Skip to content

March 7th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Davellin Arvizo (Cross Examination) and Star Arvizo (Direct Examination), Part 2 of 3

May 29, 2012

The very next witness to be called for direct examination by Sneddon was Gavin’s younger brother Star Arvizo. First, before I get to his testimony, let me explain the meaning behind that photo above:

You’ve heard of the old saying “what’s done in the dark will come to light”, correct? Well, Gavin and Star told their lies in the dark (and the media kept those lies hidden in the dark as they suppressed exculpatory evidence throughout the trial), and I am doing my absolute best to bring those lies into the light by summarizing the trial with painstaking attention to detail. As I shine the light on their lies, it will burn a hole into the phony, “goody two shoes” image that the media and prosecution has held the Arvizos in ever since 2003.

So essentially, the painting in that photo represents the image of the Arvizos, and the security guard represents me and the other authors on this blog (and all other MJ bloggers and advocates as well), and the light from the flashlight represents the truth, which is burning a hole into the painting! The phrase “liar, liar, pants on fire” is also applicable to this photo as well! Many thanks to my good friend Karen O’Halloran who designed this GIF image for me!

Now, I would like to illustrate how the prosecution tried to prevent Star and Gavin from having to testify in open court: on January 18th, 2005 (just before the start of jury selection), Sneddon submitted a motion titled “PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THAT THE TESTIMONY OF CHILD WITNESSES BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC”, in which he referred to Penal Code §859.1, a section of the code that relates to minor victims under the age of 16. 

Sneddon tried to argue that because Gavin and Star were both under 16 years of age, they should not be forced to testify in front of an “open” court (i.e. with the media, family members, guests, etc. in the courtroom) due to the fact that he wanted to protect their “anonymity and reputation”.

On January 21st, 2005, Mesereau submitted a motion titled “OPPOSITION TO PROSECUTION’S MOTION TO CLOSE FROM THE PUBLIC THE TESTIMONY OF CHILD WITNESSES”, in which he stated four reasons why Star and Gavin should have to testify in public: 1) Jackson has a Constitutional right to confront his accusers in open court (based on the Sixth Amendment), 2) other teenagers will testify that the Arvizos do not have the fragile and sensitive personalities that the prosecution claims that they have 3) Jackson can only vindicate himself in a public trial where everyone can hear for themselves the testimonies of the accusers, and 4) Jackson is the real victim in this case.

 

On January 24th, 2005, the attorneys for several media conglomerates (NBC Universal, CBS Broadcasting, Fox News, ABC, CNN, Associated Press, New York Times, and the USA Today) also file a motion to oppose Sneddon’s motion to have Gavin and Star testify in a closed court titled “ACCESS PROPONENTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THAT THE TESTIMONY OF CHILD WITNESSES BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC”.  But the media’s motive to oppose Sneddon’s motion had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Jackson’s right to confront his accuser in public and vindicate himself!  They argued that “the District Attorney has failed to meet the standards for closure established by the First Amendment and California law”. Essentially, the media argued that the identities of Gavin and Star were already known and public due to their participation in the Bashir documentary, and – in a twisted piece of irony – “to bar the press and public from this central aspect of the trial would not only be unjustified but would leave a cloud of doubt hanging over the jury’s verdict, no matter what the jury decides, because the public would have been denied the ability to observe the testimony and make credibility determinations based on the witnesses’ demeanor during their testimony”. (This excerpt was taken from page 2.)

In other words, the media argued that if they were barred from hearing Star and Gavin’s testimonies, the public would doubt the jury’s verdict; yet, even after they were allowed to observe their testimony, the public STILL doubted the jury’s verdict because the media slanted their coverage!

For example,  look at how lopsidedly pro-prosecution and salacious this article is! It merely regurgitates the lie that Jackson paraded in front of Gavin in the nude in his bedroom suite!

Michael Jackson – Naked Jackson ‘Grossed Out’ Accuser + His Brother

08 March 2005 03:26

MICHAEL JACKSON “grossed out” his child molestation accuser GAVIN ARVIZO and his younger brother STAR when he paraded around his Neverland Ranch naked one night.

Gavin’s now-14-year-old sibling took the stand in court in Santa Maria, California, yesterday (07MAR05) to testify against the pop superstar.

And the teenager recalled intimate moments with the 46-year-old, when he showed him and his brother internet sex sites, gave them wine, slept in bed with them and appeared naked.

The youngster recalled that he and his brother were “grossed out” when Jackson appeared naked while they were watching a movie, but the singer told the boys it was natural.

Jackson is fighting 10 felony charges of child molestation, administering an intoxicating agent and conspiracy involving allegations of child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion.

http://www.contactmusic.com/news-article/naked-jackson-grossed-out-accuser–his-brother

After Judge Melville ruled that Star and Gavin must testify in open court, legal analyst Jonna Spilbor wrote the following column on February 2nd, 2005, in which she argued that Judge Melville made the correct decision:

When the Key Witness Is a Kid: Preparing Prospective Jurors in the Case Against Michael Jackson

In a few weeks, Michael Jackson’s long-anticipated child molestation case will begin. It will be an unusual trial because the defendant is a celebrity. It will also be unusual because the prosecution’s star witness — the closest thing it has to a “smoking gun” — is just a kid.

This boy, who is now fifteen years old, contends that two years ago, Jackson repeatedly sexually assaulted him. Apparently, the prosecution will present him as the only eyewitness to the alleged abuse – and therefore, his testimony could not be more crucial.

Last week, Judge Rodney S. Melville denied prosecutors’ request to bar the public from the courtroom during this testimony. In weeks, then, the accuser will tell his story, in front of Jackson, to a packed courtroom of unfamiliar faces.

Jury selection began on Monday, January 31. The process is expected to continue for several weeks. Doubtless, the fact that the accuser must confront Jackson in court will play a role in defense attorneys’ questions to prospective jurors, and in their choice of which jurors to strike.

Was the judge’s ruling correct? I will argue that it was.

How will the fact that the star witness is a child affect the way defense attorneys question jurors? As a defense attorney whose experience has included child witnesses, I will explain what considerations may be going through the mind of defense lawyers as this process occurs.

Was the Judge Right to Decide Not to Close the Courtroom For The Child’s Testimony?

First, let’s look at the judge’s ruling.

As noted in Jackson’s Opposition, Jackson – like every criminal defendant has a right, under the U.S. Constitution, and the California Constitution, to “confront” his accuser in a public trial. However, the Supreme Court has held that, under some circumstances, this right can be compromised when child sex abuse victims testify, on the ground that they may find it too traumatic and terrifying to face their accuser.

Accordingly, the California Penal Code provides that, in any criminal proceeding in which the defendant is charged with certain sex offenses against a minor under the age of 16 years, “the court shall, upon motion of the prosecuting attorney, conduct a hearing to determine whether the testimony of a minor shall be closed to the public…” And that is exactly what Judge Melville did.

Here, the prosecution said closure was necessary was to “preserve the witness[‘s] anonymity, and allow [him] to testify about sensitive sexual issues without a courtroom packed with reporters, sketch artists, and zealous fans of defendant.” But these arguments are not persuasive.

First, the accuser is no longer truly anonymous. His name can easily be found on the Internet, and through his mother, he agreed to appear in a 2003 documentary entitled “Living with Michael Jackson.” (There, he appeared quite comfortable, resting his head on Jackson’s shoulder, while residing at his Neverland Ranch.)

Second, the suggestion that the witness will be unacceptably traumatized by having to testify in front of strangers is not in line with the facts. He is a teenager, not a young child. And, as the Jackson defense has pointed out, he has testified previously and extensively, before the grand jury, and (also under oath) in depositions.

Moreover, the details of his grand jury testimony were leaked to ABC News and recently disclosed, in part, on a number of its news shows – meaning that the public already knows the essence of his story, and he knows that the public knows.

Under the circumstances, while it likely will still be somewhat traumatic for the accuser to testify in an open courtroom with the public present, the judge still made the right decision to require him to do so.

The accuser’s testimony, if believed beyond a reasonable doubt, will put Jackson in prison for years. Jackson is entitled to ask that the accuser believe in his own claims strongly enough to look Jackson in the eye, and state them

publicly, for all the world to hear, and for the jury to consider.

The Defense Is Entitled to Try to “Break” the Prosecution’s Star Witness

District Attorney Tom Sneddon complains, in his filings, that Team Jackson wants to keep the court open so that “‘seasoned’ defense lawyers [can] humiliate and attempt to destroy [the accuser] in public when [he] takes the witness stand.”

By jove, I think he’s got it.

The point is, though, that there is absolutely nothing wrong with that defense strategy.

To win his case, Jackson’s defense must show that the accuser is what they say he is: A “flat out liar” with “no credibility” who has concocted the whole sordid tale, at his mother’s urging, in hopes of extracting millions of dollars. To prove the accuser a liar, Jackson’s attorneys are entitled to – indeed, they must — cross-examine him harshly.

(Notably, there seems to be strong factual support for the claim that the accuser may well be lying: Reportedly, the accuser and his mother made no such claim of sexual abuse until after they spoke with the very attorney who had secured an alleged multi-million dollar settlement in 1993 based on similar accusations.)

They must also tread a fine line, however. Jackson’s accuser – already sympathetic by virtue of his youth – comes with a few added “sympathy” factors as well. Reportedly, he suffered from cancer and endured chemotherapy.

For the accuser, testifying is likely to be terrifying – whether he is lying and thus frightened that he will be found out, or telling the truth and thus recounting very painful experiences. The jury will doubtless see the fear, and feel for the teenager.

For the defense attorney, then, cross-examination will be a minefield. On one hand, the attorney risks incurring the jury’s wrath for browbeating a child if he pushes too hard. On the other hand, he risks letting the child’s testimony seem more credible than it actually is, if he fails to cross-examine him as thoroughly as he possibly can.

What Should the Defense’s Strategy with Prospective Jurors Be?

For this strategy to be successful, prospective jurors must be forewarned. Otherwise, the defense risks having a child who will undoubtedly be struggling on the stand in a packed courtroom racking up sympathy votes from jurors who feel as though counsel is leading a lamb to slaughter.

The first question the pool should be asked by defense counsel, is whether they believe children are capable of lying. Anyone who doesn’t think so, doesn’t belong on Jackson’s jury – and assuredly, that person will be dismissed.

The second question should be directed to any particular juror with children: “Prospective juror number 29, has yourchild ever lied?” If the answer is yes, counsel should determine what punishment was meted out, whether the parent believes lying by children is ever “okay,” and whether the parent feels that humiliating a child who has been caught in a lie is justified or excusable in certain situations.

I would also follow up, as a defense attorney, with a few more questions: “Does the severity of a lie dictate the severity of the punishment?” “When, if ever, would it be justified to punish a child in public for dishonesty?” These questions, too, will help probe to see if jurors will be able to tolerate the cross-examination of the young witness without holding it against the defense.

Jackson’s Defense Can’t Be Expected to Pull Its Punches

As my grandfather used to say, “a thief may rob you, but a liar will hang you.” Conversely, proving one’s accuser a liar can save you from a dire fate. Here, if jurors disbelieve the testimony of the prosecution’s key witness, Jackson will get the acquittal he’s hoping for. If they don’t, he’ll face prison.

With stakes this high, prospective jurors in the case must be made aware that the key witness against Jackson – though he is a child — won’t, and can’t, be handled with kid gloves.

http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/commentary/20050202_spilbor.html 

Another important bit of information that I want to share with you before proceeding to Star’s testimony is this March 1st, 2005 defense pleading titled “NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF GAVIN ARVIZO AND STAR ARVIZO’S SEXUAL CONDUCT”. Rijo and Simone Jackson, who are the children of Jackson’s cousin Peaches Jackson, both witnessed Star and Gavin Arvizo engaging in destructive behavior at Neverland, and their statements to Susan Yu are included in that pleading on pages 13-24. For example, Rijo witnessed them masturbating and watching pornography in one of the guest units during the time period that they claim that they were “falsely imprisoned” by Jackson. Not only did Rijo witness the Arvizos masturbate themselves, but he was asked to participate and masturbate himself as well, but he declined. Rijo and Simone also stated that they saw the Arvizos stealing money, stealing wine, sneaking into Jackson’s bedroom without his permission, and in once incident Star called Simone a “Fu&$&ing B*%ch” when she wouldn’t take off her swimwear when they were at a swimming pool!

The fact that the Arvizos watched porn and masturbated on their own volition is crucial because they claimed that it was Jackson who “taught” them how to masturbate and “exposed” them to porn!

In addition to Rijo and Simone Jackson’s statements, an acquaintance of the Arvizo family named Carol Lemere provided information about Star’s sexual maturity on pages 26-33. She described Star as a “horny nine year old”, and recounted an incident where he tried to flirt with an adult waitress at a restaurant, and became irate when she refused to give him her phone number.

Also, Lemere recounted the time that in 2000, Davellin told her that Jackson would buy her family a big house. Here is the excerpt from page 27, and you can see for yourself just how long Janet had been conspiring to accuse Jackson of improprieties against her children!

At the time, Davellin told Lamere that Michael was going to buy her family a big house. After questioning Davellin about what she meant, Lemere figured out that Davellin was implying that Janet was going to blackmail Jackson into buy them a house. The plan was to accuse the client of showing the children how to log on to adult websites. Davellin acted as ifhe did not know how to use the internet until she met the client. Lamere became upset and told Davellin that it was wrong to falsely accuse someone of wrongdoing. Davellin became flutstered and scared and then said she was joking. Shortly thereafter, Lemere called Evi Tavaschi and told her to “get Michael away from the Arvizo kids.”

On top of all of that, Davellin also told Lemere that Janet made her tell people that her father David had molested her, when in fact it wasn’t true at all!

On March 7th, 2005, Sneddon filed a motion titled “PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF SEXUAL CONDUCT BY GAVIN AND STAR ARVIZO”, in which he argued that the sexual activities of Gavin and Star should not be admitted into court because, technically, the fact that they masturbated themselves doesn’t in and of itself prove that Jackson was innocent.

On March 9th, 2005, the defense filed a motion titled “REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF GAVIN ARVIZO AND STAR ARVIZO’S SEXUAL CONDUCT”, in which they offered the following four reasons why Gavin and Star’s sexual misconduct should be considered admissible: 1), Rijo and Simone gave an accurate timeline of when the misconduct was witnessed (February/March 2003), 2) it proves that the Arvizos are not the “innocent little lambs” that the prosecution  has made them out to be, 3) it disproves the allegation that Jackson “taught” them to masturbate because they masturbated themselves, and 4) they were not “too embarrassed” to accuse Jackson of masturbating them, so they will not be embarrassed to have their own masturbation disclosed in court.

Lastly, March 25th, 2005 defense pleading titled “SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF SUSAN YU RE DATE THE MALE WITNESS OBSERVED GAVIN ARVIZO AND STAR ARVIZO’S SEXUAL CONDUCT”, which contains the declarations of Rijo and Simone Jackson.

(On a final note, Simone Jackson testified on May 17th, 2005, and Rijo Jackson testified on May 18th, 2005. I will summarize their testimonies later on in this series.)

Additionally, Neverland employee Julio Avila and Prudence Brando (the daughter of Miko and Karen Brando) gave interviews to the police and Mesereau’s investigator, respectively, about the misbehavior of Gavin and Star that they both witnessed. They are compiled in Sneddon’s motion titled “MOTION TO EXCLUDE OR LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES JULIO AVILA AND PRUDENCE BARNDO”. Sneddon argued that their testimony should be excluded because it was irrelevant and prejudicial.

For example, Gavin and Star spit at Neverland employees, threw candles and their shoes from the top of a Ferris Wheel in an attempt to hit the park personnel, started the Wave Swinger ride by themselves without permission, vandalized property by writing obscene language such as “You suck dick” on the walls, brought pornographic magazines to the amusement park, and intentionally crashed golf carts.

However, Judge Melville rejected Sneddon’s motion and Prudence Brando and Julio Avila testified on May 24th, 2005 for the defense.

So now that we see how Sneddon tried and failed to protect his star witnesses, let’s see what they had to say on the witness stand!

Sneddon started his direct examination asking Star about his background and his upbringing, as well as that of his family. In this excerpt, Star describes the domestic abuse that he and his siblings witnessed so many times during their childhoods:

15 Q. Describe to the ladies and gentlemen of the

16 jury this Soto Street address, as you recall it.

17 A. The address.

18 Q. Yeah. No, what was inside. What is the

19 room like.

20 A. It was really small. Probably — it was a

21 bachelor apartment. It was really small.

22 Q. Did it have a separate bedroom.

23 A. Well, it was like a living room/bedroom.

24 Q. I’m sorry.

25 A. It was like a kitchen, like an area, and

26 then a little bathroom.

27 Q. So where did people sleep.

28 A. Big area. 1018

1 Q. All together.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. The whole family.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. How would you describe the — just let us —

6 what was it like, the relationship between your

7 mother and your father during these times.

8 A. It wasn’t good.

9 Q. What do you mean by that.

10 A. Well, they’d always get in arguments, and it

11 would always lead to my father hitting my mom.

12 Q. Did he ever hit you.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Did you ever see him hit your brother and

15 sister.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Was there a point in time when your dad

18 left.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Do you remember when that was in terms of

21 what grade you were in.

22 A. I was in sixth grade, and it was in the

23 morning.

24 Q. Do you remember the incident.

25 A. Yes.

26 Q. Were you in school that day.

27 A. It was a weekend.

28 Q. And when your father left, did he ever come 1019

1 back.

2 A. No, I never saw him again.

Next, Sneddon asked Star about his family’s first trip to Neverland, specifically an incident that occurred between his parents inside their guest cottage:

7 Q. Now, do you remember an incident occurring

8 between your mother and your father on this

9 particular visit.

10 A. Yeah, it was the next day.

11 Q. The next what.

12 A. It was the next day. Me and my brother were

13 trying to get up so we could go outside, and my dad

14 wouldn’t let us go outside because he wanted to

15 sleep in.

16 And so eventually, like about 12 o’clock, we

17 went outside and we got breakfast. And my brother

18 was like messing around on the ranch somewhere. And

19 I came back and went into my mom’s unit, and my dad

20 was sitting down in the chair. And he was yelling

21 at my mom, and she was trying to put on her makeup.

22 And he — he got up and he grabbed the club soda

23 that was on the dresser and threw it at my mom’s

24 face.

25 Q. What did you do.

26 A. Tried to comfort her. I walked over and I

27 hugged her, and I said “I love you” to her. She

28 told me to go out and play. 1031

1 Q. She did what.

2 A. She told me to go outside and play.

3 Q. Did you do that.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. What did you do.

6 A. I don’t know. I just probably went outside

7 and drove a golf cart.

Next, Sneddon asks Star to describe the first time he entered Jackson’s bedroom. Star claimed that Jackson gave him the code to his bedroom, while a security guard gave him the code to other rooms in the house.

8 Q. Do you recall the first time that you went

9 to Mr. Jackson’s bedroom.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. When was that.

12 A. That was probably the second visit.

13 Q. And do you recall about what time it was

14 when you went to his bedroom.

15 A. Nighttime.

16 Q. Tell us how you — how you got into the

17 bedroom. Tell us the way it is that you get into

18 Mr. Jackson’s bedroom.

19 A. First you walk through a hallway, and then

20 you come through a door, and then you continue

21 walking. You go through another door and you walk

22 up the stairs.

23 Q. Are there any kinds of alarms or bells or

24 anything that goes off.

25 A. Yes. There’s like a bell that goes off,

26 and — while you’re walking through the hallway.

27 And then there’s a key pad to the first door.

28 Q. All right. Did you at some point in time 1032

1 learn the code to that key pad.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And how did you acquire that information.

4 In other words, who gave it to you.

5 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; assumes facts not

6 in evidence. Move to strike.

7 THE COURT: Sustained. You have a compound

8 question.

9 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: At some point in time you

10 had obtained the code to that key pad.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Who gave you the codes.

13 A. Michael.

14 Q. Were there more than one code.

15 A. Yes. There was the door code and the master

16 code to all the doors.

17 Q. And which one did Mr. Jackson give you.

18 A. The 1960 one.

19 Q. I’m sorry.

20 A. The — it was the one code that could get

21 into his bedroom.

22 Q. And do you remember the numbers.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. What were they.

25 A. 1960.

26 Q. And those are the ones Mr. Jackson gave you.

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. Now. Were there another set of numbers. 1033

1 A. Yes, it was another code that was 1849 that

2 got you in every door.

3 Q. And where did you get that code from.

4 A. I got it from the security guard.

5 Q. Do you remember the security guard’s name.

6 A. No.

7 Q. Do you remember what he looks like.

8 A. He was — he was white, but I don’t exactly

9 remember his face.

10 Q. I couldn’t hear what you said.

11 A. I don’t remember his face.

12 Q. Okay. And do you remember when it was that

13 you got that code from the security — let me ask it

14 this way: At some point in time you went to Miami,

15 correct.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And then after Miami, you came back to the

18 ranch.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Now, with regard to the code number that Mr.

21 Jackson gave you – all right. —

22 A. Yeah.

23 Q. — when did you get that code number from

24 him. Before or after you went to Miami.

25 A. After.

26 Q. And with regard to the code number that you

27 got from the security guard, was it before or after

28 you went to Miami. 1034

1 A. After.

2 Q. I’m sorry.

3 A. After.

4 Q. So on the first occasion that you went to

5 Mr. Jackson’s room, you did not have a code number.

6 A. No.

7 Q. Who all went to the room when you went to

8 the room.

9 A. First occasion.

10 Q. Yes.

11 A. Frank, Michael, me and my brother.

12 Q. And where did you go in the room.

13 A. First we sat down and talked, and then we

14 went on a kitchen raid.

15 Q. You say you sat down and talked. Where did

16 you sit down and talk.

17 A. In the living room. Well, where the —

18 downstairs.

19 Q. Okay. Downstairs in the house.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Where in the house.

22 A. In his bedroom area downstairs.

23 Q. So you were in there talking.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Who was present.

26 A. Frank, Michael, me and my brother.

27 Q. And do you recall how long you were there

28 before you went to somewhere else. 1035

1 A. Not really.

2 Q. So you told the jury you went somewhere

3 else. Where did you go, and what was the purpose

4 for going there.

5 A. We went to — on a kitchen raid.

6 Q. What do you mean by “a kitchen raid”.

7 A. We went to go get some food.

8 Q. And whose idea was that.

9 A. Michael’s.

10 Q. And what was it you were going to get.

11 A. Food. And my brother suggested that he

12 wanted some s’mores.

13 Q. Some s’mores.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. What happened when you went to the kitchen.

16 What did you do.

17 A. We got some food.

18 Q. Who actually went to the kitchen.

19 A. Me, Frank, Michael, and my brother.

20 Q. Okay. Tell us what happened in the kitchen.

21 A. My brother wanted to make s’mores, so

22 Michael called the security guard and got some

23 Hershey chocolates and then we all went back to the

24 bedroom.

25 Q. By the way, you’ve said “Michael” this, and

26 “Michael” that. Do you recognize the defendant in

27 this case.

28 A. Yes. 1036 

1 Q. That’s the “Michael” you’re talking about.

2 A. Yes.

Star goes on to describe how Jackson allegedly showed he and his brother pornographic websites on a computer:

18 Q. Now, when you went into the bedroom area,

19 who all was there.

20 A. Frank, Michael, me and my brother.

21 Q. Anybody else.

22 A. Oh, Prince and Paris were there also.

23 Q. Now, when did Prince and Paris come into the

24 picture.

25 A. They were also there. They were also with

26 us on the kitchen raid, when we went to go get food.

27 Q. Now, when you got upstairs and you’re in the

28 room, what happened then. 1037

1 A. They were asleep on the bed, and Frank had a

2 computer. It was a computer that Michael gave him

3 the first time.

4 Q. Gave who.

5 A. Gave Gavin.

6 Q. Okay.

7 A. And this time it already had Internet

8 access, so Frank did something and the Internet was

9 on, and we started going on sites.

10 Q. Going on sites.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. What kind of sides.

13 A. Pornography sites.

14 Q. And where was Mr. Jackson during this time.

15 A. He was sitting right next to us.

16 Q. Where were you seated.

17 A. On the bed.

18 Q. And where was Mr. Tyson.

19 A. Typing.

20 Q. Typing. Where was he located in the room.

21 A. Right off the bed and kneeled against the

22 bed and —

23 Q. Could you see the screen.

24 A. Yes.

25 THE BAILIFF: You can pull it down a little.

26 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Now, do you recall whose

27 idea it was to go on the Internet.

28 A. Michael’s. 1038

1 Q. Do you recall what he said.

2 A. No. But while we were on one of those

3 sites, a lady had her shirt up, and Michael said,

4 “Got milk”.

5 Q. Do you remember that.

6 A. Yeah. And then he leaned over to Prince and

7 says, “You’re missing some p-u-s-s-y,” but he said

8 it, in his ear, but Prince was still asleep.

9 Q. How many sites do you feel that you went to

10 that night.

11 A. I don’t really remember, but probably, say,

12 five or six.

13 Q. And what did the sites have. You don’t need

14 to go into all the details, but generally what was

15 the common denominator.

16 A. Females.

17 Q. Huh.

18 A. Females.

19 Q. And can you tell us whether or not they had

20 clothes on.

21 A. They didn’t have clothes on.

22 Q. Females only.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Where did you sleep that night.

25 A. Michael’s bed.

26 Q. And where did your brother sleep that night.

27 A. Right next to me.

28 Q. And Mr. Jackson, where did Mr. Jackson 1039

1 sleep.

2 A. He slept on the foot of the bed on the

3 floor.

4 Q. And Mr. Tyson.

5 A. To the right of the bed on the floor.

6 Q. And Prince and Paris, did they —

7 A. They — I think they slept on the bed with

8 us.

9 Q. Do you remember what you did after — let me

10 ask you this: How long do you think you were

11 watching these —

12 A. Sites.

13 Q. — sites that you went to.

14 A. 15, ten minutes. Ten minutes.

15 Q. And then where — what did you guys do.

16 A. We — after all that, we started watching

17 some Simpsons videos.

18 Q. Okay. Then what.

19 A. And then Michael told us not to tell no one

20 what we did.

21 Q. I’m sorry.

22 A. He told us not to tell our parents what we

23 did.

24 Q. Who said that.

25 A. Michael.

In this excerpt, Sneddon asked Star about his trip to Neverland in September 2002 with Davellin and Gavin to shoot a scene for Bashir’s documentary:

28 Q. Do you recognize the name Martin Bashir. 1054

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And how do you recognize it.

3 A. He was the person that did the taping of

4 “Living with Michael Jackson.”

5 Q. How do you know that.

6 A. Because we were introduced to him.

7 Q. Where were you introduced to him.

8 A. At the ranch.

9 Q. Do you remember about when that was.

10 A. No.

11 Q. Was it before or after the time that you’d

12 gone to the ranch with Mr. Tucker and his children,

13 or child.

14 A. It was after.

15 Q. And do you recall, was it during the time

16 that you were in school or was it during the summer.

17 A. School.

18 Q. And who all went to the ranch on this time,

19 on this occasion.

20 A. It was only me, my brother and my sister.

21 We went up there by ourselves.

22 Q. And how did you get there.

23 A. By limo.

24 Q. And where were you picked up.

25 A. The — the East L.A. apartment on Soto.

26 Q. And do you remember what time of the day or

27 night it was that you got there, in terms of was it

28 daylight, was it dark, was it in the morning; do you 1055

1 recall.

2 A. It was probably in the morning. Somewhere

3 around there.

4 Q. I’m sorry.

5 A. It was probably in the morning.

6 Q. Now, do you remember when you got there,

7 what — what you did. Where did you go when you got

8 out of the limo.

9 A. We entered through the back of the main

10 house, and Michael took my brother aside.

11 Q. Now, when you say you entered through the

12 back, the photograph that we saw just a few moments

13 ago, the photograph 188 in evidence, the People’s

14 exhibit, does that show the entrance you went into.

15 A. No. That’s the front entrance.

16 Q. So if I were standing in the front of the

17 house, if I were a juror in this case standing in

18 the front of the house, where would I have to go to

19 get into the entrance that you went into the day of

20 the Bashir incident.

21 A. You would have to walk around the house to

22 the left, and there’s a door back there, if you walk

23 around the house.

24 Q. Lean into the mike, please.

25 A. You have to walk around the house to the

26 left.

27 Q. All right. When you walk in the door, what

28 room are you in in the house. 1056 

1 A. Through the back exit.

2 Q. Yes, the one you came in.

3 A. You’re looking at the — the workers’ lounge

4 or something.

5 Q. Okay. And then where — where does that

6 lead to.

7 A. It leads to the kitchen, to the dining area.

8 To everywhere.

9 Q. So where was it that you saw your brother

10 Gavin go with Mr. Jackson.

11 A. He told us, me and my sister, to wait right

12 there, and so we did. And he took my brother off to

13 the dining area.

14 Q. Did you lose sight of your brother.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Now, how long was your brother gone; do you

17 recall. Just approximately.

18 A. 20 minutes. 20 minutes.

19 Q. And when he came back, what happened.

20 A. They sat down and —

21 Q. Who sat down.

22 A. Michael and my brother.

23 Q. And where did they sit down.

24 A. On the couch that was near the kitchen.

25 Q. Were you at any time ever introduced to

26 Mr. Bashir that day.

27 A. I think it was probably before the taping.

28 Q. So — you say “before the taping.” When did 1057

1 that occur.

2 A. What.

3 Q. What was going on at the time that you were

4 introduced by Mr. Bashir. Who introduced you.

5 A. Michael.

6 Q. Now, did you have an understanding — did

7 you personally have an understanding that you were

8 going to appear on film that day.

9 A. No.

10 Q. Did you eventually appear on film that day.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And what were you doing on film.

13 A. We were showing Michael one of our military

14 cadences that we learned from a program, military

15 program.

16 Q. What military program.

17 A. At that time we were in the NLCC. Stood for

18 Naval League Cadet Corps. That’s what it — it was

19 a Navy program.

20 Q. And do you remember when you joined that

21 program.

22 A. I was 11.

23 Q. Before the Bashir — I mean in relation to

24 the Bashir —

25 A. It was before.

26 Q. Are you still in that program.

27 A. No.

28 Q. Are you in another program. 1058

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. What’s that.

3 A. It’s Infantry Explorers.

4 Q. And what service is that connected with.

5 A. Army.

6 Q. And how long have you been in that program.

7 A. It’s going on four months. We barely

8 joined.

9 Q. I’m sorry.

10 A. We barely joined four months ago.

11 Q. Were you ever in a Navy program.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. What was that.

14 A. That was the Naval Sea Cadets. It was an

15 older program. It’s for older kids. It’s from 13

16 to 17.

17 Q. And how long were you in that.

18 A. About a year.

19 Q. Now, at the time that you were there with

20 the — Mr. Jackson and your brother and your sister

21 and Mr. Bashir, were you told before you got there

22 why you were going to the ranch.

23 A. No.

24 Q. You personally were never told.

25 A. No, I was never told.

26 Q. Now, after the — were you present during

27 the time that your brother appeared with Mr. Jackson

28 on that film. 1059

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Did you watch it.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Did you watch it get filmed.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. After the filming was done, they came back

7 and filmed you folks in the kitchen there.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. With Mr. Jackson.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. After that was done, did you see where

12 Mr. Jackson went.

13 A. No.

14 Q. Did you see him any more during the visit.

15 A. No.

16 Q. Did Mr. Jackson at any time tell you where

17 he was going.

18 A. No.

19 Q. Did you — did you stay at the ranch, or did

20 you leave.

21 A. We stood.

22 Q. The night.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Now, at some point in time, you’ve told us

25 that you went to Miami.

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. Now, between the time that you had gone to

28 the ranch and been with Mr. Jackson and your brother 1060 

1 Gavin when they — the Martin Bashir filming took

2 place – okay. —

3 A. Okay.

4 Q. — between that time and the time you left

5 for Miami, did you personally have any contact with

6 Mr. Jackson.

7 A. No.

In this excerpt, Sneddon asked Star to describe his family’s interactions with certain celebrities, including NBA megastar Kobe Bryant, who Janet claimed to police could “help her out” with her husband, along with meteorologist Fritz Coleman and Jackson (this incident occurred in October 2001 after Janet reported her husband to police, claiming that he assaulted her and made terroristic threats):

11 Q. And do you remember how it was that you met

12 Mr. Tucker.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Tell the jury how you met Mr. Tucker.

15 A. I met him through The Laugh Factory

16 comedy — it was after the comedy camp.

17 Q. Okay. After the comedy camp.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. What was the — how did you meet him. How

20 did that come about.

21 A. He was there one day, and my brother wanted

22 to go see the show. And so my brother met Chris

23 Tucker.

24 Q. Did you sort of become friends with

25 Mr. Tucker.

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. Did you go places with Mr. Tucker.

28 A. Yes. 1064

1 Q. Where are some of the places you went with

2 him.

3 A. Nickelodeon Kids Awards. And to his house.

4 To Oakland to see a Raiders game. And other places.

5 I don’t —

6 Q. Were you ever present during a situation

7 where your brother met Kobe Bryant.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Where did that occur.

10 A. Oh, and Chris also took us to a Lakers game.

11 Q. Okay. Let’s talk about the first one. You

12 were present on that — at the time that happened.

13 A. I wasn’t, no. I wasn’t present when he went

14 into the locker room.

15 Q. You’re talking about the Laker game now.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Okay. What about the first time.

18 A. Oh, yeah, I was present. He was at The

19 Laugh Factory.

20 Q. And was Chris Tucker involved in that, too.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And the second occasion was at a Laker game.

23 A. Yes. The first occasion was at the Laker

24 game. The second occasion was at The Laugh Factory.

25 Q. Oh, okay. Now, at the Laker game, was your

26 brother — other than going to the locker room, was

27 there some other form of unusual thing that occurred

28 that evening. 1065

1 A. He was shown on the big screen, or shown on

2 the big screen.

3 Q. So your brother’s picture was shown on the

4 big screen.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. At the Laker game.

7 A. Yes.

Next, Sneddon asked Star about his trip to Miami with Chris Tucker, and Star described an alleged incident where Jackson pulled Gavin to the side and tried to teach him how to curse, and Jackson allegedly tried to teach Star to curse until one of the nannies entered the room:

15 Q. During the time that you were there, did you

16 get introduced to any other people that day.

17 A. Yeah, we were introduced to Dieter and

18 Ronald.

19 Q. And did you see Mr. Tyson at all that day.

20 A. Yeah, later that day.

21 Q. Do you remember approximately when later

22 that day.

23 A. Nighttime.

24 Q. Now, during the time that you were in — you

25 come — let’s go back when you first got in there

26 and you were introduced to Aldo and Marie Nicole.

27 Okay.

28 A. Okay. 1068

1 Q. Now, was Mr. Jackson present in the — at

2 the time you walked through the door.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Did you have any greetings with Mr. Jackson.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. What did you do.

7 A. We all sat down and we started talking and

8 he asked us if we were hungry.

9 Q. He what.

10 A. He asked us if we were hungry.

11 Q. Were you.

12 A. A little bit. It was — so then we ordered

13 room service. And then Michael took my brother into

14 a separate room.

15 Q. Did you actually see Mr. Jackson and your

16 brother go to a separate room.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Did you, at some point, go into that room.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. What was going on when you walked into the

21 room.

22 A. They were cussing.

23 Q. What do you mean, “they were cussing”.

24 A. They were saying bad words.

25 Q. And what was the nature of what they were

26 doing.

27 A. They were probably saying the “F” word, the

28 “B” word, all different combinations. 1069

1 Q. And did you join into this.

2 A. I was right there, and he told me, yeah.

3 Q. Who told you.

4 A. Michael.

5 Q. Told you what.

6 A. To join in.

7 Q. Why.

8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; calls for

9 speculation.

10 THE COURT: Sustained.

11 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Did Mr. Jackson, when he

12 said “join in,” did he say anything else about what

13 you were joining.

14 A. What do you mean.

15 Q. Okay. At the time you walked in there, and

16 they’re cussing, correct.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And you’re asked to join in.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. How was this going about. Just —

21 A. They were just cussing. Like saying

22 different combinations. And that’s all. And he

23 told me to join in.

24 Q. Did you do that.

25 A. Yeah.

26 Q. How long did this go on.

27 A. Probably two minutes before Grace walked in.

28 Q. And did you see where Grace — who is Grace, 1070 

1 by the way.

2 A. It’s Prince and Paris’s nanny.

3 Q. Was this the first time you met her or had

4 you met her before.

5 A. I’ve met her before.

6 Q. Where did you meet her the first time.

7 A. The ranch. Neverland Ranch.

8 Q. During your earlier visits.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. So, she walks — when Grace walks in, what

11 happened.

12 A. We stopped.

13 Q. And then did she remain in the room.

14 A. She was talking to Michael.

15 Q. And how long — what happened after she

16 finished talking to Mr. Jackson.

17 A. We went into his bedroom where Prince and

18 Paris were.

Star goes on to describe an incident where he claims his brother Gavin was intoxicated while they were in Miami:

10 Q. So, she walks — when Grace walks in, what

11 happened.

12 A. We stopped.

13 Q. And then did she remain in the room.

14 A. She was talking to Michael.

15 Q. And how long — what happened after she

16 finished talking to Mr. Jackson.

17 A. We went into his bedroom where Prince and

18 Paris were.

19 Q. By “you,” who do you mean.

20 A. Me and my brother and Michael and Grace. We

21 all went back into the bedroom.

22 Q. So the room that you were in where all the

23 cussing was going on was a separate room from the

24 bedroom.

25 A. Yes.

26 Q. And how long did you remain in there.

27 A. Where.

28 Q. Yes. 1071

1 A. Five minutes probably. I don’t know.

2 Q. And then where did you go.

3 A. I went back outside.

4 Q. And what about your brother Gavin.

5 A. He stood with Michael.

6 Q. Where.

7 A. In the bedroom. Wherever he went.

8 Q. So you didn’t see Gavin come out.

9 A. No.

10 Q. At some point that day, did — well, let me

11 ask it this way: How many times that day do you

12 think you saw your brother Gavin go into a room with

13 Mr. Jackson.

14 A. Probably once. I was off playing with

15 Prince and Paris.

16 Q. Okay. Where were you with Prince and Paris.

17 A. I was in the kitchen filling up water

18 balloons.

19 Q. Later, did you notice anything unusual about

20 your brother.

21 A. Probably —

22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

23 THE COURT: Overruled.

24 You may answer.

25 THE WITNESS: He was stumbling around.

26 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Your brother.

27 A. Yes. And he had a soda can in his hand.

28 Q. What else did you notice about your brother. 1072

1 A. He wasn’t acting right. He was acting

2 funny.

3 Q. Do you remember about what time of the day

4 it was when all this was going on, when you saw your

5 brother in this condition.

6 A. Nighttime.

7 Q. Did you say anything to your mom about it.

8 A. No.

9 Q. Did you know what was — what — did you

10 know why he was acting that way.

11 A. He walked over to me and told me — well, I

12 saw into the brim of his soda.

13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; nonresponsive.

14 Move to strike.

15 THE COURT: Sustained; stricken.

16 MR. SNEDDON: I couldn’t hear the Court.

17 THE COURT: Sustained; stricken.

18 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: When your brother was in

19 this condition, did he come over and talk to you at

20 all.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And when he did, did you observe anything.

23 A. Yes, I saw —

24 Q. Tell us what you observed.

25 A. I saw into his — well, I saw the brim of

26 his 7-Up can. 7-Up’s clear, and I saw red around

27 the 7-Up can. It was like — it wasn’t really dark

28 red, but it was like light red. It was — 1073

1 Q. Did he say anything — don’t tell me what he

2 said. Did he say anything to you at that time.

3 A. No, he was just, like, saying weird stuff.

4 It didn’t make sense.

Star also claimed that while in Miami, he saw Gavin exhibiting symptoms of being intoxicated:

24 Q. Now, I want to go back in point of time to

25 ask you one other question about Miami, before we

26 start talking about the plane trip. Okay.

27 A. Okay.

28 Q. You told the ladies and gentlemen of the 1079

1 jury that at some point on one evening, you saw your

2 brother acting kind of weird and saying some things

3 that didn’t make sense.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Did you notice anything about your brother

6 the next morning.

7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague.

8 THE COURT: Sustained.

9 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Were you in the room the

10 next morning when your brother — when you woke up,

11 was your brother in the room.

12 A. I think so.

13 Q. Did your brother have any problems the next

14 morning.

15 A. He didn’t feel good. He had a headache.

16 Q. Anything else.

17 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

18 THE COURT: Overruled.

19 THE WITNESS: He was — he had a headache.

20 He felt like he was going to throw up. Just didn’t

21 feel good.

Here is a crucial part of Star’s testimony; he claimed that while on the flight, Jackson offered him alcohol that was poured into a soda can, and that he also saw Jackson licking the head of his older brother Gavin.

26 Now, at any time when you were on the plane,

27 did you see your brother and Mr. Jackson drinking

28 anything. 1088

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. What did you see.

3 A. I saw Michael with a Diet Coke can, and my

4 brother with a Sprite can.

5 Q. With a — what kind.

6 A. A — I don’t know exactly what brand it is,

7 but it was a soda can.

8 Q. Now, were you ever offered to drink out of

9 either one of those cans.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. By whom.

12 A. By Michael.

13 Q. And what did he say to you.

14 A. He leaned over and he handed it to me. I

15 thought it was Diet Coke so — I didn’t want to be

16 rude, so I took a drink, and it tasted like the

17 smell of, like, rubbing alcohol. It tasted

18 really — so I handed it back to him. And I asked

19 him what it was, and then he said it was wine.

20 Q. Did you drink any more out of that can

21 during this trip.

22 A. No.

23 Q. Did — tell me what you saw your brother and

24 Mr. Jackson doing during the trip.

25 A. I saw my brother — after a while he didn’t

26 feel too good. So my brother leaned over on his —

27 on Michael’s chest and he — I saw Michael’s head

28 licking my brother’s — the top of his head. 1089

1 Q. What do you mean.

2 A. He was just licking his head.

3 Q. How long did that last.

4 A. I don’t know. Six seconds probably.

5 Q. Did you notice any change in the behavior of

6 Mr. Jackson during the flight.

7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

8 THE COURT: Overruled.

9 THE WITNESS: Really weird.

10 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: What do you mean, “really

11 weird”.

12 A. Like, just didn’t make sense.

13 Q. Who.

14 A. Michael. And my brother.

When the media started to report about Star’s claims of seeing Jackson lick the head of Gavin while on that airline flight in 2003/04, it served as an inspiration for Jackson’s former manager Bob Jones, who was in the process of writing a sleazy, tell-all book about Jackson called “The Man Behind The Mask”, and said that he also witnessed Jackson licking the head of Jordan Chandler in 1993. However, under Mesereau’s brutal cross-examination on April 11th, 2005, Jones crumbled like a cookie and admitted that he “couldn’t recall” seeing Jackson lick Jordan Chandler’s head in 1993! In fact, in his police interview with Sgt. Robel on April 7th, 2005, Jones twice explicitly denied seeing Jackson lick Jordan Chandler or anyone’s head!Here is the excerpt:

5 CROSS-EXAMINATION 

6 BY MR. MESEREAU: 

7 Q. Good morning, Mr. Jones. 

8 A. Good morning. 

9 Q. My name is Tom Mesereau and I speak for 

10 Michael Jackson. 

11 A. Sure. 

12 Q. We haven’t met before, right? 

13 A. No. 

14 Q. Okay. The prosecutor referred to an 

15 interview that you had with Sergeant Steve Robel and 

16 another officer on April 7th, 2005. 

17 A. Uh-huh. 

18 Q. Do you remember that? 

19 A. Yes. 

20 Q. And do you remember you were asked by an 

21 officer, “Um, did you see Mr Jackson engage in any 

22 head licking in the World Music Awards?” And your 

23 answer was, “No, no, no,” right? 

24 A. Uh-huh. 

25 Q. And then you were asked, “Um, did you see 

26 Mr. Jackson engage in any head licking of anybody?” 

27 And your answer was, “Never.” Remember that? 

28 A. I recall. 5540 

1 Q. Okay. And what you were not — when you 

2 were dealing with your co-writer and publisher, you 

3 were not under oath, were you? 

4 A. No. 

5 Q. And of course today you are, right? 

6 A. Yes. 

7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; argumentative. 

8 THE COURT: Overruled. Next question. He 

9 answered that. 

10 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: The reality is, Mr. Jones, 

11 you have repeatedly said you don’t recall seeing 

12 head licking on the plane, right? 

13 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; misstates the 

14 evidence. 

15 THE COURT: Sustained. 

16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You don’t recall seeing 

17 head licking by Michael on the plane with Jordie, do 

18 you? 

19 A. I said it, but it was in the — it appeared 

20 in an e-mail. I said I did not recall seeing it, 

21 but it — apparently so, because it appeared in an 

22 e-mail that came from my machine. 

23 Q. Well, in response to the prosecutor’s 

24 questions, you said you had reservations about that 

25 statement — 

26 A. Yes. 

27 Q. — correct? 

28 And what are your reservations about that 5541 

1 statement? 

2 A. That I just don’t recall exactly seeing 

3 that. I truly don’t. 

4 Q. And would you agree when you’re working with 

5 a co-writer and a publisher to prepare a book about 

6 Michael Jackson, there’s pressure to make things 

7 sensational when you can, right? 

8 A. Yes. 

9 Q. And your publisher and others want a book 

10 that can sell, correct? 

11 A. My co-writer. The publisher wasn’t involved 

12 in that particular end of it. 

13 Q. Okay. And certainly, having worked with 

14 Michael all those years, you’ve seen numerous 

15 attempts by numerous people to sensationalize 

16 aspects of Michael’s life, right? 

17 A. Correct.

Next, Star said that he overheard Jackson make a sexually degrading prank call to a woman:

15 Q. That telephone that’s on the plane, did you

16 ever see the telephone used during the trip.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. By whom.

19 A. By Michael.

20 Q. And what did you see happen. Or did you

21 hear anything, also.

22 A. He made a crank call.

23 Q. I’m sorry.

24 A. He made a crank call.

25 Q. What do you mean, “a crank call”.

26 A. He called someone and he —

27 Q. You have to lean into the phone there, lean

28 into the microphone, if you would. 1090

1 What is a crank call, to you.

2 A. To me.

3 Q. What does it mean.

4 A. Oh. Just when you call someone and hang up

5 on them.

6 Q. All right.

7 A. That’s what it means to me.

8 But what I saw Michael doing, was he called

9 up and he said he was having a consensus, and he

10 wanted to know how big her p-u-s-s-y was. And

11 that’s what he said to her.

12 Q. How many such calls did you hear him make.

13 A. Two, on the plane.

14 Q. Did your brother make any calls.

15 A. I don’t remember. He probably did.

16 Q. Did you make any calls.

17 A. No.

In this excerpt, Star goes on to describe how he allegedly drank alcohol with Jackson numerous times while at Neverland:

14 Q. Now, between the time that you got to the

15 ranch from Miami and the time that you left with

16 Jesus – okay. —

17 A. Okay.

18 Q. — did you drink any alcohol.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Do you remember on how many occasions.

21 A. I think so.

22 Q. Pardon.

23 A. It was — it was a lot of times.

24 Q. And with whom did you drink.

25 A. Only with Michael.

26 Q. I’m sorry.

27 A. Only with Michael.

28 Q. Was there anybody else present when you and 1096

1 Mr. — when the defendant were drinking alcohol.

2 A. Me, my brother, and Aldo.

3 Q. And where did you drink alcohol with Mr.

4 Jackson during that time.

5 A. Bedroom. His office. And the wine cellar.

6 Q. Can you describe where the wine cellar is.

7 A. It’s in the arcade downstairs, and the

8 jukebox thing covers the stairs.

9 Q. What did you drink when you drank with the

10 defendant.

11 A. Red or white wine.

12 Q. How many times do you think you were in

13 Mr. Jackson’s office and drank with him.

14 A. A couple times.

15 Q. And how many times do you think you drank

16 with him in his bedroom.

17 A. A lot of times.

18 Q. And the cellar.

19 A. Probably twice.

20 Q. Do you remember what Mr. Jackson drank

21 during these occasions.

22 A. Wine, with us. It was either red or white.

23 Q. Did Mr. Jackson have a term that he referred

24 to in connection with the wine.

25 A. He called it “Jesus juice.”

26 Q. Would you describe to us — now, I want to

27 make sure we’re just talking about the time when you

28 got there from Miami till the time that you left 1097

1 with Jesus. Okay.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. All right. Did you at any time, during that

4 period of time when you were drinking with the

5 defendant, Mr. Jackson, see him get intoxicated.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. How many times.

8 A. I don’t remember. But it was probably a

9 couple times.

10 Q. During the time that you stayed at the

11 ranch, did you learn where the location of the

12 alcohol was on the ranch.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Where.

15 A. It was in the wine cellar. And it was

16 also — it was just in the wine cellar.

17 Q. I’m sorry.

18 A. It was just in the wine cellar. And there’s

19 some type of alcohol in a refrigerated area.

20 Q. And where is this refrigerated area located.

21 A. Right when you walk in through the back of

22 the house, of the main house, there’s, like,

23 refrigerators and glass doors. And it’s, like, back

24 there.

25 Q. And did you actually see the alcohol in that

26 area.

27 A. No. But I know there was some there.

28 Q. The wine cellar, how do you get into the 1098 

1 wine cellar.

2 A. You need a key and you need to go through a

3 door.

4 Q. And did you know where the key was.

5 A. Not really. It was in the lounge. And I

6 know where it was. Whoever opened the wine cellar,

7 it was like — it was Jesus or someone else.

8 Q. Were you ever in the wine cellar without the

9 defendant.

10 A. No.

And here is a more detailed explanation of Jackson’s alleged sexually vulgar prank calls to women, this time while at his bedroom suite at Neverland. The Arvizo boys were forced to participate, and if nobody answered the telephone of the number that they had randomly picked, they were forced to drink more alcohol:

11 Q. Now, you told the ladies and gentlemen of

12 the jury that when you were on the plane, you

13 overheard Mr. Jackson make some crank calls,

14 correct.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Were you ever present where any crank calls

17 were made from the ranch.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And where was that. Where did that occur.

20 A. Upstairs in his bedroom.

21 Q. And who was present.

22 A. Me, Aldo, my brother, and Michael.

23 Q. The defendant.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Tell us what went on.

26 A. Started making crank calls.

27 Q. Who.

28 A. Michael, Aldo, me and my brother. 1099

1 Q. And tell us, when you made the crank calls,

2 how did you pick the number.

3 A. Just dialed any number.

4 Q. And when people picked up the phone, what

5 was said.

6 A. I don’t know. I don’t know exactly what was

7 said.

8 Q. Did you ever make any of these calls.

9 A. I think so, yes.

10 Q. What happened if nobody picked up on the

11 other end of the line.

12 A. Michael would have us take a drink of wine.

13 Q. Who would.

14 A. If the phone number didn’t exist, we’d have

15 to drink a drink of wine, or he’d have us drink

16 wine.

Star’s direct examination continues in the next post in this series; open this link to go to it: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/march-7th-2005-trial-analysis-davellin-arvizo-cross-examination-and-star-arvizo-direct-examination-part-3-of-3/ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

34 Comments leave one →
  1. January 16, 2014 4:06 pm

    “one of the things i’ve always been confused about is the “jesus juice.” how did the kids know he called it that if it was something that was supposedly a secret between michael and only a two close friends? and how did they figure out that he did drink alcohol from soda cans?” – Melanie

    Melanie, from Frank Cascio’s book I gathered that Michael did not make a secret of the fact that he called wine Jesus juice (Jesus indeed drank wine as we know from the Bible). So if Michael called it that way openly I don’t understand why it should be a problem at all. The prosecution and media simply made another mountain out of a molehill.

    And as to cans boisterous boys like the Arvizos who threw food at people on board airplanes could easily smell Michael’s cans and joke with each other at Michael’s innocent secrets which were no secret for anyone at all.

    All these things are trifles that are not even worth mentioning. People simply got used to dissecting Michael and his ways even when he was alive and are therefore accustomed to look for specks of dust in each of his moves. All of us should do a reality check and wake up from this incredibly nasty spell cast on us by the crazy media and Michael’s life-long prosecution.

    Like

  2. melanie permalink
    January 15, 2014 5:15 pm

    one of the things i’ve always been confused about is the “jesus juice.” how did the kids know he called it that if it was something that was supposedly a secret between michael and only a two close friends? and how did they figure out that he did drink alcohol from soda cans? i’m not supporting their claims by any means, i’m just looking for answers. thanks!

    Like

  3. lynande51 permalink
    June 7, 2012 5:07 am

    It was on May 23rd. She and her mother both testified briefly about the Arvizos behavior. Her Mom,Karen,spoke mostly about Janet wanting rides and she did not want to get close to her and Prudence just said the boys were rowdy, throwing things from the rides and stuff like that.

    Like

  4. shellywebstere permalink
    June 7, 2012 4:55 am

    When did she testified, I don’t remember reading her testimony.

    Like

  5. lynande51 permalink
    June 7, 2012 4:44 am

    Yes she did it was very brief but she did testify.

    Like

  6. shellywebstere permalink
    June 7, 2012 4:23 am

    Prudence Brando never testified.

    Like

  7. sanemjfan permalink
    June 6, 2012 10:09 pm

    I just added an additional court pleading from Sneddon in which he tried in vain to have the testimony of Neverland employee Julio Avila and Prudence Brando (the daughter of Miko and Karen Brando), excluded from the trial. Both of them witnessed misbehavior by Star and Gavin during their stay at Neverland.

    Like

  8. shellywebstere permalink
    May 31, 2012 7:05 pm

    II wonder if they even asked questions about those alleged phone calls to the other who were in the plane. If Gavin and Star heard them then the others knew about what MJ said too.

    Like

  9. sanemjfan permalink
    May 30, 2012 11:01 pm

    @Kris Heywood
    Thank you! I’ll go change it right now.

    Like

  10. May 30, 2012 10:55 pm

    @sanemjfan–this is the section: Star also claimed that while in Miami, she saw Gavin exhibiting symptoms of being intoxicated:

    Like

  11. sanemjfan permalink
    May 30, 2012 5:43 pm

    @Lynette
    I couldn’t find it, so can you copy and paste here the excerpt where I refer to Star as “she”, and I’ll go in and change it. thanks

    Like

  12. lynande51 permalink
    May 30, 2012 5:26 pm

    Shelly I don’t think so. I think it was just the number and location. But the way that they knew it was her mother and fathers house is because of the other phone calls that were made from it and too it.

    Like

  13. shellywebstere permalink
    May 30, 2012 3:01 pm

    @lynande,

    Do you remember if that guy gave the name of the people who got this phone call?

    Like

  14. May 30, 2012 12:42 pm

    Thanks for the article. Great to read the actual words from the trial. Sneddon comes off as not too sharp.

    Like

  15. Maria permalink
    May 30, 2012 11:14 am

    My entry is not an expression of support for these people. I told many times how outrageous, cruel and terrible was the behavior of the accusers, prosecutors and the media. The process 2005 was the final blow. This case is slowly killing him. I also feel anger, and dislike particularly to the media in America. Gavin received great help from Michael in the worst period. In return Michael was treated in the cruelest way. Outrage is justified. MJ devoted his life to save the lives of other people. Only the fans know it.
    The way to show the truth is important. They had no mercy for MJ. They had no mercy for him. Fans should show them a dignified attitude despite their cruelty. Maybe that’s why.

    We have to show the scale of his involvement in the world. This is the argument. For example:

    Like

  16. Linda permalink
    May 30, 2012 9:23 am

    @sanemjfan PERMALINK

    May 30, 2012 1:13 am
    @lynette
    Ok thanks! I’ll go correct it now. Sometimes when I read page after page after page of transcripts its easy to have typos here and there!

    An easy obvious typo. I caught it too, but I know that you know who the he’s and she’s are in this case, lol. Anyway, I think the pic is good. Bad deeds done in secret will come to light. That, to me is what this pic shows. This family was so blessed to be in Michael’s life, and their greed and deception showed up all through the trial, but the light showed through so obviously.

    So many people involved, Arvizo’s, Sneddon, the press and much of the public should be so ashamed. It’s sad that after it’s all over and done, not one of them are willing to accept responsibility for what they did. I don’t think they ever will, because, then they would have to admit they lied. Can you imagine how many court sessions we would have to go through if all these people that lied and faked evidence were brought to trial and prosecuted? It would go on for years, but I for one love to see Justice for the unjust.

    Well, I guess when everybody dies and has to face God, Lies won’t stand up, so in the end there will be justice for all.

    Like

  17. nannorris permalink
    May 30, 2012 7:55 am

    You are right ..Jay Jackson wanted big money too…Evidently he and Janet were made for each other…Kinda sickening how they try to use the fact that he is a Major in the Army to make him seem upstanding..
    I remember one of the jurors talking about the phone records really stood out for her..
    I want to read them too..
    .When you look at how the prosecution didnt include the phone records the day that supposedly Michael was trying to reach the Arvizo family..And the defense has to find it to disprove that ever happened..
    Same as the calls on the plane..
    The prosecutors would have had to have looked at those days because it would have have bolstered their case if it was true.
    So they had to know these kids lied ..Same as in the prosecution motion mentioned in this article where Rio was talking about them masturbating in the guest quarters, all the while they are supposed to be these innocents that MJ is corrupting and Sneddon is defending it , ..This group of prosecutors was just brainwashed

    Like

  18. May 30, 2012 7:14 am

    Star was so obviously lying, not just with his fake memories, but, for instance, when he said he smelled something that reminded him of rubbing alcohol–as if he had never been around wine or alcohol in his life and their aroma was completely foreign to him. Having been a witness to the fights between his parents, he most likely heard any number of serious cursing multiple times, and yet he pretended Michael had to teach him swear words. Everything he says sounds like illogical crap, a fishing expedition, a plot hatched by vulgar-minded people who are so warped they can’t understand innocence even when it stares them in the face. Michael trying to pull his little Prince into sex games? What a joke. It must have been chilling for MJ to hear these people’s twisted tales after opening his house and his heart to them. I have absolutely no sympathy for the Arvizo children. They were all coached by the same low-minded plotters.

    Like

  19. lynande51 permalink
    May 30, 2012 5:29 am

    Yes but it comes from a man that testifies for the one company. I forget his name but he comes up in the testimony just before the detective that put it all together. It also doesn’t come up in the direct it comes up in the cross examination. They don’t say whose phone number it is but they say the location that it goes to which is El Monte and that is where Janet’s parents live. There was also one phone call about an hour before landing that went to Neverland.
    I just don’t think the Arvizos had any idea what the prosecution would have to introduce as evidence with that story. They complain about being tracked and forced to say things and other wild things. Didn’t they think they would ever have to look through phone records if she accused someone of calling her all the time. Or if part of the kids story was to say he made these phone calls didn’t they think they would look that up. Like that article I posted before Roger Friedman even says that the prosectution didn’t add the phone calls from February 4th the day that the Arvizo’s went looking for Michael through Chris Tucker. It was the defense that found that.
    Everyone overlooks Jay jackson in that whole thing and I don’t think they should. Janet couldn’t pull it off without him and he was the one that said to Brad Miller ” what are you going to do for this little family”? You’re talking about college educations and houses and cars, can’t you do better than that”? Never overlook that man he was just as instrumental in it as the rest of that family.

    Like

  20. May 30, 2012 2:22 am

    Did they introduce the phone records from the plane or not?

    Like

  21. lynande51 permalink
    May 30, 2012 1:46 am

    I know just exactly what you mean by that testimony. When youe read it and reread it your eyes can go buggy.

    Like

  22. nannorris permalink
    May 30, 2012 1:45 am

    I was thinking about the remark Star made about the phone calls on the plane and I thought to myself. these prosecutors have left no stone unturned( except for the ones that exonerate MJ of course) but it would seem to me that they had the manpower to go look for the person or persons who received these phone calls from the plane.They never had some woman show up because they knew it was rubbish..I think that is why they were working on the phone records for such a long time.
    Trying to figure out what to do..
    Why wouldnt you double check every single call Janet Arviso mad to ensure you have missed nothing?
    They had to have know these kids were full of it before they ever walked into the courtroom

    As far as the picture of those 2 scheming liars..Those 2 made the most disgusting accusations against one of our greatest advocates for children.
    How many other children could have benefited from MJ help if not for these two .
    What about Michaels own children and what they went through?
    Look at how Ron Zonen goes on about this kid being a victim , to hide his own culpability..
    I want them to be remembered for what they did to an innocent man..

    I see nothing wrong with calling people out at times because as far as I am concerned , some[people thought Mesereau was taking a chance being tough with Gavin.
    Well he got that kid to show his true colors .
    If he hadnt done that , MJ might have been sent to jail on this BS, and he probably would have died a convicted felon who had lost everything ..
    This was a lynching in my opinion ,

    Like

  23. Julie permalink
    May 30, 2012 1:25 am

    sanemjfan – I have to respectfully disagree with Maria regarding the photo. Truth is a defense and those boys were proven to be liars. I find the photo to be extremely clever and to the point. I hope you keep it on this story!

    Like

  24. sanemjfan permalink
    May 30, 2012 1:13 am

    @lynette
    Ok thanks! I’ll go correct it now. Sometimes when I read page after page after page of transcripts its easy to have typos here and there!

    Also, I’m going to use the pleadings about the subpoena that Mesereau served the Arvizos in 2004 later on when I get to the part about the raid on Bradley Miller’s office, since the subpoena was about their knowledge of that raid.

    Like

  25. lynande51 permalink
    May 30, 2012 12:39 am

    @ nan He did tell off Gloria Allred one time and another time a question from the press caused him to make a gesture using a finger to tell them what he thought of his question. That was a little different though because both times if I remember it was about his kids. Allred was always after his kids and that made him really mad. No one on earth came before his babies! No one! Them and his mother. I think if he would have ever been in the same room with Gloria Allred there would have been big trouble.The thing is she deserved it.
    I know that when I read Al Malniks site he said after the trial Michael got mean for awhile which I think anyone of us whether we are a fan or not would understand. Then if you watch the video of his This Is It announcement you can see that he reacts to something that someone says in a not very nice way. I understand his feelings about some of these people because I for one hope that Diane Dimond never gets another interview or article written. Does that make me a bad person? I don’t think so. I think it would be a public service considering the magnitude of misinformation that woman spews out.
    Then there are the lyrics to a couple of his songs that he wrote post 1993. I get the general idea behind DS and Threatened and Privacy and Money and Ghost and Tabloid Junkie and the list goes on….

    Like

  26. lynande51 permalink
    May 30, 2012 12:25 am

    David good start on Stars’ testimony. In the telephone testimony you will find out that the only phone calls from that plane were made by one of the Arvizo family to her mothers house in El Monte. So much for that prank phone call testimony.
    (oh by the way in one part you have a typo and you refer to Star as she)

    Like

  27. nannorris permalink
    May 30, 2012 12:16 am

    I see nothing wrong with the picture ..It is shining a light so bright on their lies it ignites..
    Frankly MJ tried to be passive but imo, you cant not be passive to a bully , they look at it as a weakness.
    I have had polite conversations on DD page where I have just plain put it to them because I have read this garbage….They dont like it but they shut up because there are people on there that can quote the transcripts and show exactly what happened in that courtroom as well as the 1108 junk…These people should have been charged with perjury, half of them outright admitted to it on the witness stand….and Sneddon and company should have been censured, but instead after the mans reputation was dragged through the mud., and finally cleared….they continue to trash him in hopes nobody will notice what they did..
    It is high time a light was shined on these vermin, who hide their lies in the shadows while everyone scrutinized the most famous man on Earth..
    I wish MJ had practiced telling people off …He should have allowed himself the rigs to get angry about this persecution and imo, racism..
    He was one of the worlds greatest humanitarians and these serial liars should not have center stage to besmirch his name any longer.
    They should be held accountable..

    Like

  28. Maria permalink
    May 29, 2012 11:33 pm

    Michael dedicated his life to teach us something.

    Like

  29. lynande51 permalink
    May 29, 2012 11:23 pm

    Maria In America there is an old saying ” liar liar pants on fire”. It was said in schoolyards across American when I was a child and a bit beyond. It was just a funny little rhyme that kids said.
    Is it wrong to expose the Arvizo family as the liars that planned and schemed with the prosecutors in the case to falsely accuse Michael of the crimes that they alleged? Don’t you want the lies exposed and the truth revealed to the readers of this blog. Perhaps you would like to submit an alternative picture that would be more in keeping with how you feel about the Arvizo family. This is not hate speech first of all. It is a picture with a man with a flashlight that is calling Gavin Arvizo liar liar pants on fire.
    We cannot expose the Arvizos as the liars that they are in a nice way I’m afraid because the Arvizos lies were not nice were they.At some point Michael’s fans are going to have to accept that he did not forgive the Arvizo’s for what they said and did to him. If he didn’t why should we?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

    Like

  30. sanemjfan permalink
    May 29, 2012 10:57 pm

    @Maria
    Can you explain to me why you are so offended by that photo? I think it’s totally representative of what we’re trying to accomplish as adovates of MJ.

    Like

  31. Maria permalink
    May 29, 2012 10:34 pm

    Stop the hate. This photo is hate speech. As a fan I do not agree.

    Like

  32. nannorris permalink
    May 29, 2012 10:21 pm

    Great Job David !!.. Notice… how many times he says ‘probably”…and how quickly he wants to be sure to say the explicit stuff so that he doesnt forget….For such a shy and tender little lamb , that garbage just shoots right out of his mouth…..What SCUM..
    sneddon was really getting off on this macho junk about somehow saving these 2 little angels from big bad MJ..pathetic.

    Like

  33. Maria permalink
    May 29, 2012 10:20 pm

    I do not like this photo. Michael’s fans can not use such methods.

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. March 7th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Davellin Arvizo (Cross Examination) and Star Arvizo (Direct Examination), Part 1 of 3 « Vindicating Michael

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: