSER: Yes. But -- well, I couldn't always do it because I would feel sick all the time --

MR. MESEREAU: Well --

ACCUSER: -- with cancer.

MR. MESEREAU: -- who do you think paid the utilities to run all the amusement rides at Neverland?

ACCUSER: Probably Michael.

MR. MESEREAU: And you would use the zoo when you wanted, correct?

ACCUSER: No, because I wouldn't go to the zoo.  Michael would take us over there when he wanted to take us over there, and we'd see the tigers.

MR. MESEREAU: Who do you think was paying for all of that?

ACCUSER: Michael, because Michael wanted all that in his house.

MR. MESEREAU: Oh. And do you think he was really being good to you by letting you stay there and go to the zoo, the amusement rides?

ACCUSER: He probably was. But, I mean, this is talking about the first few months. And I don't really -- see, Mr. Mesereau, it takes more --

MR. MESEREAU: Objection, Your Honor. Could he just answer the question?

THE COURT: Sustained. Just answer the question.

MR. MESEREAU: Did you use ATV's at Neverland?

ACCUSER: Yes. Yes.

MR. MESEREAU: Who paid for the ATV's?

ACCUSER: I'm pretty sure Michael paid for the ATV's.

MR. MESEREAU: What else did you do at Neverland when you used to hang out there with your brother, your sister, your father, your mother?

ACCUSER: Probably be in my unit, because I was sick.

MR. MESEREAU: Was there a blood drive for you at Neverland?

ACCUSER: Yeah.

MR. MESEREAU: And Mr. Jackson put that together, didn't he?

ACCUSER: Probably.

MR. MESEREAU: You don't know?

ACCUSER: No, I heard something about a blood drive, but I can't really remember too much about it.

MR. MESEREAU: You don't remember a blood drive at Neverland that Mr. Jackson put together for you when you had cancer?

ACCUSER: I remember -- I remember something about my friend -- my friend had come down to the hospital and told me about it, but I don't -- I remember something about a blood drive, but I'm not too sure about it. He -- I'm pretty sure he did.

MR. MESEREAU: Now, I believe you told the jury yesterday you thought George Lopez did more for you when you had cancer than Michael Jackson, correct?

ACCUSER: Yeah. For my 11 year-old mind, he came and visited me and would always talk to me and buy me shirts and stuff.

MR. MESEREAU: Did Mr. Lopez let your family move into his home?

MR. SNEDDON: Object as argumentative, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. MESEREAU: BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Arvizo, did Mr. Lopez give you a Rolls Royce for your family to ride around town in?

ACCUSER: No.

MR. MESEREAU: Did he provide limousines for your family to ride around town in?

ACCUSER: No.

MR. MESEREAU: Did he pay a lot of your bills so your family could stay at hotels?

ACCUSER: I don't know. That's up to my --

MR. MESEREAU: Did he pay for flights so your family could go cross country?

ACCUSER: I'm pretty sure he did, to pay for us to go to Miami.

MR. MESEREAU: How many times do you think your family visited Neverland and stayed there?

ACCUSER: Every time Michael wanted us to.

MR. MESEREAU: But you went there many times when Michael wasn't even there, right, Mr. Arvizo?

ACCUSER: Only with Michael's permission.

MR. MESEREAU: Did you and your family go to Neverland and stay many times when Michael Jackson wasn't even around?

ACCUSER: I would. Not my whole family. Me and my father would. Because in the first two months of my cancer, when I was -- when I thought I was pretty close to Michael, I would go up there and stay with him between my rounds of chemotherapy.

MR. MESEREAU: Can you look this jury in eye and tell them Michael Jackson did nothing for you when you had cancer?

ACCUSER: I never said Michael did nothing for me.

MR. MESEREAU: Did you say he did very little?

ACCUSER: Yeah. He didn't do as much as I felt, as my 11-year-old mind felt.

(END Excerpt)  




Source:

.

March 10, 2005

Day 8: Accuser Takes Stand, Brother of Accuser Changes Recollection of Events

Created: Thursday, 10 March 2005

Day 8 in Michael Jackson's trial brought the accuser to the witness stand. He said he once considered Mr. Jackson "the coolest guy in the world." The 15-year-old was not asked about the molestation allegations before court ended for the day, but described viewing adult Internet sites with Mr. Jackson present and said the singer told him to "call me daddy" during the taping of a documentary.

With an expression that appeared to verge on a sneer, the young cancer survivor said ‘yes’ when District Attorney Tom Sneddon asked him if he recognized the defendant.

The accuser followed to the stand his 14-year-old brother, who testified amidst a list of conflicting stories.

Mr. Jackson's defense contends the family has a history of filing false claims to get money.

The boy said Mr. Jackson invited him to Neverland the first time they talked. He said Mr. Jackson called his hospital room as he was being treated for cancer, and they later talked on the phone about 20 times.

Many times the accuser has been heard saying that Mr. Jackson is the reason he is alive today, that Mr. Jackson had a great deal to do with his recovery from cancer. However, today, under questioning by Sneddon, the boy stated that he had been told to say that.

When asked if that was true, the boy said, "Not really. He was hardly there during my cancer," and that other celebrities such as comedian George Lopez visited him more often while he was sick.

"Did you admire Mr. Mr. Jackson?" Sneddon asked.

"I thought he was the coolest guy in the world. He was my best friend ever," the boy said.

Earlier Wednesday, the accuser's younger brother, under cross-examination by defense lawyer Thomas Mr. Mesereau Jr., admitted major contradictions between his testimony and his other accounts of allegedly seeing Mr. Jackson molest his brother.

During questioning by the prosecution the boy told of twice looking through the doorway of Mr. Jackson's bedroom as the pop star molested his sleeping brother.

Mr. Mesereau confronted, pointing out another glaring discrepancy, the witness with a previous statement to sheriff's investigators in which he said that during the second incident he was in the room curled up on a small couch pretending to sleep.

When Mr. Mesereau asked if his account of the second molestation had changed, the boy suddenly interjected that there were actually three incidents, although that has never, ever been alleged.

(Excerpts from Transcripts - March 8, 2005)

ACCUSER’S BROTHER: I was nervous while I was doing the interview.

MR. MESEREAU: Because you were nervous you didn't get the facts right?

ACCUSER’S BROTHER: Yes.

--------------

MR. MESEREAU: Now, you've indicated the first time you ever discussed any alleged inappropriate touching by Michael Jackson was with Psychologist Stanley Katz, right?

ACCUSER’S BROTHER: Yes.

MR. MESEREAU: And you have admitted that you gave Stanley Katz a different description than you've given in this courtroom, right?

ACCUSER’S BROTHER: Yes.

MR. MESEREAU: In fact, you never mentioned the third event that you've described today to Stanley Katz?

Accuser’s Brother: Because I might have forgot about it.

MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.

(End of Excerpts)

Mr. Mesereau also showed jurors a video of Mr. Jackson befriending his accuser, and another of the boy's brother playing TV host for a glimpse at Mr. Jackson's Neverland ranch.

"Hi from Neverland, USA," the brother said on the second video. "I'm the host of the Neverland Channel."

Contrary to all appearances on the video, the younger boy said he felt tired, not excited, when he interviewed Mr. Jackson's elephant trainer and talked to children at Neverland's amusement park, and indicated that Mr. Jackson wasn't as close to his brother as the other video made it seem.

In a musically scored production that was apparently part of Mr. Jackson's personal video archives, the singer is seen with the accuser, then a ghostlike figure with little hair during the time he was undergoing chemotherapy.

Jurors saw the boy in a wheelchair being pushed by his brother. Mr. Jackson walks alongside with his umbrella, then walks with the boy to a tree where he spreads a blanket for them to sit on and look out over the lake at his Neverland ranch.

Direct questioning of the accuser will continue Thursday, tomorrow. The judge has announced that the jury will not be present on Friday, instead it will be a day set aside to hear motions.



Source: / AP

.

March 9, 2005

DAY 7: Changing Stories - Accuser's Brother States "I don't know exactly what I said"


Created: Wednesday, 09 March 2005

The now 14 year old brother of the accuser who says he saw Michael Jackson molest his brother has been altering many of the key points and major accusations in his testimony. He accuser told prosecutors that Mr. Jackson showed him and his brother a certain adult magazine, but today, Mr. Jackson's attorney, Thomas Mesereau, pointed out that the magazine was dated months after the boy and his family had left Neverland permanently. After a lengthy line of questioning, the boy conceded that the magazine used as evidence in the case wasn't actually the one Jackson showed him.

Excerpt from the Accuser's Brother's Testimony Regarding the 'Adult' Magazine Presented as Evidence by the Prosecution (March 8, 2005):

MESEREAU: Before you testified yesterday you looked at that photograph with Prosecutor Sneddon, correct?

ACCUSER'S BROTHER: Yes.

MESEREAU: You told Prosecutor Sneddon that those are the magazines you had seen at Neverland, right?



ACCUSER'S BROTHER: Yes.

MESEREAU: You told Prosecutor Sneddon that Michael Jackson had showed you those magazines, right?

ACCUSER'S BROTHER: Yes.

MESEREAU: Michael Jackson never showed you that magazine, "Barely Legal," did he?

ACCUSER'S BROTHER: What?

MESEREAU: Michael Jackson never showed you that magazine, "Barely Legal," did he?

ACCUSER'S BROTHER: He did show us.

MESEREAU: He did?

ACCUSER'S BROTHER: Yes.

MESEREAU: Well, Star, did you look at the date of the magazine? It's August of 2003, is it not?

ACCUSER'S BROTHER: Well, I never said that was exactly that one.

MESEREAU: Well, your family had left Neverland many months before, never to return, correct?

ACCUSER'S BROTHER: That -- I'm telling you that that wasn't exactly the one he showed us.

MESEREAU: That's not what you said yesterday, and it's not what you said today, right?

(End of Excerpt)

Mr. Mesereau also asked the boy about the many discrepancies in his descriptions of how Mr. Jackson allegedly molested his brother. Following an extensive line of questioning and vague non-conclusive answers, the boy responded, "I don't know exactly what I said." The boy also admitted, earlier in his testimony today, that he lied during a deposition for his mother's civil lawsuit against JC Penney. In that case, he had sworn, under oath, that his mother and father never fought and that his father never hit him. His story now affirms both accusations.



Testimony also included ironic statements from the boy where he states that his mother taught him never to lie and that 'lying is a sin.'



Source:

.

March 7, 2005

Day 6: Brother and Sister of Accuser Testify, Contradictions Take Center Stage

Created: Monday, 07 March 2005

Day 6 of Michael Jackson's trial began with the completion of the cross-examination of the sister of the accuser followed by the direct questioning of the brother of Michael Jackson's accuser. The testimony of the younger brother was marked by contradictions and a curious pattern of finishing the sentences and questions of the District Attorney.

The 14 year old witness testified today that Mr. Jackson showed them inappropriate websites, gave them wine, and slept in bed with them and that he was the sole witnesses to the molestation that has been alleged, although many of the key dates and details of these events have changed continuously.

Mr. Jackson's lawyers have stated that the boys memorized security codes and entered Mr. Jackson's wine cellar and other areas without permission. The brother did, in fact, testify under oath that he did have the codes to Jackson's bedroom.

Additionally, there has been conflicting testimony as to actually when this trip to Neverland occurred. The boys' sister testified the brothers slept in Mr. Jackson's room during their first night at Neverland. Monday's testimony was that it happened on another night.

Prior to the prosecution's direct questioning of the accuser's brother today, lawyers for Mr. Jackson revealed many gaps and holes in the credibility of the accuser's sister story during her cross examination.

Mr. Jackson's attorney, asked the 18 year old sister, who is a college freshman, about her testimony she gave last week. She testified under oath then about a civil case in which her family sued JC Penney over an encounter with security guards. Last week, she said she didn't know anything about that case. But today, in another opposing story, she acknowledged that she had been present for the deposition given by her younger brother.

She also said last week that she hadn't been aware of any school discipline problems involving her brother. Today, Mr. Mesereau pointed out that the boy had said during his deposition that he had been thrown out of school. The accuser's sister responded that even though she had been present for this deposition, she didn't remember him saying it.

She also testified that she didn't know who Bradley Miller was. Yet, on the audio tape interview with the family, Mr. Miller is clearly heard telling the entire family, more than once, that he is a private investigator working for Mark Geragos.


Source:

March 4, 2005

Day 5: Michael Jackson is 'an ideal family man', said Accuser's Mother

Created: Friday, 04 March 2005

DAY 5: Accuser's Family Praises Mr. Jackson in Video

Day 5 has brought another day of cross-examination of the accuser's sister.  Once again, what was intended to be a witness for the prosecution has seem to unfold as a valuable and supportive testimony for the defense, against all efforts to the contrary by the DA's office.

The family now accusing Michael Jackson of child molestation was seen by jurors Friday in a video praising him as a father figure, and the sister of the accuser testified under cross-examination that she had accused her own father of molesting her, imprisoning her and making terrorist threats.

The mother praised Mr. Jackson as an "ideal family man" who had made her children happier than they had ever been in a two-year-old videotape played for jurors on Friday in Mr. Jackson's molestation trial.

"God worked through Michael to help us," the mother of the accuser said in the video played for the jury. "When we saw no hope Michael said there was hope. ... We were broken and Michael fixed us."

The video, which was made around the same time that the accuser alleges the molestation took place, was played during testimony by the accuser's 18-year-old sister, who underwent questioning by District Attorney Tom Sneddon and cross-examination by Mr. Jackson attorney Thomas Mr. Mesereau Jr.

During cross-examination intended to show the family has a history of making allegations, the witness acknowledged the accusations against her father, who is divorced from her mother.

Mr. Mesereau asked the young woman if she had once told police she was being abused by her father five times a week, and she answered, "We were abused every day."

She said she learned that she was sexually abused through something her mother blurted out.

"When you were interviewed by police you never told them your father molested you," she said.

"They weren't asking me about that and I was very young," she said. But she then added, "It was a horrible experience to find out ... that he had done that to me when I was young. My mother screamed it out to him."

Mr. Mesereau asked if the father appeared to agree with the accusation and she said yes.

The sister testified Thursday that Mr. Jackson's associates had the family make the tape about two weeks after a Feb. 6, 2003, TV documentary by British journalist Martin Bashir in which her brother appeared with Mr. Jackson, who said he allowed the boy to sleep in his bed while he slept on the floor.

Sneddon claims that all of the rebuttal video was staged and scripted even though their many of their answers are long and spontaneous.

The sister was seen in the video with tears streaming down her face and saying of Mr. Jackson, "He's a very caring, humble man. He took us under his wing when no one else would." She spoke of her brother's affliction with cancer and that Mr. Jackson "helped him so much."

The boy's mother delivered a dramatic and seemingly heartfelt tribute to a man she said "made us his family."

The boy at one point said that he asked Mr. Jackson, "Can I call you daddy?" and that Mr. Jackson said that was fine.

The mother spoke of a life of deprivation and rejection. "We weren't the right ZIP code, the right race. All the doors closed on us. Michael said, 'My doors are open.'"

The video, which lasted more than an hour, was played in a hushed courtroom where Mr. Jackson's mother, Katherine, sat dabbing at her eyes with a tissue and his sister LaToya and brother Jackie sat beside her.

Jurors watched intently and some of them took notes.

"Michael," the boy was heard saying, "he treats me like he's my father." The boy's brother spoke up and said, "He makes me feel like his son and he lets me call him father and he calls us sons."

The sister again spoke on the video, saying that one day while crying about her brother, Mr. Jackson "hugged me and said it was going to be OK. The fact he stood up and defended us, that's a father," she said of Mr. Jackson.

The mother, her hair carefully coifed and wearing fashionable makeup, repeatedly spoke of the miracle of Mr. Jackson coming into their life. "It's a wish come true to see my children interact with a father role model," she declared. She spoke of abuse by her ex-husband and said she felt a responsibility to make sure that her children were safe. "When they are with Michael, he spreads his wings and my children have happiness they never have had in their life. And he hasn't left me out. I appreciate him with all my heart," she said.

Off camera, an interviewer asked the family questions and suggested that they say things about Mr. Jackson. The boy who is now accusing Mr. Jackson gave him credit for helping to cure his cancer. "We were driving up the hill and he told me, 'You need to get better.' He told me, 'You need to eat up all those cancer cells like Pac-Man.' I never forgot that," the boy said.

At one point, the mother spoke about money and financial problems that have plagued them. "We know what it is to be poor but in all the time with Michael there are no money problems. He fulfills our needs," she said.

She said of Bashir, "He took a beautiful relationship and spun it out of control. God works through people and so does the devil."

But when Mr. Mesereau questioned the sister on the stand, she insisted that no one in her family has ever seen the documentary.

Asked about her mother's statements about how poor they were, the witness said, "She was just trying to make it more dramatic. There was a script."

"So are you saying everything you said on the tape was memorized?" asked Mr. Mesereau.

"Not everything," the girl said.

Additionally, when asked by Mr. Mesereau, she admitted that she had indeed met with Sneddon last night to discuss her testimony.
.

.
Source:  e/AP

.

March 3, 2005

Day 4: The Sister of the Accuser Takes the Stand

Created: Thursday, 03 March 2005

.

.

On Thursday, Day 4 of Michael Jackson's trial, the sister of his accuser took the stand.  

Now 18 years of age and a college freshman, she was called to testify about the alleged events two years ago.

The prosecution laid groundwork for the sister's testimony by calling a Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department photographer who videotaped a Nov. 18, 2003, raid on Neverland.

Jurors were then shown a videotape of Mr. Jackson's master bedroom suite. The tape included shots of his cluttered bedroom, but none of the sexually explicit magazines that the prosecution has alleged were found in the suite.

The video, shot by Sheriff's Department photographer Albert Lafferty, showed a sparkling bedspread, pictures of Marilyn Monroe and Shirley Temple, several TVs and stacks of videos.

Two rooms that investigators called the "doll room" and the "toy room" were filled with dolls, mannequins and figurines of such characters as Bat Man, Superman and C-3PO, Boba Fett and R2-D2 from "Star Wars," as well as SpongeBob SquarePants. There were dolls of every size and a dollhouse.

Under cross-examination, the defense established that the nearby bedrooms of each of Mr. Jackson's children had a lock with a code keypad. Lafferty also acknowledged that there was something that looked like a classroom but he couldn't recall seeing little desks that a defense attorney mentioned.

The defense has claimed that the accuser and his brother were sometimes out of control during visits to Neverland and got into private areas and onto the estate's rides by memorizing security codes.

The pictures presented by the prosecution also showed a clock in the foyer of Mr. Jackson's home and a huge clock overlooking the train station in the amusement park area of Neverland.  The prominent presence of the clocks completely refute the claim that the mother has made that she wasn't even allowed to know what time it was while at the ranch.

The sister of the accuser, now a college freshman, avoided eye contact with Mr. Jackson during most of her testimony as she testified about the family's encounters with him, which began during a celebrity-filled odyssey after her brother was diagnosed with cancer. The family was introduced to such stars as actor Chris Tucker and NBA star Kobe Bryant.

In numerous instances, the defense has showed the family to be motivated by greed in its pursuit of celebrities.

Under questioning by District Attorney Tom Sneddon, the girl told jurors her version of events that happened after the documentary by British journalist Martin Bashir was taped.

The girl said she received an urgent call from her mother, who told her to go to their East Los Angeles apartment where she was met by an aide to Chris Tucker. She said they were taken to Tucker's house, driven to an airport and flown to Miami on a private jet. When they arrived at the resort in Miami, Mr. Jackson was waiting and in his suite they met a large group of people, she said.

The witness said that her brother received special attention from Mr. Jackson, who pulled him aside and closed the door to his room. She said the two remained in there about 15 to 30 minutes and similar visits occurred at least three more times during their stay. When her brother came out, she said, "He was very hyper, running around, very talkative, playful."

Mr. Jackson instructed the family not to watch the Bashir documentary that night. "He was upset about it, didn't want us to see it," she said.

Mr. Jackson, 46, watched quietly, a finger pressed to his cheek, and the jury took notes. Mr. Jackson's mother, Katherine, and brother Jackie observed from the audience.



Source: / AP

March 3, 2005

Day 3 - Prosecutor's Witness Describes Possible Plot Against Michael Jackson


Created: Thursday, 03 March 2005

Day 3 in the Michael Jackson Trial has adjourned and the surprises continue. Today the prosecution brought their second witness to the stand, a Las Vegas public relations 'specialist,' publicist Ann Marie Kite. However, media sources indicated that throughout the day the witness seemed to become an increasingly stronger asset to the Defense as she described the series of covert plans going on around Mr. Jackson apparently, without his knowledge. Ms. Kite testified that she was hired by her ex-boyfriend, David LeGrand, who was an attorney for Mr. Jackson at the time, and that she reported to Mark Geragos, Ronald Konitzer, Deiter Wiesner, Stuart Backerman and Marc Schaffel. 

Upon cross-examination, it was revealed that she worked for the Jackson team for a total of six days, beginning on February 9th , which was 6 days after the airing of Martin Bashir's Documentary. She was then terminated, for no apparent reason, on the 15th of February of 2003. She admitted that she had never met Michael Jackson or spoken to him. She said that she charged $20,000.00 for her services, but was given $10,000.00 as a retainer. 

Ms. Kite testified that she became concerned that the people around Mr. Jackson were not representing him properly. Through reporter, Rita Cosby, she contacted Mr. Jackson's brother, Jermaine Jackson and had a 7 hour meeting with him regarding her concerns about the situation. She explained that she felt that Dieter Wiesner, Ronald Konitzer, Stuart Backerman, Marc Schaffel and Eric Dezenhall did not have Mr. Jackson's best interests in mind and that they were embezzling large amounts of money from Mr. Jackson and conspiring against him. Ms. Kite testified that she was convinced they were trying to set Mr. Jackson up, that they were destroying him.

In a surprising twist, Ms. Kite mentioned that she had friends in high places at Sony that confirmed that someone in the Jackson camp was deliberately trying to set Michael Jackson up to steal his highly-coveted Sony Music Catalog. Ms. Kite explained that she learned that Ronald Konitzer, an adviser also named as an unindicted co-conspirator, might be working behind the scenes to allow Sony to take over his ownership of a music catalog that includes the works of the Beatles. The catalog is valued at hundreds of millions of dollars.

"You said that Mr. Konitzer was hired to isolate Michael Jackson and let him create his downfall so that Sony could get the catalog back, isn't that correct?" asked Mr. Mesereau.

"Not in those words," said the witness, but she added she was aware of the importance of the catalog and that she was informed "that Sony was waiting for the opportunity to get the Sony catalog back."

Ms. Kite also said Mr. Jackson's advisers often seemed to work against each other and did not have his best interests at heart. She said she had difficulty talking with them about a strategy to improve his public image.

"I couldn't discuss anything with anyone because they all had different agendas," Ms. Kite explained.  When Mr. Mesereau asked if she told police that she thought Mr. Jackson was being "slammed by the team," Ms. Kite said "yes."

During her testimony Ms. Kite repeatedly mentioned members of the Jackson team of whom she was suspicious. She acknowledged that she told sheriff's investigators during a nine-hour interview that she felt the people around Mr. Jackson were not acting in his best interest, including Schaffel, Konitzer and Al Malnik, a Jackson financial adviser.

After her termination, a former lawyer for Mr. Jackson, Mark Geragos, asked Ms. Kite to sign a confidentiality agreement but she refused, saying. "I believed it would negatively impact me. I believe it was designed to shut me up," she said.

In his cross-examination of Ms. Kite, Defense lawyer Thomas Mesereau made very clear to the court that Mr. Jackson was a victim of the people in his inner circle who were trying to damage his reputation.

Additionally, Ms. Kite said she had gotten her information about Mr. Jackson's associates from David LeGrand and from the Internet.  With the judge's permission to bring up information on their background, the prosecutor asked Ms. Kite tell about her Internet research.

She noted that she had learned that Malnik was a "reputed mobster" and brought "negative publicity." She also said she learned that Schaffel was a producer of gay pornography and thought his public association with Mr. Jackson would create more negative fallout.  Under questioning by Mr. Mesereau, Ms. Kite said she had no information that Mr. Jackson was involved in gay pornography.

Ms. Kite was portrayed by the defense as someone who was in the Mr. Jackson camp a very short time but seemed to have learned a great deal.  

"The ones you are most suspicious of are Schaffel and Konitzer?" Mr. Mesereau asked her.

"The ones I was most suspicious of were those who were taking their eyes off the devastation that was happening to Michael Mr. Jackson," she said.

In cross-examination, Mr. Mesereau stressed that Ms. Kite never met the singer or most of his associates and dealt with them only by telephone.  "In the six days that you represented Mr. Mr. Jackson did you feel you became an expert on Mr. Mr. Jackson's life?" the attorney asked acerbically.

"Oh no, sir," she said.

Asked about her expertise in representing celebrities, she said the only one she had ever represented was Marshall Sylver, a Las Vegas hypnotist who appeared in informercials.

Prosecutors called Ms. Kite to support allegation that Mr. Jackson and associates held the family against their will at Neverland and other locations throughout February 2003 to force them to help in a public relations campaign to rehabilitate his image. Ironically, her testimony seemed to have more impact in giving the jurors insight into the plans that Mr. Jackson's own team were plotting against him and the activities that were being conducted without his knowledge or instruction. 

Further usurping the testimony about Jackson's accuser and his family being held against their will, Mesereau elicited from Ms. Kite that she never met the family, did not know anything about their relationship to Mr. Jackson and was alerted to their involvement third-hand.

Defense attorneys reiterated the fact that the family was free to leave at any time.

The witness spent all day on the stand, undergoing such a long cross-examination that Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville warned Mr. Mesereau to cut it off.

When questioned by reporters outside the courthouse if he was happy with his attorneys, Mr. Jackson voiced an emphatic "yes."

Source: / AP

.

March 2, 2005

Michael Jackson Trial - DAY 2: I'm angry. I'm good, but I am angry


Created: Tuesday, 01 March 2005

Michael Jackson is angry. After the completion of Day Two of the trial and coming face to face in the courtroom with British Journalist Martin Bashir whose documentary, 'Living With Michael Jackson' seemed to spark this entire case, Mr. Jackson has stated definitively that he is doing good, but he is angry. When asked why Mr. Jackson "is angry", his publicist, Raymone Bain explains, "He is sitting there being vilified listening to all these lies. He has maintained his innocence and has watched this circus of lies going on for over a year now. Anyone would feel angry when portrayed in such a way. He has consulted with his attorneys. He has confidence in the court system and his right to a fair trial. He knows he will be vindicated when the truth is told, but he is angry and he is glad he is finally getting a chance to clear his reputation."

Many assumed that this was to have been the Prosecutor's day. But media sources indicated to MJJsource.com that it seems to have backfired. In spite of the fact that District Attorney Tom Sneddon attempted to shock the jurors by airing Martin Bashir's documentary 'Living With Michael Jackson' the only thing shocking was Bashir's own very obviously slanted commentary and subsequent refusal to answer questions when asked.

The jurors were riveted to the video, which was played in its entirety, approximated 90 minutes. Jurors watched the documentary after prosecutors called its first witness, British journalist Martin Bashir, to the stand. The documentary, taped in 2002 and aired in 2003, led to the investigation that ultimately resulted in the charges against Mr. Jackson.

As the jurors watched on a large screen in the hushed courtroom, some leaned forward in their seats, a few smiled or laughed when Mr. Jackson said humorous things, and a few bobbed their heads along with Mr. Jackson's music. Some smiled when the video showed Mr. Jackson singing "smile while your heart is breaking" as he left a hotel.

Although prosecutors tried to emphasize Michael Jackson's comments about allowing children to sleep in his bed (even though he firmly states that he sleeps on the floor) it seemed to have a much softer impact and instead exposed jurors to a sympathetic portrayal of Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson is seen racing go-carts and climbing trees, as well as teaching Bashir how to "moonwalk."

One juror had tears roll down their face when Michael Jackson spoke of his difficult childhood and his extremely strict, disciplinarian father. "I remember hearing my mother scream, 'Joe, you're going to kill him,"' Michael Jackson says at one point. 

The documentary also referred to Michael Jackson's relationships with adult women.

At one point, Mr. Jackson appears with the accuser and his brother and sister. The children do a dance routine in Mr. Jackson's kitchen.

Later the boy holds hands with Mr. Jackson and says the pop star is perpetually childlike and understands children.

"He's really a child at heart," the boy tells an interviewer. "You're an adult when you want to be one."

When the boy says that Mr. Jackson once told him and his brother, "If you love me you'll sleep in the bed," Mr. Jackson tells the interviewer that the children slept in his bed and he slept on the floor in a sleeping bag.

Holding the boy's hand tightly, Mr. Jackson says, "My greatest inspiration comes from kids. It's all inspired by that level of purity. I see God in the face of children."

After the viewing, Mr. Mesereau sought to have Bashir's testimony and the documentary stricken when Bashir refused to say how many hours of videotape were recorded during the making of the program.

Judge Rodney S. Melville refused to strike the video or the testimony.

Once on the stand, Martin Bashir refused to at least 30 of the questions, citing the shield law for reporters and the First Amendment, that says that a journalist does not have to answer questions about unpublished materials. But his refusal to answer questions seemed to even more assuredly reinforce the fact that he was acting deceptively in his intentions towards Michael Mr. Jackson in the documentary. Consequently, Martin Bashir may face contempt of court charges.

Mr. Jackson appeared slightly agitated when Bashir was on the stand, at one point putting out his arms as if to tell him to speak up. Bashir was testifying in a near-whisper.

Bashir seemed caught off guard and somewhat annoyed when Mr. Mesereau brought up the fact that he was brought before the Broadcasting Standards Commission in Britain after being accused of blackmail by one of his interviewees (see article below " I Was Blackmailed by Bashir" from the UK Newspaper 'The Mail'). 

As Mr. Jackson left court, reporters asked him how he was feeling. He said, " I'm angry. I'm good, but I am angry." He thanked reporters and walked away.



Source:   / Reuters / AP

.

OPENING STATEMENTS: The jury will find Michael Jackson not guilty of all charges, Mesereau says


Created: Tuesday, 01 March 2005
.

.

.

.

On Monday and Tuesday, February 28th and 29th, 2005, opening statements by both the Prosecution and Defense were delivered in Michael Jackson's trial. All twenty members of the jury were present, the 12 main jurors and well as the 8 alternates.   Michael Jackson's mother, Mrs. Katherine Jackson, as well as his brother, Jermaine Jackson, were present to support Michael.

Judge Melville began by reading the detailed grand jury indictment, unsealing its contents officially for the first time and then proceeded to give the jury specific instructions as to how they are to behave and handle the events and information given in the trial that was about to unfold.


Before the prosecution began, the Judge addressed two outstanding motions.

In a motion requested and agreed to by both parties, Judge Melville made the decision to allow the real names of the 'complaining witness' and his family, to be used due to the physical impossibility, on both sides, of redacting all appearances and utterances of their names from the thousands of documents and audio/visual evidence involved in this case. 


Secondly, the Judge granted the motion to exclude witnesses from the proceedings, consequently he ordered all witnesses that may be present to leave the courtroom as they will not be allowed to be present unless they are testifying. There were not any witnesses present at the time.


District Attorney Tom Sneddon began his opening statements at 9:10 am, by stating that "the world was 'rocked' on February 3, 2003 by the airing of the 'Living With Michael Jackson' documentary made by Martin Bashir" that aired in the UK, and three days later in the US, which included an interview with Michael Jackson and his accuser discussing their friendship and Mr. Jacksonl's statements regarding their times together of innocent fun. The DA alleged that it was anything but, by suggesting an interpretation of these statement for the members of the jury, to be a cover for something much more heinous. He implied that Michael's lifelong love and very public personal crusade to help millions of the world's children, at his own expense, was suddenly abandoned at this time so that he could pursue a 'sexual' relationship with this boy.

When Sneddon attempted to delve into the issue of Mr. Jackson's finances at the time of the airing of the documentary, Mr. Mesereau objected and the judge sustained the defense's objection, affirming the fact that a decision regarding the relevance of Mr. Jackson's financial status was as yet, undetermined and Sneddon was not permitted to proceed with the issue. Obviously annoyed, Sneddon continued.

The District Attorney went on to paint a convoluted picture of the events that followed the airing of this documentary, calling it a "crisis raging uncontrollable". He alleged that Mr. Jackson's team was in such a state of panic over the fallout from this documentary that a complicated conspiracy to hold the accusers, the Arvizo family, against their will was constructed to ensure that they would take part in a "rebuttal video" to 'save' Mr. Jackson's career and reputation. He also alleged that during this time of heavy business negotiations and planning to produce this video response in a "desperate attempt to revive his career', Mr. Jackson found the time and inclination to molest Gavin Arvizo twice and both times Gavin Arvizo's younger brother, Star Arvizo, walked in to find them in bed. Alegedly, Star Arvizo says that he was unseen by Mr. Jackson or his brother, Gavin and he promptly left the room.

The DA described Mr. Jackson's home, Neverland Valley Ranch, as a "No Restrictions, No Rules, No Wants" playground that has a almost a strangely supernatural effect of turning well-mannered, obedient children into unaccountable, uncontrollable menaces. 
.

.
Sneddon also admitted that the mother of Gavin Arvizo, Janet Arvizo, had made some mistakes in her life, and that she will admit some welfare fraud, but that is "wasn't for a lot of money," Sneddon added casually. Later, defense attorney, Mr. Mesereau, described detailed evidence of the mother's history of welfare fraud that was stunningly extensive and continual over a long period of time.
.

.
At 12:40 pm, defense attorney, Tom Mesereau began his opening statements. He began by affirming that the DA has made some very serious allegations, by accusing his client, Mr. Jackson of  "imprisoning a family, abducting a family, extorting a family and molesting a child."
.

.
Mr. Mesereau addressed the riveted jurors in earnest, saying to them , "An opening statement is a contract between me and you." He asserted that he was going to make promises in his opening statements, promises that he would fulfill and that he would completely disprove these false charges against Michael Jackson.

He began to outline for the jurors some issues that he urged them to keep in mind throughout the duration of the trial. 

Mr. Mesereau described many other well-known people that have had experiences with this particular mother capitalizing on her son's unfortunate illness to illicit money. Mr. Mesereau cited late-night talk show host, Jay Leno; Comedian, George Lopez; Actress, Renee Watson; Comedienne, Louise Palanca (sp?); Boxer, Mike Tyson; Actor, Adam Sandler; and Actor, Jim Carey; Los Angeles Weatherman, Fritz Coleman; among others as those who had all been contacted by this family. Many described instances where they had given the mother large sums of money and then found that instead of the money being used for the boy's medical expenses, as was promised, that the money was used to buy TV's and DVD players, etc. 

Prior to meeting Michael Jackson, the Arvizo family contacted Jay Leno looking for support for Gavin's "medical expenses." After receiving a call from Gavin and hearing the mother, Janet Arvizo, in the background, Jay Leno immediately called authorities and informed them that "something was wrong" that this family was "definitely looking for a mark." Jay Leno, Mr. Mesereau reminded the court, is not a friend of Michael Jackson or in anyway associated with him.

Mr. Mesereau made it definitively clear that the boy's medical expenses were entirely covered by the father's employer the entire time, as he has full Von's (Grocery Chain) Teamster's coverage. Mr. Mesereau stated, "I will prove to you in this case that (this family) has a pattern of ensnaring people for money."

Mr. Mesereau briefly educated the jury as to who Michael Jackson really is, as opposed to the man they have seen performing or portrayed by the media. He described to them a person who had worked very hard, since the age of 5, essentially a very private person who, "when not on stage, is very shy and shuns the limelight." He is also a varacious reader, whose library contains almost a million books.

Michael Jackson's career is a combination of "genius and very hard work," he said. He explained to the jurors that Mr. Jackson really didn't have much of a childhood. In 1988, Mr. Jackson purchased Neverland and informed the jurors that they will see in video taken of the ranch that in contrast to the 'lure and lair for child molestation that the prosecutor describes Neverland Valley Ranch to be, it is instead a 'Disneyland-like' environment that is an 'invitation to be childlike' to all those who visit, young and old alike. Mr. Jackson, he said, created a place for children to have fun, to be free, spontaneous and innocent. And he has done that, opening his home on countless occasions for thousands of children, many of them ill or from inner-cities.

Mr. Mesereau stated that, unfortunately, when Michael Jackson agreed to meet the cancer-striken accuser, Gavin Arvizo, and his family, unlike the other celebrities that had been contacted. "he couldn't smell the ruse." Mr. Mesereau stated unequivocally that he will "prove that the mother was trying to find a celebrity to latch on to."

Michael Jackson wanted to help Gavin Arvizo. Mr. Jackson, an avid reader and 'perpetual student of life' had studied proven visualization techniques to beat disease that he taught and shared with Gavin, encouraging him to visualize the bad cells being eaten up by the good cells, like the 'PacMan' video game. Mr. Jackson took substantial time away from his career to help Gavin get well and see that his family was provided for. 

He recounted an incident where the mother, Janet Arvizo, had previously lied under oath in a suit against J.C. Penney where the family, even after amending their story much later to suddenly include sexual assault charges, was awarded $152,500.00. Janet's ex-husband confirmed that Janet coached her children to lie in this case. Later Janet actually admitted that she lied under oath in this case. 

Janet Arvizo claimed in the J.C. Penney case, under oath, that her husband never beat her. Soon after being awarded $152,500 from J.C. Penney, she filed for divorce and now claimed that she had been beaten throughout the entire seventeen years of her marriage. In this divorce application, she also claimed false imprisonment, terrorist threats and that her husband has harmed her children.

One month after filing for divorce, Janet Arvizo applied for welfare. Subsequently, and as became her pattern, Janet Arvizo never reported the $152,500 from J.C. Penney on her welfare application that she signed "under penalty of perjury." She also never reported any disability she received or any gifts on her welfare application, under penalty of perjury. Instead she perpetually hid the money in the bank accounts of her mother or fiancé.

Recently, a paralegal that worked on the J.C. Penney case came forward to say that she knew that Janet Arvizo had lied on the J.C. Penney case but that she had never come forward because Janet had threatened her, saying that her husband's brother was in the Mexican mafia.

For Janet Arvizo, Mr. Mesereau noted, Michael Jackson is her third claim of false imprisonment and her fourth claim of sexual assault. 

Mr. Mesereau explained that Janet and her children primarily lived with her mother or her then fiancé, who is currently her husband. But oddly, she always kept a very sparsely decorated and barely furnished studio apartment in a run-down area of East Los Angeles. The family was almost never there yet, Mr. Mesereau explained that this is the apartment where she would take celebrities in order to appear as they were destitute. 

He stated to the jury that "Janet Arvizo put into effect a program to use her son's illness to make money." He explained that when she was given money, she refused, repeatedly, to use Gavin's social security number on a beneficiary bank account. She would hide the money in her mother's bank account or her fiance's in order to avoid taxes and so as not to interfere with her welfare benefits.

In one of many instances of welfare fraud, Mr. Mesereau told the jury that Janet Arivizo also bought a car for $23,000, which she did not report, under penalty of perjury, only 6 days before applying for welfare.

Mesereau shared that there were many Fund Raiser's held for the benefit of Gavin's medical bills (that had been actually covered by insurance). Many of them were arranged by 'Laugh Factory' founder, Jamie Masada. Jamie Masada says the money that was fund-raised was given to the hospital. The hospital asserts that it never received a dime, says Mr. Mesereau.

Mr. Mesereau revealed that the mother had always wanted her kids to become actors so she had enrolled them in acting classes. They had met Jamie Masada at a 'kid's comedy camp' sponsored by the Laugh Factory.

Janet Arvizo has claimed that she was falsely imprisoned. Mr. Mesereau described the guest cottage at Neverland where Janet says this took place, "This cottage was requested and used by Elizabeth Taylor and Marlon Brando many times." Additionally, Janet Arvizo returned to Neverland, of her own free will, during this time she claims she was 'falsely imprisoned.' Further, Janet spent $3312.05 during her shopping trips, on body waxing, spa products and services, lingerie, clothing and cosmetics from Robinson's May, Anchor Blue, The Gap, The Jockey Store, and other merchants during her 'false imprisonment' in various luxury hotels.

Mr. Mesereau told the jury that Janet claims she was prevented from knowing the time of day at Neverland. Mr. Mesereau informed to the jury that there are 2 massive and highly visible clocks, built into the hillsides of Neverland, that are also lit at night. 

Mr. Mesereau informed the jury that the Arvizo's met Michael Jackson in July 2000. In August 2000, they first visited Neverland. In October of 2000, Janey Arvizo told Gavin to tell Michael that they have no means of transportation. Mr. Jackson subsequently gave them an SUV, however, Mr. Mesereau added that Janet did not want the registration of the vehicle in her name. Clearly, Mr. Mesereau explained, she did not want to disclose this on her welfare application either. 

Mr. Mesereau told the court that Janet Arvizo made continuous requests of Michael Jackson, but always used her son Gavin to deliver the requests. The requests were always granted and they received whatever they needed or wanted. 

In the next segment of the defense opening statements, Mr. Mesereau encouraged the jury to put prosecutor's description of the reaction to Martin Bashir's documentary, 'Living with Michael Jackson' in perspective. 

 Mr. Mesereau informed the jury that Michael Jackson was indeed aware that the Santa Barbara Police Dept. was investigating him after the airing of the documentary, the exact time the prosecutor claims that the molestation occurred. He stated that, "We will prove that it (the child molestation) never happened."

Mr. Mesereau painted a picture of the days following the airing of the documentary. He agreed with the mother's claim that at that time, the media was everywhere and the networks were all anxiously bidding on the 'rebuttal' video from Michael Jackson. There was a lot of money to be made and many meetings concerning this were taking place. "There was great dislike for what Bashir had done to Michael Jackson, but there was elation for the business opportunity that doing a rebuttal film presented. Many people around Mr. Jackson stood to make a lot of money." Mr. Mesereau articulated. 

But contrary to the DA's portrayal of a mother desperate to keep her children out of the spotlight, Mr. Mesereau told the jury that the mother wanted distribution rights to the video, when she learned how much money would be made on it and that her fiancé, Jay Jackson, wanted a house and a college education paid for the children. When the answer from Mr. Jackson's team to these requests was 'no' and the money stopped, the molestation accusations suddenly began.  Mr. Mesereau stated, "When the party ended, did they go to the police with their allegations? No. They went to a lawyer and then to another lawyer to work out all their legal rights and opportunities BEFORE going to the police."

"How did the documentary 'Living with Michael Jackson' happen?" Mr. Mesereau explained to the jury that Martin Bashir wanted to "get rich off of a scandalous interview," as he had in the past with Princess Diana. (Martin Bashir had previously done an interview with Princess Diana which he obtained through deceiving her about threats made against her life and representing himself as someone who wanted to help her and which ultimately had extremely destructive consequences.)

Martin Bashir, used flattery and deceit to obtain his interview with Michael Jackson as he had used with Princess Diana. Michael Jackson, Mr. Mesereau explained, shared a close friendship with Princess Diana, they had formed a comraderie throughout their similar lives, their passion to help the less fortunate and the scrutiny they both lived under. Martin Bashir used this connection as well as a list of 'promises' he never kept to obtain this much sought-after interview.
Mr. Mesereau stated to the jury that Martin Bashir used "deception par excellance " to lure Michael into doing the documentary. He outlined the list of Bashir's promises and statements to Michael, made via mutual acquaintance, British Mystic, Uri Geller, in order to secure the interview:

.

.

1) Bashir promised to show the world who Michael Jackson really is. and all that he has done and wants to do to help the suffering children in the world.

2) Bashir promised to arrange a meeting with UN Secretary General Mr. Kofi Hannan to bring Michael to Africa to help children with AIDS.

3) Bashir says, "Michael, you are so misunderstood."

4) Bashir shows Michael a letter from Princess Diana that praises Bashir. This was written by Diana when she was under the mistaken impression that Bashir was being truthful with her and was trying to help her.

5) Bashir says that the first day they would film Michael greeting about 50 children at his Neverland Ranch, so that "for one day their lives could be enriched."

6) The second day would be an interview with Macauley Caulkin, a long-time friend of Michael's.

7) The third day would be Michael recording a song to benefit the world's children.

8) The fourth day would be Bashir and Michael driving through some of Los Angeles' poorer neighborhoods to portray how Michael connects with the inner-city people.

9) At the end of his letter he promised that the UN visit was in its early planning stages, but that he will "keep him informed."



Mr. Mesereau quoted Martin Bashir as complimenting Michael, "Your relationship with your children is spectacular. I've got three children of my own, and watching you was a bit of an education for me." He continued, "Michael, you have sung the melodies of most of our lives. Why are people so quick to criticize you?"


Mr. Mesereau concluded, Martin Bashir was "flattering Michael Jackson to lead him to his destruction." He stated that Michael Jackson's idealistic views of children and his hopes for a better world were left out of the commentary. 


"I invite you to watch the 'rebuttal program'. If the prosecution doesn't show it to you, we will." The prosecution had stated that this program was highly scriped and rehearsed. Mr. Mesereau continued, "I invite you to watch the spontaneous answers, how long they go on for, what Janet (Arvizo) does when she doesn't think she is on tape. Janet Arvizo even did her makeup and hair, with a single curl over her eye, to look like Michael's famous sister, Janet Jackson. Christian Robinson (a witness) will testify that she (Janet Arvizo) was happy and delayed filming while she was on the phone trying to see how much money she could make." Mr. Mesereau also reminded the jury that even months after the airing of the documentary and the 'alleged molestation,' Gavin Arvizo stated that, "Michael saved my family and he saved me from cancer."


The media did follow the family begging for interviews, this is true, Mr. Mesereau explained. Janet's fiancé, Jay Jackson asked for $15,000.00 for an article and picture. When Janet Arvizo asked for security from the intruding media, she received it, at her insistence. 

Mr. Mesereau reveals that at least three separate times Gavin and his family stated, and were recorded as saying, that "nothing bad ever happened with Michael Jackson," including in an interview with the Department of Children and Family Services shortly after the airing of Martin Bashir's documentary. As a result, Mr. Mesereau showed the jurors, the prosecution was forced to change the dates of the alleged molestation, from the original date which was before the airing of the documentary to dates following its airing. 

Mr. Mesereau added that during this entire time of the accusations, they were living with Janet Arvizo's then fiancé, now husband, Jay Jackson.  Jay Jackson is a high ranking official in the US Army, yet the family never went to him for help, nor did they go to the police.  Not until the money stopped.

Mr. Mesereau stated that "Mr. Jackson will freely admit that he does read girly magazines from time to time. Mr. Jackson kept (these) locked in a briefcase. But he absolutely does not show them to children." Mr. Mesereau said that the children were sometimes "out of control" at Neverland and read Jackson's magazines and broke into his alcohol without his permission and said that authorities found no DNA evidence in the entertainer's bedroom to support the charges.



Mr. Mesereau reiterated the very evident thread throughout his statements, "the mother (Janet Arvizo) was using the criminal charges to build a civil case in order to get a payoff."


In conclusion, Mr. Mesereau stated to the jury that Michael Jackson knew nothing about what all these other people around him were doing in response to Bashir's documentary.


Mr. Mesereau ended opening statements with, "I am extremely confident that the jury will find Michael Jackson not guilty of all charges."




Source: