Skip to content

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

May 31, 2012

Star then goes on to describe how he heard threats from Frank Cascio, and where he and his family stayed during their time away from Neverland after security manager Jesus Salas drove them away in a Rolls-Royce:

26 Q. Now, do you remember — do you remember

27 leaving with Jesus.

28 A. Yes. 1104

1 Q. All right. And tell the jury what time you

2 left and under what circumstances.

3 A. It was really late at night. It was really

4 late at night, and it was spontaneous. He just —

5 he pulled around the car and we left.

6 Q. Now, where were all your clothes prior to

7 leaving.

8 A. In the room.

9 Q. What room.

10 A. Guest unit.

11 Q. Your clothes were in the guest unit.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. So you gathered up your belongings, you got

14 in the car and you left. Where did you go.

15 A. To my grandma’s house.

16 Q. Now, at the time that you were at the ranch

17 before you left with Jesus, were you — did you

18 personally — not what somebody else said, but did

19 you personally hear anybody threaten anyone.

20 A. When I was trying to head to my — when I

21 was trying to head to my mom’s guest unit, Frank

22 approached me, and he was — he was — I don’t

23 remember what I was trying to do, but I was trying

24 to go to my mom’s guest unit, and Frank was telling

25 me that he has ways that my grand —

26 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

27 MR. SNEDDON: Same offer, Your Honor.

28 THE COURT: All right. This is conditionally 1105

1 admitted under the previous instruction.

2 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Go ahead. You can tell us,

3 please.

4 A. He was saying that he has ways that my

5 grandparents could disappear.

6 Q. And that was told to you personally.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Did you tell that to anybody else.

9 A. No.

10 Q. Now, did you ever go back to the ranch after

11 that.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Okay. So I want to talk about now, I want

14 to talk about some events that occurred from the

15 time that you left the ranch with Jesus till the

16 time you went back.

17 A. Okay.

18 Q. Okay. Do you — where did you spend that

19 time.

20 A. At my grandma’s house.

21 Q. Were you ever over at Jay Jackson’s house.

22 A. I don’t remember.

23 Q. Do you remember an occasion where a private

24 investigator came to Mr. Jackson’s house and there

25 was an interview with you and the family.

26 A. Yes.

27 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

28 THE COURT: Overruled. The answer was, 1106

1 “Yes.” Next question.

2 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Can you tell us when you

3 believe that to have occurred.

4 A. Oh, it was probably a couple days after we

5 came back from the ranch the first time.

6 Q. And were you present during that

7 conversation.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And did you participate in that

10 conversation.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Now, you said — I believe you just said you

13 went back to the ranch.

14 A. No, when we came back from the ranch.

15 Q. When you came back from the ranch. Did you

16 ever go back to the ranch.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Do you remember who you were with when you

19 went back to the ranch.

20 A. No, I don’t remember.

21 Q. You went back by yourself.

22 A. No, I went back with my — my brother, my

23 sister and — I don’t think — I don’t know. I

24 think it was —

25 Q. I’m sorry, you’re going to have to lean into

26 the mike.

27 A. I think it was my brother, my sister, me and

28 my mom. 1107

Next, Star is asked by Sneddon about statements that he made during the filming of the rebuttal video:

22 Q. Now, you — you left the ranch again,

23 correct. Do you remember the next time you left the

24 ranch.

25 A. Yes.

26 Q. What was the reason you left.

27 A. To do a rebuttal.

28 Q. And who did you leave with. 1108

1 A. Hamid.

2 Q. And do you know where you went.

3 A. We went to his house.

4 Q. By “his house,” you mean who.

5 A. Hamid’s house.

6 Q. And who else was with you in the car besides

7 you and Hamid.

8 A. My brother and my sister.

9 Q. When you got to Hamid’s house, what did you

10 do.

11 A. Me and my brother, we sat down, we started

12 playing video games.

13 Q. Was there anybody else there at the time

14 that you arrived besides you and your brother and

15 your sister and Hamid.

16 A. No.

17 Q. Did anybody else arrive after that.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Who arrived after that.

20 A. Vinnie, my mom, other people.

21 Q. Do you remember the names of any of those

22 people.

23 A. No.

24 Q. Do you remember how many there were.

25 A. A lot.

26 Q. Now, you said you and your brother were

27 playing video games. What room were you in.

28 A. The living room. 1109

1 Q. And do you recall the filming — the actual

2 filming that occurred later. Was it in that room or

3 a different room.

4 A. It was in that room.

5 Q. And when your mother arrived, where was your

6 mother. Was she in that room or another room.

7 A. She was — she was in another room.

8 Q. With you.

9 A. What do you mean. Like —

10 Q. I couldn’t hear you.

11 A. At what time.

12 Q. When she first got there, where was she.

13 A. She was where the pool table was.

14 Q. Is that in the living room or another room.

15 A. That’s another room.

16 Q. And so she was in there. How long was she

17 in there.

18 A. I don’t know.

19 Q. You weren’t in there, right.

20 A. No.

21 Q. Now, before you left the ranch — before you

22 left the ranch with Hamid to go to his house

23 – okay. – could you tell me whether or not Dieter or

24 Ronald were there.

25 A. They were there.

26 Q. Can you tell me whether or not you had any

27 meeting with — or conversation with them.

28 A. Yes, we had a conversation with them. 1110

1 Q. And what did — let’s talk about Dieter.

2 Who was doing the talking.

3 A. Dieter.

4 Q. What did he say.

5 A. He was telling me just to say only good

6 things and — about Michael.

7 Q. Who else was present during that

8 conversation.

9 A. My brother, my sister, my mom.

10 Q. Okay. You’re at Hamid’s house and you’re

11 about ready to — for the filming. Do you remember

12 what time it was when you got to Hamid’s.

13 A. 1:00 in the morning, when we first got

14 there.

15 Q. And do you remember the filming.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Were you in the whole film.

18 A. I think so.

19 Q. Now, the things that you said on the film,

20 the rebuttal film – okay.

21 A. Okay.

22 Q. You have to indicate “Yes” or “No.”

23 A. Oh, yes.

24 Q. There’s a statement in there that the

25 defendant, Mr. Jackson, helped you do your homework.

26 Was that true.

27 A. No.

28 Q. And there’s a statement in there that you 1111

1 always had his telephone number so you could get

2 ahold of him. Is that true.

3 A. No.

4 Q. How did you feel about Mr. Jackson at the

5 time you participated in this rebuttal film.

6 A. I don’t remember. Probably at that point I

7 thought he was an okay guy.

Next, Sneddon asks Star about the truthfulness of the positive statements he made about Jackson to the DCFS social workers:

20 Q. Now, when you had the interview with the

21 social workers, was everybody in the same room or

22 did they take people separately.

23 A. Everyone was in the same room.

24 Q. And do you remember any conversations with

25 the social workers about what you said to them.

26 A. Not really. I don’t remember what I exactly

27 said.

28 Q. Do you remember the topics that were covered 1114

1 by the questions.

2 A. I think everyone was wondering whether —

3 no, I don’t remember.

4 Q. Well, take your time.

5 A. I don’t remember.

6 Q. Was everything you told them the truth.

7 A. No, not exactly.

8 Q. What do you mean, “not exactly”.

9 A. Like — I don’t know. Just, like, he

10 never — he never really helped us with our

11 homework. He — can’t think of another example.

In this excerpt, Star confirms that his brother Gavin referred to Jackson as “Daddy” or “Michael Daddy” on numerous occasions, although Star insinuated that it was because Jackson told him to call him that, when in reality it was their mother who encouraged it, and that will be confirmed later on in the trial:

4 Q. Now, during the time that you knew Mr.

5 Jackson, did he used to call you “Star”.

6 A. No. No.

7 Q. What did he call you.

8 A. “Blow Hole.”

9 Q. “Blow Hole”.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And when he talked to Gavin, did he call

12 Gavin “Gavin”.

13 A. Yes, he called him “Apple Head” or

14 “Doo-Doo.”

15 Q. And did you have a name that you called the

16 defendant.

17 A. No.

18 Q. Did you ever — anybody refer to him as

19 “Michael” or “Michael Daddy,” or “Daddy”.

20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

21 THE COURT: Overruled.

22 THE WITNESS: My brother called him “Daddy.”

23 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Did you hear him do that on

24 more than one occasion.

25 A. Yes.

26 Q. How many.

27 A. I know it was more than twice.

The next subject that Sneddon questioned Star about was his family’s time at the Calabasas Inn, and the shopping sprees that they went on, which Star claimed were for their upcoming trip to Brazil:

28 Q. Now, you’ve told the ladies and gentlemen of 1121

1 the jury that you were at the Calabasas Inn for a

2 number of days.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. What did you do there. Tell me what — some

5 of the things you did.

6 A. We got our passports and visas.

7 Q. Did — you say “we.” Who’s “we”.

8 A. My brother, my sister and my mom.

9 Q. Did you do that — were you alone when you

10 did that or did somebody go with you.

11 A. Frank and Vinnie were with us.

12 Q. Do you remember where you went to get the

13 passports.

14 A. I think it’s — I don’t remember where the

15 building was. But I remember where we got a pass —

16 our pictures.

17 Q. Where did you get your pictures taken.

18 A. At a Walgreen’s.

19 Q. Did — were you with — did you go to get a

20 visa.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And who went with you.

23 A. Frank and Vinnie.

24 Q. And anybody else.

25 A. My mom, my brother and my sister and me.

26 Q. While you were at the Calabasas Inn there,

27 did you go shopping.

28 A. Yes. 1122

1 Q. Where did you go shopping.

2 A. We went to some outlets. We shopped at a

3 Levis store, Club Banana store, and we shopped for

4 luggage.

5 Q. Did you know why you were shopping.

6 A. Because we were going to go to Brazil.

7 Q. And who told you you were going to go to

8 Brazil.

9 A. I think it was Frank. Because he wanted us

10 to — he wanted it to be educational or something.

11 Q. Is that what he said.

12 A. Yeah, that’s what he was telling us.

13 Q. Did Frank say anything to you whether or not

14 the defendant, Michael Jackson, was going to go to

15 Brazil with you.

16 A. He said about four weeks after we were

17 there, then Michael was going to come.

18 Q. So it was going to be a long trip.

19 A. Yeah.

20 Q. Do you remember anything else about the time

21 that you stayed in Calabasas. Did you ever go to

22 the swimming pool.

23 A. No.

24 Q. Why.

25 A. We never had time to. Well, we never went

26 to the swimming pool.

27 Q. Did you — during the time you were there,

28 do you know where Frank and Vinnie were staying. 1123

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Where.

3 A. Down the hall from us.

4 Q. How do you know that.

5 A. Because we saw them.

6 Q. Tell us how that happened.

7 A. When we were — when he set us up in our

8 room, we saw him walk back to his room.

9 Q. Did you ever see them on any other occasions

10 when they were in their room, or when you walked

11 past their room.

12 A. What. I don’t — no.

13 Q. Okay. So when you came back — so after you

14 were at Calabasas, where did you go after all that

15 was done, the things you’ve described.

16 A. We went back to the ranch.

17 Q. And who took you back to the ranch.

18 A. Frank.

Star went on to describe an alleged incident where Jackson repeatedly kept saying the word “clitoris” while watching a horror movie called “The Devil’s Backbone” with himself and his brother, and another incident where he claimed that Jackson walked into his bedroom in the nude in front of the boys, with an erection. Star claimed that Dr. Katz called it a “hard on”, but that he calls it an “erection”; this was an obvious attempt by Sneddon to give the jury the impression that Star was sexually naïve. Notice how Star initially couldn’t remember this incident, but had to be reminded of it by Sneddon!

21 Q. All right. Now, are you familiar with a

22 movie called “The Devil’s Backbone”.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. All right. Where was it the first time you

25 saw that movie.

26 A. Upstairs.

27 Q. Upstairs where.

28 A. In his bedroom. 1126

1 Q. Whose bedroom.

2 A. Michael’s bedroom.

3 Q. And how many times have you seen that movie.

4 A. Three times.

5 Q. And where did you see it the other two

6 times.

7 A. In his bedroom.

8 Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever say anything to you

9 about that movie.

10 A. There was one time, Frank was walking up,

11 and there was a girl on the movie — or a movie, and

12 he just kept on saying “clitoris.”

13 Q. Who did.

14 A. Michael.

15 Q. Do you know what that means.

16 A. No.

17 Q. Do you know what it means now.

18 A. No.

19 Q. Do you know what it meant then.

20 A. No.

21 Q. Now, was there — after you got back from

22 Calabasas – okay. —

23 A. Okay.

24 Q. — was there ever an occasion where

25 anything else unusual happened between you and your

26 brother and the defendant, Michael Jackson.

27 A. Do you mean after staying at Cal — what was

28 it. What was the question. 1127

1 Q. Yeah. Anything else unusual that you saw

2 about the defendant, Michael Jackson.

3 A. No.

4 Q. Pardon.

5 A. I don’t know.

6 Q. Do you ever recall an occasion where he

7 walked into the room and you and your brother were

8 on a bed.

9 A. Oh.

10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

11 THE COURT: Overruled.

12 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Just — do you recall that

13 occasion, when you were sitting on the bed, and he

14 walked into the room.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury

17 what you saw.

18 A. Me and my brother were watching a movie, and

19 Michael walked up naked. And he walked to the

20 corner of the room, picked up something. Me and my

21 brother were grossed out. And he sat on the bed and

22 he told us it was natural, and then he walked back

23 downstairs.

24 Q. Did either you or your brother say anything

25 to him. Let me break it up, because I don’t want to

26 get a compound problem here.

27 Did you say anything to him when he walked

28 in. 1128

1 A. I was just grossed out.

2 Q. No, but did you say anything to him.

3 A. No.

4 Q. Did brother say anything to him in your

5 presence.

6 A. No.

7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

8 THE COURT: Overruled.

9 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: The answer was.

10 A. “No.”

11 Q. How long was it that Mr. Jackson was in the

12 room with you and your brother naked.

13 A. Probably about two minutes.

14 Q. Did you see anything else about Mr. Jackson

15 at that time.

16 A. No.

17 Q. When you say he was naked, what was he

18 wearing, if anything.

19 A. Nothing.

20 Q. Totally naked.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. So you could see his private parts.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Did you see anything about his private

25 parts, one way or the other.

26 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

27 THE COURT: Overruled.

28 THE WITNESS: What. 1129

1 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: I asked you if you saw his

2 private parts.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Anything unusual about his private parts.

5 A. Oh, he had a hard-on.

6 Q. That’s what you call it.

7 A. Well, that’s what Dr. Katz called it, so —

8 Q. What do you call it.

9 A. Erection.

10 Q. Either way, that’s what you saw.

11 A. Yes.

Here is a major discrepancy that I want to take the time to point out! Star just stated that Jackson ran back downstairs after telling them it was “natural” to have an erection, but during his opening statement Sneddon said that Star and Gavin ran downstairs and pretended to have to use the bathroom! Here’s the excerpt from Sneddon’s opening statement:

11 It’s in this room and on that bed where the

12 boys were sitting there watching T.V. one night, and

13 all of a sudden, the defendant appears from the

14 stairwell, absolutely stark naked, with an erection.

15 And when the boys look at him – and Star will say he

16 was grossed out – that the defendant says, “It’s

17 natural. It’s okay. Why don’t you boys do the same

18 thing.” Their response was to get up from the bed

19 and go downstairs and pretend like they had to go to

20 the bathroom

There is an important observation that was brought to my attention by Lynette, one of the authors of this blog: the reason that Star said that Jackson showed him a horror movie is because it is consistent with Jordan Chandler’s story from 1993, in which he claimed that he and Jackson watched “The Exorcist” together. This proves that the Arvizos studied the leaked declaration (and NOT a deposition!) of Jordan Chandler that hit the internet shortly after the Bashir documentary aired in the USA. This story was concocted in order to promote the fallacy that Jackson’s M.O. was to force his “victims” to watch a horror movie as part of his “grooming” process. 

This next excerpt was initially crucial for the prosecution, but it would later be used to the advantage of the defense! Star says that he was shown an issue of a “Barely Legal” pornographic magazine, and it was entered into evidence as “People’s 86”. We’ll get back to this particular issue of that magazine later on in Star’s testimony! Be sure to pay attention to Judge Melville’s admonishment of Sneddon for his use of the word “pornography”:

14 Q. Let’s go to the next photograph, if we

15 could. And is that No. 58.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. All right. Do you recognize 58.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Tell us about 58.

20 A. That’s the inside — that’s —

21 Q. Inside of what.

22 A. Michael’s room. Downstairs in the — it’s

23 the room all the way to the left, inside of it.

24 Q. Do you have a name for that room.

25 A. It’s probably a bathroom or rest room.

26 Q. Did anything occur in this room while you

27 were there.

28 A. There’s a black suitcase. 1140

1 Q. What about it.

2 A. It had pornography in there.

3 Q. In this room.

4 A. Yes.

1 MR. SNEDDON: All right. For the record,

2 Your Honor, 470 is a clear plastic bag with the

3 number “122980” in white on the front of it. And

4 it’s been marked 470 for identification. I’ve shown

5 it to counsel.

6 MR. MESEREAU: Excuse me, Your Honor. Could

7 I ask that the prosecutor and the witness be

8 admonished to follow your order with respect to

9 describing the contents.

10 THE COURT: Yes.

11 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.

12 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to show you 470.

13 Recognize that.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. What is it.

16 A. This is the suitcase that held all the

17 pornography in it.

18 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; move to strike.

19 THE COURT: It’s stricken. The pre-trial

20 order requires that you and the witness refer to

21 adult material as “adult material,” not the

22 conclusion.

23 MR. SNEDDON: Okay. I don’t even know —

24 THE COURT: There are a couple words that you

25 could use.

26 MR. SNEDDON: I’m not sure he would know any

27 of those words, but I’ll — could I have a second to

28 talk to him about it, then. I didn’t know that 1152

1 meant to the witness, because that would be me

2 telling him words, but — okay. Let me just….

3 (Whereupon, there was an off-the-record

4 discussion held between the witness and Mr.

5 Sneddon.)

6 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: All right. Where was that

7 exhibit the first time you saw it.

8 A. It was — it was in the downstairs, near the

9 bathtub that was like a Jacuzzi. It was near there.

10 Q. All right.

11 THE COURT: Just a minute, Counsel. I want

12 to tell the jury something about our last little

13 discussion, because I don’t want to leave this up in

14 the air like that.

15 The — the reason that the witness and the

16 attorneys are to refer to this material as “adult

17 material” – or there’s another word I used, I can’t

18 remember now – instead of “pornography,” is that

19 “pornography” really is a legal conclusion that the

20 trier of fact is the person who decides what the

21 nature of the material is.

22 So by having the witness and the attorneys

23 refer to it in a somewhat neutral time frame, it

24 stops any conclusions from being made that would

25 bias the jury. That’s the whole purpose.

26 Go ahead, Counsel.

27 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Who was with you when you

28 saw that suitcase for the first time. 1153

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

2 Q. The defendant.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And who — how was it that you were actually

5 shown that suitcase.

6 A. Uhh —

7 Q. Tell us what happened.

8 A. Just walked in the room and it was open. It

9 was — there used to be a couch right there.

10 Q. Yeah.

11 A. And — well, it wasn’t really a couch. It

12 was like a chair. And it was on there, and it was

13 open.

14 Q. All right. And then what happened.

15 A. Michael just started to show us magazines.

16 Q. You say “show” you. Tell us what he did.

17 A. He handed them to us.

18 Q. All right. And did you look at them.

19 A. Yes, with him.

20 Q. And did you look at them one at a time or

21 did everybody have a different one at a different

22 time. How did it happen. Tell us what happened.

23 A. We all looked at them one at a time.

24 Q. Did anybody make any comments about

25 anything.

26 A. No.

27 Q. Do you remember how many of them you saw.

28 A. A couple. 1154

1 Q. How long was it that you were there going

2 through them.

3 A. I don’t know. Probably ten minutes.

4 Q. Now, when did that take place, when you saw

5 these for the first — that suitcase for the first

6 time.

7 A. When.

8 Q. Yeah.

9 A. I think after the Calabasas hotel.

10 Q. Now, I have one other exhibit that is No. 86

11 marked for identification purposes.

12 Now, I’m going to show you this in just a

13 second, but I want to talk to you a little bit more.

14 Did you ever see that black suitcase that’s

15 been marked as People’s 470 before. After that,

16 after the time that you discussed —

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Where.

19 A. It was upstairs in his bed area.

20 Q. Where.

21 A. In his — where his bed was.

22 Q. And where in his bedroom.

23 A. Near the T.V.

24 Q. All right. And where were you.

25 A. What do you mean.

26 Q. Where were you in the bedroom.

27 A. On the bed.

28 Q. All right. Who was with you. 1155

1 A. Aldo, my brother and Michael.

2 Q. And where was the suitcase located. I mean,

3 how did — did you ever look at the suitcase, inside

4 of it.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. What happened.

7 A. There was adult material in there.

8 Q. All right. But how did it get opened.

9 A. Michael pulled it out.

10 Q. All right. Tell us what he did.

11 A. He picked it up, sat on the bed and opened

12 it.

13 Q. And then what.

14 A. He pulled the magazine out and started

15 showing us.

16 Q. How many magazines do you think you saw that

17 time.

18 A. Four. Three. I don’t know.

19 Q. Did you look through the entire magazines.

20 A. No. It was probably a section or something

21 like that.

22 Q. What did you see in the magazines.

23 A. Nude females.

24 Q. What.

25 A. Nude females.

26 Q. Do you remember the names of any of the

27 titles of the magazines that you saw.

28 A. “Barely Legal” and “Playboy.” 1156

1 Q. Were there others that you saw besides that,

2 or are those the only ones you saw.

3 A. Those are the only ones I remember.

4 Q. I’m going to show you a photograph marked as

5 People’s 86 for identification purposes.

6 And that’s — first of all, I’m going to

7 move that People’s 470 be admitted into evidence,

8 Your Honor.

9 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.

10 THE COURT: We’ll take that up separately.

11 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: All right. People’s 86.

12 Do you recognize that.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Is that an accurate depiction of what it

15 represents.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. All right. I’m going to ask you some

18 questions about People’s 86.

19 And put it on the board, Your Honor. I move

20 it be admitted into evidence.

21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation; and

22 authenticity and relevance.

23 THE COURT: On 86.

24 MR. SNEDDON: Yes. I asked him and he said

25 it accurately depicted the materials.

26 THE COURT: I’m not sure. I haven’t seen

27 the —

28 MR. SNEDDON: In your book, it’s No. 86, 1157

1 Your Honor —

2 THE COURT: Okay.

3 MR. SNEDDON: — in your photographs.

4 MR. MESEREAU: Also 352, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: I don’t think that’s an adequate

6 foundation for that particular photograph, that it

7 accurately depicts what it is. You need a further

8 foundation.

9 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Star, the materials that

10 are depicted in that photograph, People’s 86, do you

11 see those.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Do you recognize any of those.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Where do you recognize them from.

16 A. The black suitcase.

17 Q. And which time.

18 A. The first and second time.

19 Q. Does that photograph represent the items

20 that you saw with the defendant, Michael Jackson.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. In his bedroom and in his Jacuzzi, or in his

23 bathroom.

24 A. Yes.

25 MR. SNEDDON: I move it be admitted, Your

26 Honor.

27 THE COURT: All right. That is an adequate

28 foundation. 1158

1 Your 352 was on what basis, Counsel.

2 MR. MESEREAU: He didn’t identify some of

3 what’s in that photograph, Your Honor, at all.

4 THE COURT: I found that the foundation is

5 adequate now. You had a 352 objection.

6 MR. MESEREAU: Yes.

7 THE COURT: What was that.

8 MR. MESEREAU: Well, basically because he

9 didn’t identify it, and because after describing

10 what he said was there, and then looking at the

11 photo and saying it accurately depicts it, he didn’t

12 identify everything, I think basically it’s

13 prejudicial and irrelevant.

14 THE COURT: All right. The probative value

15 exceeds the prejudicial —

16 THE DEFENDANT: I can’t hear.

17 THE COURT: It’s admitted.

18 THE DEFENDANT: I can’t hear you.

19 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, it’s a little hard

20 for Mr. Jackson to hear you.

21 THE DEFENDANT: Please speak up.

22 THE COURT: Yes. The probative value of

23 Exhibit 86 exceeds any prejudicial effects, and so

24 it’s admitted.

25 THE DEFENDANT: Thank you.

26 THE COURT: Sorry.

27 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Star, the exhibit that we

28 have on the board up there, the suitcase, and it’s 1159

1 open and displayed, are those among the items that

2 you saw with Mr. Jackson.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Do they represent the things that you saw

5 with him when he took the magazines out.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. All right. On the occasion that you saw the

8 materials from this suitcase that are depicted in

9 this photograph – okay. – who else was present.

10 A. My brother and Aldo, me, and Michael.

During pretrial hearings, the defense submitted multiple motions to request that Jackson’s pornography be referred to as “adult material” because of the overly prejudicial nature of the term “pornography”. On January 18th, 2005, the defense filed a motion titled “MR. JACKSON’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE REFERENCE TO MATRIALS AS PORNOGRAPHIC AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS”, in which they requested the following:

Their basis for this request was the simple fact that the materials that were found at Neverland were never adjudicated as being “pornographic” or “obscene”; rather, they were ordinary, over the counter magazines and books that could be bought at a bookstore or checked out from a library. The use of the words “pornography” and “obscene” would be more prejudicial than probative. The following excerpt from page 6 accurately summarizes this motion:

There is no legitimate purpose for plaintiff to be permitted to refer to these books, magazines, photographs, and physical depictions of disrobed individuals as “pornography” or “obscenity”. The appeal to the jury’s emotions by using the term is illegitimate and an effort to “fool” jurors into believing the Court has sanctioned the view that ordinary books and magazines are contraband. Plaintiff’s improper legal conclusions should not be permitted because their probative value are far outweighed by their prejudicial effect.

On January 24th, 2005 the prosecution filed a motion titled PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S IN LIMINE MOTION TO PRECLUDE REFERENCE TO HIS COLLECTION OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIALS AS “PORNOGRAPHY”, in which they argued that the erotic material that was seized from Neverland was relevant because it was used to awaken the sexual interest of the Arvizo boys, and the other young boys that were abused by Jackson throughout the years. (Ironically, neither Jordan Chanlder nor Jason Francia ever claimed that they had been seduced with porn before being abused by Jackson!)

On January 26th, 2005 the defense filed “MR. JACKSON’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE REFERENCE TO MATERIALS AS PORNOGRAPHIC AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS”, in which they argued the following:

 

Prior to the start of the trial, Judge Melville ruled in favor of the defense, and had to admonish the prosecution and some of their witnesses several times throughout the trial.

Star then goes on to describe an alleged incident where he witnessed Jackson simulate having sexual intercourse with a female mannequin, and when Jackson allegedly asked him if he ever masturbated:

9 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Hang onto that for just a

10 second.

11 All right. Do you recognize the photograph

12 I’ve just handed you, which is People’s 153. Is

13 that the right number on it.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. All right. Do you recognize that.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Is that an accurate depiction of the — of

18 what it purports to represent.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. As you saw it when you were there.

21 A. Yes.

22 MR. SNEDDON: All right. I move that 153 be

23 admitted into evidence.

24 MR. MESEREAU: No objection, Your Honor.

25 THE COURT: It’s admitted.

26 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: All right. Star, would you

27 tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what 153

28 is. 1162

1 A. It’s a mannequin.

2 Q. And where was the mannequin located in the

3 room when you saw it.

4 A. To the corner.

5 Q. And with regard to this particular

6 mannequin, did you ever see anything, relative to

7 the defendant in this case, occur.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury

10 what you saw.

11 A. He was — one time — he was jerking around

12 and he grabbed the mannequin, and he was pretending

13 like he was having intercourse with it.

14 Q. And where did that occur.

15 A. On the bed. He was fully clothed. He was

16 acting like he was humping.

17 Q. I didn’t hear what you said.

18 A. He was acting like he was humping it.

19 Q. Now, who else was in the bedroom when this

20 happened.

21 A. Aldo, my brother and me.

22 Q. And do you remember how this — how it

23 started or what happened, or were there —

24 A. I don’t even remember. I’m sorry.

25 Q. Did the defendant say anything while he was

26 doing it.

27 A. He was laughing.

28 Q. And how long did the whole episode last. 1163

1 A. Probably five seconds.

2 Q. Okay. Do you want to put that down.

3 Star, did you — can you tell us whether or

4 not the topic of masturbation ever came up in any

5 conversations with the defendant.

6 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

7 THE COURT: Sustained.

8 MR. SNEDDON: Judge, “whether or not” makes

9 it an open-ended question. It doesn’t suggest the

10 answer. I don’t mean to argue with the Court, but I

11 mean —

12 MR. MESEREAU: It does not, Your Honor.

13 That’s leading.

14 THE COURT: Could you rephrase the question.

15 MR. SNEDDON: Yes, Your Honor. I can do

16 that.

17 Q. Star, did you ever have any conversations

18 with the defendant about any other sexual matters.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. About what.

21 A. Masturbation.

22 Q. All right. Will you tell the ladies and

23 gentlemen of the jury —

24 A. I don’t know how the topic came about, but

25 he was asking me if I ever masturbated. And I said,

26 “No.” And he said —

27 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. There’s no

28 question pending. He just went off. 1164

1 THE COURT: Sustained.

2 MR. SNEDDON: I’ll frame one, Your Honor.

3 Q. Okay. So did you have a conversation.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. All right. Now, would you tell the ladies

6 and gentlemen of the jury, where was it.

7 A. It was — this was when another child was

8 here. His name was Rio.

9 Q. I can’t hear you.

10 A. This was in Michael’s bedroom.

11 Q. And who else was present, if anyone.

12 A. Rio, my brother, and that was it. And me.

13 Q. And to your knowledge, who is Rio.

14 A. I don’t know.

15 Q. Somebody you met at Mr. Jackson’s.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And do you recall when this was in terms of

18 before or after you went to Calabasas.

19 A. It was after.

20 Q. And do you recall whether it was in the

21 daytime or at nighttime.

22 A. Nighttime.

23 Q. All right. Would you tell us what was said,

24 what the defendant said.

25 A. He asked me if I masturbated. And I said,

26 “No.” He — he — then he said to me that,

27 “Everyone does it. You should try it. It’s okay,”

28 and all this stuff. 1165

1 Q. Were you the only one he asked that question

2 of.

3 A. Yes. Well, yeah. Yes.

4 Q. And when you said, “No,” did he say anything

5 else.

6 A. Yeah. He said, “It’s okay,” and “Everyone

7 does it,” and “You should try it.” That’s what he

8 said.

9 Q. Was there anything else said besides that.

10 A. No.

Sneddon went on to ask Star about any additional times that Jackson allegedly served Star alcohol, and Star recounted an additional time when Jackson allegedly served it to him after the family’s return to Neverland from the Calabasas hotel:

11 Q. Do you — when you came back from

12 Calabasas —

13 A. Uh-huh.

14 Q. — okay. – till the time that you left –

15 all right. – where did you sleep.

16 A. In Michael’s room. And towards the end, I

17 slept in the guest unit.

18 Q. And was there any drinking that went on

19 during that period of time.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And who was drinking.

22 A. Mostly my brother and Michael.

23 Q. You say “mostly.” Did you drink.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. On the occasion that you were there with —

26 in the room with Mr. Jackson and your brother, and

27 this person that you know — is it Rio.

28 A. Yes. 1166

1 Q. — were you drinking then.

2 A. I think so.

3 Q. Do you remember what you were drinking.

4 A. Just wine.

Next, Sneddon asked if Star witnessed Jackson come into bed with him and his brother:  

5 Q. Now, on the evenings after you came back

6 from Calabasas and until you stopped sleeping in

7 Mr. Jackson’s room, where did your brother sleep.

8 A. Michael’s room.

9 Q. During that period of time, was there an

10 incident where you saw Mr. Jackson come into bed

11 with you and your brother.

12 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

13 THE COURT: Overruled.

14 You may answer.

15 THE WITNESS: Yes. I was —

16 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Just — just — you can

17 only answer “Yes” or “No.”

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. All right. Now, you said there was an

20 incident. Where were you prior to the time that

21 Mr. Jackson came into the room.

22 A. Sleeping.

23 Q. Where.

24 A. On the bed.

25 Q. And where was your brother.

26 A. Right next to me.

27 Q. All right. We’ve seen that bed here in the

28 photographs. Okay. 1167

1 A. Okay.

2 Q. And when we’re looking straight at the bed

3 towards the back of the wall – okay. – where were

4 you located on the bed.

5 A. All the way to the right.

6 Q. And where was your brother.

7 A. In the middle.

8 Q. And were you under the covers.

9 A. Under the covers.

10 Q. Over the covers.

11 A. Under the covers.

12 Q. And how were you dressed.

13 A. In PJ’s.

14 Q. Do these PJ’s — describe them.

15 A. Sweat pants.

16 Q. I’m sorry.

17 A. Sweat pants and a shirt.

18 Q. All right. And do you recall what your

19 brother was wearing.

20 A. Not really.

21 Q. Now, did you see — tell us what happened.

22 A. I was sleeping. It was in the morning. And

23 I saw Michael come up, and I tried to say hi, but I

24 couldn’t. He got in bed. Started scooting over

25 closer and closer to my brother. And for a time he

26 didn’t stop until I moved, and then he stopped.

27 Q. And what happened when he heard you move.

28 A. He stopped. 1168

1 Q. Okay. Did you see whether or not he did

2 anything.

3 A. No. I was — no.

4 Q. Okay. Okay. Star, we’re almost done.

5 Okay.

Sneddon then asks Star about a time when he witnessed Jackson masturbate his brother Gavin as he lay asleep, intoxicated from alcohol:

6 Now, some night when you were at — at the

7 ranch – all right. – did you go up to Mr. Jackson’s

8 bedroom by yourself.

9 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

10 THE COURT: Overruled.

11 THE WITNESS: Yes.

12 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Where had you been just

13 prior to that.

14 A. I was heading to the theater.

15 Q. Where.

16 A. I was heading to the theater.

17 Q. Why were you going to the theater.

18 A. To get some chocolate.

19 Q. How did you get down there.

20 A. The golf cart.

21 Q. Did you get some chocolate.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And what did you do when you came back.

24 A. I was heading to Michael’s room to go to

25 sleep.

26 Q. All right. Would you tell the ladies and

27 gentlemen of the jury what you did when you got to

28 the house. 1169

1 A. Um, I went through the door.

2 Q. Which door.

3 A. The first door. The first door. And then

4 the second door, it was kind of — I don’t know, it

5 was, like, kind of locked. And so I pushed on it

6 till it opened, and then —

7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection, Your Honor. Could

8 we have a time. Vague as to time.

9 THE COURT: Overruled.

10 Go ahead.

11 THE WITNESS: So I went upstairs, and —

12 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Let’s go back. You were at

13 the door, and the door what.

14 A. The door was kind of locked, so I pushed it,

15 and it opened. So I went halfway to where the

16 computer table used to be, and I saw directly into

17 the bed. And I stopped. And my brother was outside

18 of the covers. And I saw Michael’s left hand in my

19 brother’s underwears and I saw his right hand in his

20 underwears, so — so I —

21 Q. Let’s just stop there for a second –

22 okay. —

23 A. Okay.

24 Q. — and ask you some questions.

25 Why were you coming back to the room that

26 night, after you’d gone down to get the chocolate.

27 A. To go to sleep.

28 Q. When you got to the point on the stairs 1170

1 where you saw your brother and Mr. Jackson on the

2 bed – okay. – when you’re looking at the bed, just

3 like we saw it on the photograph here – what side of

4 the bed was the defendant on.

5 A. Left side.

6 Q. And what side was your brother on.

7 A. Right side.

8 Q. And what position was Mr. Jackson in.

9 A. On his back. On his back.

10 Q. And what position was your brother in.

11 A. He was curled up, looking to the left. He

12 was curled up facing left.

13 Q. Now, would that be looking towards Mr.

14 Jackson or away from Mr. Jackson.

15 A. Away.

16 Q. Now, at that time, could you see what the

17 defendant was wearing.

18 A. Socks, underwears and an undershirt.

19 Q. Now, could you tell what kind of underwear

20 it was.

21 A. No.

22 Q. I mean — I’m sorry.

23 A. No.

24 Q. With regard to your brother, what was he

25 wearing.

26 A. I can’t quite remember what he was wearing.

27 I’m not —

28 Q. Do you remember what you could see of him. 1171

1 Was there part of him that he didn’t have anything

2 on.

3 A. Yeah, I know he had a shirt and — he had

4 his socks. I think he had pants or underwears on.

5 I don’t remember.

6 Q. All right. Now, you said you saw “his

7 hand.” Whose hands are you talking about.

8 A. Michael’s.

9 Q. All right. And where were his hands.

10 A. Left hand was in my brother’s pants and

11 right hand was in his pants.

12 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; asked and

13 answered.

14 THE COURT: Overruled. You may proceed.

15 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Now, when you say “in his

16 pants,” and who are you talking about.

17 A. Michael.

18 Q. All right. When you saw that, did you see

19 what, if anything, he was doing.

20 A. He was masturbating.

21 Q. What do you mean by that.

22 A. He was rubbing himself.

23 Q. And how could you tell that.

24 A. Because he had his hand in his pants. And

25 he was stroking up and down.

26 Q. Did you see anything else about the

27 defendant while he was doing that.

28 A. No. 1172

1 Q. What else did you see.

2 A. That’s all.

3 Q. Could you tell whether Mr. Jackson had his

4 eyes open or closed.

5 A. He had his eyes closed.

6 Q. Could you tell whether or not your brother

7 was asleep or not.

8 A. He was asleep.

9 Q. How do you know that.

10 A. Because he was kind of snoring.

11 Q. I can’t hear you. You’re going to have to

12 talk into that mike.

13 A. He was kind of snoring.

14 Q. Now, on this particular occasion, how long

15 did you stay there watching.

16 A. Couple seconds.

17 Q. Well, how long is that.

18 A. Four.

19 Q. What were the lighting conditions like in

20 the room.

21 A. The stairs were only lit, and the rest

22 was — nothing else was — had lights on. It was

23 just the stairs had lights.

24 Q. So you saw the photographs earlier that we

25 showed that had the lights on over the bed, correct.

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. Were those lights on or off.

28 A. Off. 1173

1 Q. When you looked into the room, did you see

2 any alcohol.

3 A. Um —

4 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

5 THE COURT: Overruled.

6 THE WITNESS: I don’t think so.

7 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: So what was your reaction

8 to what you saw.

9 A. I didn’t know what to do.

10 Q. I’m sorry.

11 A. I didn’t know what to do. I just went back

12 to the guest units where my sister was sleeping.

13 Q. What guest room did you stay in.

14 A. I don’t remember. But my sister was

15 sleeping in one guest room. And I went to the one

16 that she was in.

17 Q. Did you see anything like that occur on any

18 other occasion.

19 A. Yes, a second occasion.

20 Q. When.

21 A. It was probably just driving around; and

22 same thing.

23 Q. No, I meant in relationship to the first

24 one. How many days, if any, elapsed.

25 A. Two days.

26 Q. All right. Where were you that night.

27 A. Probably driving around in the golf cart.

28 And I came back — 1174

 1 Q. Now, you say “probably.” Do you remember.

2 A. Not really what I was doing.

3 Q. Pardon.

4 A. I don’t really remember what I was doing.

5 Q. All right.

6 A. I’m not sure. Walking in, the door wasn’t

7 locked. The door was closed but it wasn’t locked.

8 I went upstairs. The same thing was happening, but

9 my brother was on his back as well.

10 Q. You say “the same thing was happening.”

11 Tell me what was happening.

12 A. My brother was asleep. Michael was

13 masturbating while he had his left hand in my

14 brother’s underwears.

15 Q. And what kind of underwear was your brother

16 wearing.

17 A. I don’t know.

18 Q. Now, when you said you saw the defendant

19 masturbating, were the — where were they on the

20 bed. What were the positions of the people on the

21 bed on this occasion. If you’re looking at the bed,

22 who was on the left.

23 A. Michael.

24 Q. And who was on the right.

25 A. Gavin.

26 Q. And you said that you saw him masturbating

27 again. What did you actually see occurring.

28 A. What. 1175

1 Q. The defendant, what did you see him doing.

2 A. Masturbating. Stroking up and down.

3 Q. Where.

4 A. In — his thing. His private area.

5 Q. Could you see what the other hand was doing.

6 A. Moving. It was — I don’t know how to

7 explain it.

8 Q. Well, can you just show us what you saw.

9 A. It was going like that (Indicating).

10 Q. And that’s the hand that was where.

11 A. In my brother’s underwears.

12 Q. So just for the record, just sort of got a

13 fist and opening it up and sort of like that.

14 A. Yeah.

15 MR. SNEDDON: Doesn’t help any, does it.

16 Sort of like semi closing and opening the hand.

17 Q. And the second time, how long did you stay.

18 A. Three seconds. It was less than the first

19 time.

20 Q. And where did you go.

21 A. Back to my sister’s guest unit.

22 Q. Did you ever tell your — let me — from the

23 point that you were — you went back to the guest

24 unit and you were still on the ranch, did you ever

25 tell your sister what you saw.

26 A. No.

27 Q. Who was the first person that you told what

28 you saw. 1176

1 A. Dr. Katz.

2 Q. You never told your mother.

3 A. No.

4 Q. Or your brother.

5 A. No.

6 Q. On the second occasion, what was Mr. Jackson

7 wearing, if anything.

8 A. Socks, underwears and an undershirt.

9 Q. And your brother.

10 A. Uhh —

11 Q. You already told us what’s on the bottom.

12 Was he wearing anything on the top.

13 A. Yes, he was wearing an undershirt.

14 Q. What.

15 A. Well, he was wearing a shirt.

16 Q. Where did you go to sleep that night, on the

17 second incident.

18 A. My sister’s guest unit.

Finally, Sneddon asked Star to describe the circumstances behind his family’s final exit from the ranch in March 2003, right before the court recessed for the day:

20 Q. Okay. Now, at this point, after this, did

21 you at some time eventually leave the ranch for the

22 last time.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And do you remember how many days or when it

25 was in relationship to this appointment that your

26 brother went to the doctor’s for.

27 A. I don’t know.

28 Q. Well, was it a long time, a short time, a — 1180

1 A. A short time. A short time.

2 Q. What makes you think that.

3 A. I don’t know. It was —

4 Q. Is that just a guess.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. All right. Take a minute and think about

7 it.

8 A. I don’t know.

9 Q. All right. And how was it that you learned

10 that you were going to leave the ranch.

11 A. I heard from — I think it was from my

12 sister, that my grandfather was ill. Well, they

13 said my grandfather was ill, but he wasn’t.

14 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Narrative;

15 nonresponsive.

16 THE COURT: Sustained.

17 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Okay. You learned it from

18 whom.

19 A. I learned of it from my sister.

20 Q. All right. And what did you learn.

21 A. That my grandfather was ill.

22 Q. Was that true.

23 A. No.

24 Q. Did your sister tell you that.

25 A. Yes.

26 Q. So when you heard that, then what did you

27 do.

28 A. I thought he was ill, so I wanted to go 1181

1 home.

2 Q. And did the three of you leave.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And how did you get from — from there to —

5 where did you go.

6 A. We went to our grandma’s house.

7 Q. Did you ever go back to the ranch after

8 that.

9 A. Never.

10 Q. And who was it that left that day.

11 A. Left home.

12 Q. Who was with you when you left.

13 A. My brother, sister and me.

14 MR. SNEDDON: Judge, I have about five more

15 minutes. I don’t know if you want to keep going or

16 you want to —

17 THE COURT: No.

18 MR. SNEDDON: Okay.

19 THE COURT: It’s 2:30. We’ll end the session

20 today.

21 I want to tell you, tomorrow, remember,

22 we’re going to have a shorter session. We’re going

23 to start at 8:30, and we’re going to end at 11:30.

24 I’ll tell you that so that you can make your plans

25 for tomorrow. I was a little vague about when we

26 were going to end last week, but I think the best

27 time is at our normal break, and we’ll just end for

28 the morning. And then we’ll start again on 1182

1 Wednesday with the regular schedule.

2 See you tomorrow. Remember the admonition.

3 (The proceedings adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)

Star’s cross examination begins in the next post in this series! Open this link: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/march-8th-2005-trial-analysis-star-arvizo-cross-examination-part-1-of-3/ 

23 Comments leave one →
  1. stacy2 permalink
    July 27, 2012 6:23 am

    where did you get that pic of star? and who’s the little boy?

    Like

  2. sanemjfan permalink
    June 6, 2012 9:20 pm

    I just added a major discrepancy to this post! Star said that when MJ allegedly ran into the bedroom naked, it was MJ who ran back downstairs, but during his opening statement Sneddon said that Star and Gavin ran downstairs and pretended to have to use the bathroom!

    Oh, and just wait until I get to Gavin’s testimony! There will be another COLOSSAL discrepancy during his recollection of this alleged incident! (Hint hint!)

    Like

  3. lynande51 permalink
    June 4, 2012 12:02 am

    @kaarin
    No truer words were ever spoken. They sure don’t want those people running loose do they?

    Like

  4. kaarin22 permalink
    June 3, 2012 11:45 pm

    Zonen et co are keeping tight with the Arvizo kids out of fear of letting them loose.
    anything could happen were they not tightly supervised and constantly guided.

    Like

  5. kaarin22 permalink
    June 3, 2012 11:42 pm

    Zonen et co are keeping tight with the

    Like

  6. lynande51 permalink
    June 3, 2012 7:34 pm

    No kidding! And never have you heard the prosecution referred to as “Tom, Ron and Gordon” by another witmess. The cops were all called by their first names too like “Steve”Robel instead of Detective. The whole thing smacks of unprofessionalism and the true proof that this was a set up by the prosectuion and the Arvizos is right in those wedding pictures.

    Like

  7. nannorris permalink
    June 3, 2012 3:54 pm

    lynande51..thats horrible about Mark trying to get an attachment on Neverland ..MJ must have felt he was under seige..
    These prosecutors are really something when you think about how determined they were to take MJ down,..All he was really doing was mentoring a few children.
    I think it is pretty funny that Zonen , who was supposed to have a professional working relationship with the Arvizo boys is still in contact with them after all these years..
    Calling Gavin on a regular basis, checking up on him, inviting him to his house …Kid still comes from a messed up home life with no “Dad” in the picture…… Conveniently marries a “prosecution witness “….
    If you took Zonens name out and put MJ in , he would be using it against him in court saying he was obsessed with the boy..

    Like

  8. lynande51 permalink
    June 3, 2012 8:26 am

    What really gets me about him is that he somehow still holds the rights to What More Can I Give! Like he has anything to do with it. He worked on getting it planned and went to a few locations to record and video some of the other artists before he was fired by Mj on November 14th 2001. He actually only worked with him for about a month and a half and the rest of the time he spent backdating checks cashed on the Neverland Valley Entertainment account that was supposed to be for the cost of the video. Then he took an advance from some Japanese company for the Video and spent it on a down payment on his own house. Yeah, I’m not kidding.

    Like

  9. lynande51 permalink
    June 3, 2012 8:21 am

    Imagine F.Marc Schaffel in the middle of all this thinking that he could get Neverland for a lawsuit of $4mil. What absolute arrogance that man had/ has!

    Like

  10. lynande51 permalink
    June 3, 2012 8:14 am

    Here is the article I found from Roger Friedman. It had to do with one of two things. One he had a vested interest in changing the bailbondsman to a personal friend when it wasn’t time for the bailbond to be removed. Second I think he wrote a brief in the Schaffel case to prevent Shaffel from getting Neverland because it was around that time that schaffel asked for a lien on Neverland to cover his civil suit against MJ. I can’t put this in blockquotes anymore so here it is.

    Jacko Prosecution’s Timeline Doesn’t Jibe
    Published May 03, 2005
    FoxNews.com
    Michael Jackson | Janet Arvizo | Brian Oxman
    District Attorney’s Jacko Timeline Doesn’t Jibe
    Michael Jackson was not at his Neverland Ranch on March 6, 7 and 8 in 2003, and possibly not on March 9 either.
    That was the news that the prosecution inadvertently admitted into evidence yesterday in the Jackson child molestation trial, while it was busy analyzing the phone records of all the case’s main players.
    And those three days, and also possibly Feb. 20, 2003, continue to narrow the time frame in which the prosecution asserts Jackson committed his crimes.
    Thanks to the rather boring review of phone records, we did learn a couple of small things that may have great significance later.
    While Jackson was away from Neverland, his teen accuser was at the ranch with his family. The boy, now 15, has said in his grand jury testimony and in court that his molestation took place “toward the end” of his stay at Neverland — on March 12, 2003.
    Jackson, as we accidentally learned in court, was staying at the Beverly Hilton for several days at that time under the name “Kenneth Morgan.” Phone records introduced by the prosecution show that he was there, calling his assistant Evvy Tavasci night and day.
    The phone records from the hotel were entered as evidence by the prosecution. So were the room bills, which show that Jackson was in an $850-a-night suite.
    Phone records also indicate Jackson may have been away from Neverland on Feb. 20, 2003. That’s the day the district attorney said in his indictment that Jackson began his molestation and conspiracy.
    The phone records show that Jackson may have been in Miami on that date, staying at Turnberry Isle Inn, the same place where he stayed earlier that month for $3,700 a night. And you wonder why he has no money.
    Since the district attorney placed all of Jackson’s indictable actions between Feb. 20 and March 10, 2003, it would seem that his alleged window of opportunity to have molested the boy is getting smaller and smaller.
    It’s already been established that the family was away from Neverland between Feb. 25 and March 2, 2003. Scratch that week off the schedule. Now cross off those three or four days in late March, plus Feb. 20 and possibly Feb. 21 and 22.
    Other items in yesterday’s testimony didn’t jibe with what the jury has already heard.
    For one thing, the accuser’s mother, Janet Arvizo, was vehement during her own testimony that she’d missed celebrating Valentine’s Day with her then-boyfriend because of Jackson and his associates.
    But phone records show that she made seven calls on Feb. 14 to her friend, Azja Pryor, the fiancée of comedian Chris Tucker. She also had several phone conversations with Jackson associate Frank Tyson that day.
    The last call of the day, placed by Arvizo to Pryor, was at 11:40 p.m. The defense could say that if she missed Valentine’s Day, it was Arvizo’s own fault.
    Santa Barbara police detective Sgt. Craig Bonner — a nice enough fellow who’d worked on getting all the phone records together for all the parties to this case — conceded during cross-examination by Robert Sanger that he had omitted calls for Feb. 4, 2003, during his presentation under direct questioning.
    He also said that the phone records hadn’t been finalized until late Sunday night — after a run-up to the trial that lasted more than a year.
    The Arvizos’ records also included two calls to Tucker’s home on Feb. 4 within minutes of each other.
    Under cross-examination during what seemed like a brutally dull day in court, the defense began to set the stage for a story we reported in this column exclusively last Friday.
    That’s the story that the Arvizos asked to be sent to Miami to see Jackson on Feb. 6, 2003. I told you that sources say Tucker will relate how the Miami trip was his idea, not Jackson’s.
    The calls to Tucker, the defense will argue if its case ever begins, are important. They will show that after the family was made an offer by British tabloid reporters for its story, the Arvizos picked up the phone and called Tucker for access to Jackson.
    Tucker then flew the family to Miami on a plane he had rented, on his way to Orlando, Atlanta and the NBA All-Star Game.
    Mother Made Friends at Neverland
    The last time anyone heard the name Angel Vivanco in court was when Janet Arvizo said she didn’t know him.
    That was on a day of cross-examination when lead defense lawyer Thomas Mesereau craftily ran off a list of Neverland workers and asked Arvizo to identify them.
    “I don’t know anybody except Jesus Salas and Evvy,” she said, referring to Jackson’s assistant.
    She also said she had never heard of Violet Silva, the longtime head of security at Neverland.
    But now it seems that Arvizo does in fact know Vivanco, and may yet again be confronting her own lies.
    Phone records show that she called Vivanco at home often, especially after she “escaped” from the Neverland ranch for the third and final time.
    Vivanco received a call from Arvizo at home in Guadalupe, Calif., on March 12, another one on March 13, three calls on March 19, two on March 20 and another on March 21.
    Vivanco’s number was on phone bills subpoenaed by the prosecution, but the district attorney’s office didn’t bother to see whose number it was. Defense attorney Sanger revealed during cross-examination that his team had supplied the prosecution with this information.
    It’s still not clear why the district attorney wouldn’t have been interested in whom Arvizo might have been calling in Guadalupe, a town near Neverland but far from her own home.
    Similarly, Arvizo made lots of other calls to Neverland employees after her third “escape.”
    She made several calls to another Neverland staffer, Maria Aceves, and to Jorgen and Adele Staal, owners of a local self-storage company in nearby Santa Ynez.
    Aceves was on the prosecution’s list of potential witnesses, but was never called. The Staals are not on any lists from either side. Vivanco and his brother Jorge are on the defense list.
    Oxman Lives and Dies by the Sword
    Believe it or not, attorney Brian Oxman is still representing Michael Jackson — just not in criminal court.
    Oxman was spotted last week defending Jackson against the $4 million lawsuit filed by Marc Schaffel.
    You may recall Oxman was shouted off the child molestation case by lead defense counsel Tom Mesereau, who had had enough of his dozing in court.
    Some other reports claimed that Oxman got the ax because he met with private investigator Paul Barresi to hear tapes this column reported on concerning supermarket tabloids’ payments to sources, etc., in the 1993 case.
    Alas, I can tell you this was not the case.
    Oxman and Barresi did meet, and Barresi taped the whole craziness with Oxman’s permission.
    But Barresi merely wanted to elaborate on how the tabs’ practice of doling out dough to unsavory types created a lot of false stories back in the 1990s. That’s not why Oxman was fired.
    I am told that Mesereau was ticked off when he discovered that papers Oxman filed in the Schaffel case may have contradicted papers and arguments in the child molestation case.
    That is what broke the camel’s back, a source said — that and the snoozing.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155329,00.html#ixzz1wBfXmgH6

    Like

  11. TatumMarie permalink
    June 3, 2012 7:53 am

    What did he screw up? Of course Oxman would be more of a liability than help.

    Like

  12. lynande51 permalink
    June 3, 2012 7:51 am

    Actually Brian Oxman wasnot let go just because he liked the camera. He was in fact let go for something he did in another MJ case that could have jeopardized the criminal trial.

    Like

  13. TatumMarie permalink
    June 3, 2012 7:46 am

    That was interesting about the scary movie and Geragos, I didn’t know about his situation but I knew that Brian Oxman loves the camera and that’s why he was let go so it was interesting to hear about Geragos’ dismissal.

    Like

  14. nannorris permalink
    June 3, 2012 7:37 am

    lynande51 …I had clicked on the link David put up about the movie and it seems to have some kind of deeper , intellectual meaning to it , so I just assumed they had watched it….But then when you said that about the Exorcist…..good heavens , they thought of everything..
    I also hadnt realized that Sneddon had done that to make Geragos part of the case so he had to step down..I just thought MJ and Randy thought he liked the camera too much..
    ..
    And that comment you made about them putting something in a motion about 3 strikes ? or something..that he would have had to serve the entire time if convicted ..it is incredible..
    These people are so diabolical…
    Thank heaven for Tom Mesereau!

    Like

  15. lynande51 permalink
    June 3, 2012 6:48 am

    Well after Sneddon talked to Geragos they had another interview with the family. That is when Start said that Michael had them watch the movie The Devil’s Backbone. This is a Spanish language horror film. One of the contentions of the Arvizo family and the prosecution was that they didn’t know anything about the 1993 allegations against MJ at least not the paticulars.That is why they said that couldn’t have made the story up to sound just like the 1993 case. Jordans declaration was leaked to The Smoking Gun on Feb. 6th 2003 to coincide with the USA airing of the Bashir show. In Jordan’s declartion he said that the when they were in Las Vegas he slept in the same bed as Michael because he was scared after watching the Exorcist. They just swapped one horro film for another horror film in their story the thing is no one bothered to look up and see what The Devil’s Backbone was otherwise the similarity is just too easy to spot like in they had a “script” to follow when they made their accusations.

    Like

  16. TatumMarie permalink
    June 3, 2012 6:02 am

    So what happened with the horror movie? Im confused.

    Like

  17. nannorris permalink
    June 3, 2012 5:33 am

    lynande51…that thing with the horror movie completely went over my head…Boy , between Feldman, and Sneddon , seems they thought of everything..
    No wonder Mesereau said the prosecutors were feeling no pain..The lengths they went through to railroad Michael Jackson is unbelievable..
    And for the Arvizo family to be the beneficiary of this vendetta ..I have no words to describe how I feel about that family….
    BTW, the DNA being found in the guest units would not only show they were using those rooms , but would match up with what Rio said about them pleasuring themselves in there..

    Like

  18. lynande51 permalink
    June 2, 2012 7:02 pm

    I know that this is a blog about Michael and vindicating him but also think of all the other people that they dragged into this mess. The prosecution did not ask for subpoena’s they asked for search warrants for the telephone records of every one of the Cascio’s, Schaffel (of course he was instrumental in causing this whole thing) Dieter, and Ron Konitzer. The list even included Dr. Alex Farshchian’s wife, Brian Oxman before he was representing Michael in the case, Al and Nancy Malnik, Grace Rwaramba, and every single one of Michael’s security guards at the time.
    I want everyone to think about something for a minute and that is the conspiracy charge that the prosecution used to bring this to trial. Suppose for one minute that Michael had been found guilty. Would they then have prosecuted Frank and Vinnie for falsely imprisoning, kidnapping and extorting the Arvizos? Would Frank be sitting in a jail cell, would Vinnie be sitting in a jail cell? Because that is what that conspiracy charge meant. The thing is no one knows this but there was several unnamed unindicted coconspirators along with the named unindicted coconspirators and among them was Michael’s first lead attorney, Mark Geragos! That is why he had to withdraw because in order to represent Michael to the best of his ability he had to become a witness in the case! That is why he had Benjamin Brafman on hand at the first hearing in case he had to give evidence! Mark Geragos was never fired, he withdrew only because he had to, to defend Michael. In spite of what the news tells you it had to be done that way once Sneddon made that police report.
    What was it that happened well it goes like this: In the immediate time following Michael’s arrest Mark Geragos met with Tom Sneddon in LA to discuss the evidence and the probability of the case going to trial in a preliminary hearing. Sneddon was also angry about the leaked DCFS report on the Arvizos, he said it meant nothing, he called it a misnomer. It was in that meeting discussing a taped interview that Brad Miller had made of the Arvizos. Brad Miller worked for Mark and this was an official statement to a legal representative of Michael. This tape was being held back from the prosecution because of attorney client privilege and he did not like it. He met with Mark in LA and he then went back to Santa Barbara and turned in a police report of that meeting making it part of the investigation. In his statement to Steve Robel he said that Mark Geragos had told him that Janet Arvizo had asked for and gotten $300,000 from Michael in January, February and March for taping the kids without her permission. Then Robel called the Arvizos and asked them if this was true. They of course denied it. That must have been a ploy on the part of Sneddon and the police to get the truth out of the Arvizos because Mark Geragos never said that and was prepared to go on the witness stand to say just that if Sneddon said he told him that.
    What is wrong with that picture? Well for one thing there was no tape out in January for the Arvizos to even ask for money for one thing and Michael had already distanced himself from them. The other thing is that police and prosecutors lie to suspects and witnesses all the time to get them to slip and say something different. For another they had already confiscated all the denials that the Arvizos had made about any allegations and knew that some of them fell within the original timeline that the Arvizos gave them. The prosecution had to get rid of the impeachment evidence on Brad Millers tape because when you give a statement to a defense attorney it is assumed that this is what you would swear to and testify to if called to give testimony in the case. In order to do that Sneddon asked for a continuance of the hearing on setting the preliminary hearing date. That was granted and the date was set for a time in April. He then asked for a grand jury to present the evidence to instead of a preliminary hearing before the court where the defense gets to cross examine and present its own impeachment and exculpatory evidence. That was easy because after his original indictment hearing where Michael plead not guilty Mark Geragos had him sign a 977 waiver so he would not have to be present at preliminary hearings. Michael probably did not want to be in court. Then they agreed to the continuance because Mark was also busy with a capital murder case, the Scott Peterson case and had to make appearances there as well.
    Sneddon did that and when he did that to Geragos he also did it to Brad Miller and in order to protect themselves they could not use the tapes of the Arvizos. Tom Sneddon had made those tapes a criminal act because he made them coconspirators as well.
    That was just the first time that Sneddon violated Michael’s civil rights in the case. Those civil rights were the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments regarding self incrimination, and the right to counsel. He did it again in September when he made Steve Cochran a witness in the discovery of the 1108 evidence. Steve would have had to give testimony about the Neverland Five who were going to become witnesses in the 1108 portion of the trial. It did not stop there though because on Sept 15th,2004 the day that Janet Arvizo was testifying in court about the Brad Miller search Sneddon sent the police to search Evvy Tavasci’s house and home office.The new information they used to search her office was that they now suspected that Michaael was not at Neverland when the alleged crimes supposedly occured. They were looking for evidence of his whereabouts in February and March of 2003. They seized a folder with Tom Mesereau’s name on it and that had to be litigated as well. Probably in the hopes that there was something in there that could incriminate Tom Mesereau and/or make him have to withdraw to give testimony about the contents of the folder.They also tried to incrimate Bob Sanger at that time over the original tape of Brad Millers office when they implied that it had been tampered with. The last time that he tried it was with Bob Sanger when he asked Kassim Abdool on the witness stand if Bob Sanger was at the depositions of the Neverland Five.Yes he tried to get every lawyer he could off the case, as if Michael had no right to counsel.
    Now those are just the civil rights violations that I listed. There are many more incidences of misconduct on the part of Sneddon and the Santa Barbara County DA’s office. The conspiracy charge is also a violation because in essence it was a threat of arrest and prosecution to the coconspirators so they could not testify for Michael without fear of self incrimination.This was a vindictive prosecution and the prosecutors damn well know it.That is why they still have to be friends with the real criminals in the case, because they are just as criminally culpable as the Arvizos.

    Like

  19. TatumMarie permalink
    June 2, 2012 5:41 pm

    This is so sad and the prosecutors would still try to make everyone believe the Arvisos are good people.

    Like

  20. lynande51 permalink
    June 2, 2012 5:40 am

    Well in this case the Arvizo boys had already testified or at least they were deposed in the J.C.Penney’s case about other sexually explicit battery against their mother. Star even testified that he had to help put his mothers breasts back in her bra after she was assaulted by the guards.And the most important thing to remember is that the prosecution knew all the holes in their testimony and they still pushed for that trial. Hell they even tricked the court into that trial by asking for a continuance for the start of the preliminary hearing and then calling for a grand jury. They knew that the evidence they said they had if put before a judge first would never have gotten them a trial.
    And the worst thing that they did was include Prince and Paris in their story. When I think of that I get over what happened to them real fast.

    Like

  21. June 2, 2012 5:03 am

    It’s horrible enough reading this testimony but when you have a child being used to tell sexually explicit stories and lies it’s especially disturbing. The accusers’ and the prosecutor’s opening and closing arguments is probably the hardest testimony to stomach. Uugh!

    Like

  22. lynande51 permalink
    June 2, 2012 3:18 am

    So there was testimony about the movie The Devil’s Backbone. This part of the story does not come out in the original complaint. It was added during a telephone interview of the family after Sneddon met with Mark Geragos in LA. I had the timeline with that interview from one of the pleadings in the case but I have lost it off my computer.
    People miss the significance of that because they don’t know that the movie The Devil’s Backbone is a Spanish language horror film. Why is this important because it shows that they studied the Chandler Declaration where he says it started when Michael let him watch The Exorcist. One horror film for another horror film. They had ample opportunity to study that when they were away from Neverland at Jay Jackson’s house.All they did was tweak the same story and they had more than enough time to do it. That later interview is when they were told that there was no DNA matching them found in the main house but there was their DNA found in a guest unit. And Sneddon expects people to take this as an embellishment of the truth? Why didn’t the police eve nsearch the hard drives from Jay Jackson’s house? Or look for anything in the Arvizos possesion that might incriminate them? They never did that and in a case like this they should have?Just like they never took Evan Chandlers computer either.

    Like

Trackbacks

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