Tension builds as Jackson endures verdict watch
Mood:  blue
Topic: Main News


Michael Jackson's nightmarish wait for the outcome of his child sex trial stretches into a fifth day, with jurors due back in the windowless room where they search for a verdict.

Jackson, consoled by close family members, was cloistered in his fantasyland ranch, a half-hour drive from the court where the jury has been deliberating from 8.30 am (1530 GMT) to 2:30 pm (2130 GMT) to weigh 10 charges which could draw an 18-year jail term.

Scarlet hearts and red and white ribbons adorned the outer gates of Neverland, provided by fans who also stuck paper stars on the cobbled driveway bearing slogans like "Michael: Your magic will always be shining."

A tree was ringed with white crepe paper, and a "chain of love" made from heart-shaped letters from Jackson fans worldwide stretched along the sprawling ranch's wooden fence.

Around 100 fans enjoyed a party atmosphere strangely incongruous with their hero's plight, dancing to the King of Pop's greatest hits, including the Jackson Five classic "Blame it on the Boogie" which pounded from a car stereo.

Reverend Jesse Jackson paid a late afternoon visit to the rattled star, leaving in a black Mercedes stretch limousine, waving to Jackson fans but waving off reporters.

But the civil rights leader earlier said outside the Santa Maria courthouse, Jackson believed he would be cleared of plying a 13-year-old cancer survivor with alcohol, molesting him and conspiring to kidnap his family.

"Michael is resting comfortably in the ranch. Michael anxiously awaits the jury's verdict, and anticipates the acquittal," Jesse Jackson said, describing the "Thriller" star as a "champion" smeared by malicious charges. Jackson's longtime friend, professional magician Majestic Magnificent, told AFP the star's entire family was gathered around him.

Earlier, in Santa Maria, jurors left court in two white vans, after a second full day of deliberations which have lasted 14 hours since opening Friday and including a weekend break. With only one question from the jury to Judge Rodney Melville, legal experts were as much in the dark as Jackson."There are two kinds of fools, those who predict what jurors do, and those who listen to them," said former prosecutor Craig Smith. "The jury going home after a second full day without a verdict is a good sign, it means they are taking deliberations seriously." A sense of suppressed tension cloaked the courthouse as hundreds of journalists marked time and Jackson fans nervously waited outside.

One woman, Fariba Garmani from California, released 12 white doves into the air : "They symbolise freedom, that is what I am hoping for Michael," she said.More than 100 Jackson devotees from countries including Britain, Japan, Ireland, France and the United States lounged in the sunshine, others singing along with a stereo belting out Jackson hits.

"Peter Pan Rules," said one banner, referring to the man-child pop star, others read "100,000 000 Michael Jackson fans can't be wrong : Innocent" and "Poland loves you Michael." There was no sign of members of the Jackson family at court, a day after the pop legend's father showed up and sparked a media frenzy with his mistaken belief that a verdict had been reached. The star's own eccentric visits to hospital over a back ailment have raised skepticism but Reverend Jackson hit back: "it is painful to him to hear people that are suggesting this is faked.
"He has been bruised, he is injured, it hurts. He is not being political in any way about his visits to the doctor."

The pop superstar made headlines with a six-hour stay in hospital close to his Neverland ranch Sunday, for what aides said was a flare-up of the back ailment that has plagued him throughout the four-month trial.

Back pain nearly got him trouble in March, when he failed to show up in court to see his accuser take the stand. He arrived an hour late in his pajamas and slippers, after the juge threatened to have him arrested.

Copyright ? 2005 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse.

Copyright ? 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

Please Share This With ALL Supporters.
Mood:  hug me
Topic: Main News
Please Share.
Heres The Letter:

Before I start, I would like to state, that yes I am a Michael Jackson fan, I have been a fan of his art since I was a 5 year old child.

But this has become something bigger then Michael Jackson:
*The Super Star*

This is about an innocent man, being railroaded, shamed, by the media, accused by a crooked DA.

A money hungry mother, using her children for her despicable mission to do anything for money.

I'm not writing this on behalf of Michael Jackson, the icon, the super star, a living legend.

I'm not writing this because he's the greatest entertainer to ever live, or Michael Jackson the *PUBLIC PROCLAIMED* King Of Pop.
That's right, not the ?self proclaimed? king of pop.....
Like the media claims in every report they write. You know, when the *MEDIA* use the statement ?King of Pop?.

Michael once said about the title, when asked by Oprah Winfrey in a 1993 interview, and I quote Oprah-?Where did this whole notion that you proclaimed yourself King of Pop come from?? Michael-?Well, I never proclaimed myself to be anything. I'm happy to be alive, and I'm happy to be who I am. King of Pop was first said by Elizabeth Taylor on one of the awards shows?-UN quote.

This is about a human, being sacrificed by greed, hate, conspiracy, and money. This is about an innocent human being named Michael Jackson who is on trial. A person waiting to hear his fate, by 12 jurors holding onto his life by a string.

Forget that Michael Jackson ?the king of pop? even exists for a minute. I want to tell you a little story about Michael Jackson, a man who is being labeled as a *serial child molester*. An innocent man, who has just sat through 66 days, of testimony from people who lied, and scam there way on the Prosecutions witness lists. People who have been proven, way beyond a shadow of doubt, that they lied under oath, that they have lied before to get what they want. And people whom are so greedy, and have so much hate inside of themselves, that they have made this bogus case against Michael Jackson. Charges ranging from 4 accounts of child molestation, conspiracy to kidnap, giving alcohol to minors, in the end 10 accounts, 10 criminal accounts that if found guilty, this innocent man, faces 20 plus years in prison.

I'm here to ask, ?for what?? I have sat and watched, listened, read, followed this trial from start to finish. If this innocent man was anyone else, other then Michael Jackson, this case would have been thrown out of court, in its 1st Month.

Thomas Mesereau Jr., had the accuser, his brother, and sister all to admit in cross examination that they had lied under oath, or caught them in a lie or a compromising situation. Every witness in this case, has had, a ?familiar? past, or has been proven, that their part in this was about money.

Now, my thing is, if Michael Jackson was a ?serial child molester? like the prosecution has stated through out their ?case? then why isn't there as many ?victims? out there, as there are children all over the world that Michael Jackson has helped, has healed, as gone way beyond lengths, to help sick and dying children live? I am no expert and I want to make very clear that I am not claiming to be one. But all it takes in this case, is common sense, and the ability to read, listen to the evidence or lack there of should I say in this case.

In the end of my writing this, the only sources to this piece will be common sense and the words, and the complete heart and soul of Michael Jackson. This just simply isn't the case. In order for someone to be a serial anything, there has to be evidence, and patterns. The only patterns in Michael Jackson's past, and future is the undying love and grace that this man has for the human race. That he has for the living, that he has for children all over the globe.

A couple things that have triggered me writing this piece is this title that keeps hanging over Michael Jackson's head. I want to point something's out. If I could. I have watched documentaries on this subject. There is one key thing that serial child molesters all have in common. The fact that this starts out when the person is younger, some may start with brothers or sisters. Biological children, nieces, and nephews. There would be signs. A child molester doesn't stop, until they are caught. They cant stop. Children are infatuated with Michael Jackson, they see his innocence, they feel his love. Children of all ages, of all races, in ever part of the world. Girls and boys, not just boys, like the media and Tom Sneddon would like you to believe.

Another thing is, if someone was a child molester. He would live in seclusion. Privately, he would have his own ?haven.? A place where no one could visibly see him. So that he could do whatever he wanted. Two things here Michael Jackson has. He has seclusion. But that is so he can shelter his children from his success. So that his children can have a semi-normal life. He is secluded in Neverland, so the man can breathe. He has privacy around Neverland. Gates the shield the outside world from his children. He has a fenced yard to keep the paparazzi out of his property. So when he isn't Michael Jackson (the superstar), he can try peacefully to raise his children as Michael Jackson their father. And provide them a stable and loving home.

Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch, is filled with employees, people everywhere, security everywhere. To keep the media, and paparazzi out. To make sure, that every person, every single person that comes into Neverland is safe, and taken care of.

I would like Tom Sneddon or the rest of the prosecution to answer this question for me:
If Michael Jackson is a serial child molester, like you all claim, then why would he have his;
Neverland Ranch so protected, and secure?
Where would he have privacy for molestation?
Oh right, his bedroom, again, a place that is inside of a house filled with maids, nanny's, cooks, landscapers, gardeners, dozens of people in and out of this house.

Molesters need a private place to do their crime, they need the smarts to stalk, and hunt their victims. Remember this starts when these people are children.

Tell me DA, when did Michael Jackson have the time to start planning the years of being a molester like you claim?

Was it when he was 10 years old, signing, and gliding his feet across the floor, jamming to James Brown, getting himself and his brothers signed to Motown records? Or was it when he was on tour @ 14 years old. Playing sometimes 2 shows a night, and then wake up and do school, and then practice, and then get on stage the night after and do the same thing?

Or was it when he released the biggest selling album of all time ?Thriller?? When he and his bothers where on their victory tour for months? Or was it in the 90?s when Michael Jackson formed the ?Heal The World Foundation.? In which this organization helped million upon millions of children. Giving money to charities, helping families of sick children, healing the world, traveling miles and miles away to bring joy and light into someone's life? Is that when it started? Help me out, because none of your evidence fits Mr. DA. The title you have now in scripted with Michael Jackson's name doesn't fit your case Tom. All the lies that have been told by your department, and your ?witnesses? haven't shook us. You can't deny the facts in this case. Open your eyes to this, see what is happening to this man's life. Look at him deep in his eyes, deep in his soul. This is an innocent man you are trying to take down, because you are scared of what he is. And that Tom, is a man, that has everything that you want. His legacy, that he earned when he was 10 years old. A man who doesn't need his last name to know who you are talking about. But continues to use it because he is proud of who he is, and that Tom is someone that you will never be. Gracious, loving, giving, beyond himself. Passionate for the human race, for the living, and the dying, children of all ages, races, man, woman, animals, everything that God has created.

This man will go down in history for being everything that he has earned and worked for. Everything that you are trying so desperately to take away from him. Everything you want to be, from the soul, and mind of the greatest entertainer in the world I say? ?They say I'm different, they don't understand, that there are bigger problems that's much more in demand. You've got world hunger, not enough to eat, so there's really no time to be trippin on me?

Again, this isn't about him as a superstar, this is about an innocent man being labeled the sickest thing imaginable.

I thank you in advance for taking the time to see this from my point of view. For Taking the time to see this other then Michael Jackson ?The King Of Pop,? and merely seeing this for what it is, and that is a smear campaign.

Lastly I would like to say to Michael's Sea Of Humanity, (His fans) ?We shall never be broken, our faith and love for Michael will carry him through this. We know that ?Lies run sprints, but the truth runs marathons.? We know this cause Michael has told us, and we trust in him.

And lastly to our Heaven Father, we know that you will do right by Michael, and help him prove to the world, his innocence. We love you Father, and we ask you to watch over him, and hold Michael and his family from harm, we ask you for all of this now, in the name of your son, Jesus Christ Amen.

I will use 1 quote from a released piece. And that is where I will end this. Geraldine Hughes. A woman I give all thanks to God for. For not being afraid to stand up for what she knows, and not being afraid to stand up for a man who she knows is innocent. And I quote:

?This whole case started with the accusations of one boy. Now, with the witness of one, I bring the truth about the child molestation allegations witnessed from another side. They crucified Michael Jackson's character, assassinated his reputation, accused him falsely, nailed him on the cross with vicious lies, and robbed him of his earthly goods. I might be wrong, but he does not Sound like your typical pedophile, someone looking to hurt a child, but instead sounds like someone who has vision for world peace. Helping mankind by starting with the Man In The Mirror. With all of Michael Jackson's notoriety, awards, millions of dollars, record breaking statistics and fans all over the world he remains surprisingly humble, meek, unselfish, always caring for world unity, dying children, underprivileged children and reaching out to a hurting world. He never publicly broadcast his humanitarian acts and deeds because of meekness and humility.?

~Geraldine Hughes~ (scripture taken from her book; Redemption}

~rAiNcRiEs~ Copyright ? 2005 Laura C.(PV4MJJ Fan Member)

email: moonwalker_n_rain@yahoo.ca
Website: http://www.pv4mjj.com/
Reference-"Redemption":

Jesse Jackson: Resolute Michael in great pain
Mood:  sad
Topic: Main News

Jury to resume deliberations Monday in molestation case

SANTA MARIA, California (CNN) -- With a jury set to resume deliberations on his fate, pop star Michael Jackson is suffering excruciating physical pain yet remaining resolute and strong in his conviction of his innocence, the Rev. Jesse Jackson said Monday.

Michael Jackson visited a hospital for about two hours Sunday afternoon for treatment of a recurring back problem and returned to his nearby Neverland Ranch, his spokeswoman said. A Santa Barbara County jury is scheduled to resume deliberations Monday in his trial on child-molestation charges. Jesse Jackson, the pop star's spiritual adviser, compared the singer's situation to the biblical story of Job, a figure beset with misfortune but who maintained his faith.

"In many ways, his destiny, at least for a season, is in the jaws of the jury," Jesse Jackson said. A spokeswoman for the singer, Raymone Bain, blamed the stress of the trial for the recurrence of his back problem. "He's good. He's OK," she said. "He's under stress, and this is a difficult time." Michael Jackson must deal with "this rockin' chair of physical pain on the one hand and anxiety about the outcome on this trial," Jesse Jackson said. Michael Jackson has complained of back problems before, and it was the second time in four days he visited a hospital. (Full story)

On March 10, Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville threatened to revoke the singer's $3 million bail when Jackson showed up 90 minutes late for court after seeking treatment at a hospital. His back continued to bother him during the trial, and he used a cushion and took medication "off and on," Bain said. She said his back bothered him throughout the past week, when jurors heard closing arguments and Melville's instructions.

The eight women and four men of the jury got the case Friday afternoon and deliberated about two hours before breaking for the weekend. They will have to wade through 14 weeks of testimony by more than 140 witnesses to determine whether the pop star is a sexual predator of young boys or a victim of a con.

Jacksons stand behind brother

Jermaine Jackson said in an off-camera CNN interview during the weekend that his brother is "one thousand percent innocent." Asked how his parents, Joseph and Katherine Jackson, have handled the courtroom drama, Jermaine said, "They are our rock." Katherine Jackson attended every day of the trial, and all eight of Jackson's siblings showed the family flag at some point.

Jermaine Jackson was asked whether his brother would change his ways if he is found not guilty.
"He'll become a complete recluse if found not guilty. He won't be able to deal with anyone because he can't trust anyone," he said, referring to the fact that a number of former Jackson employees and confidants testified against him.

Tito Jackson, another of the pop star's siblings, disputed courtroom descriptions of Jackson's bedroom -- where the alleged molestation took place -- as an intimate setting. "His room is a huge suite with an arcade," the brother said. Jackson, accompanied by his parents and five of his siblings, exited the courthouse Friday under an umbrella held by a bodyguard to shield him from the sun. He will await the verdict at his Neverland Ranch, about an hour from Santa Maria.

Showing their support Friday were two of his sisters, Janet and Rebe, who had not been at the trial since testimony began February 28. Another sister, LaToya, and brothers Jermaine and Randy were on hand, as were his parents.

Friday's closing arguments

A grand jury indicted Jackson in April last year on charges of child molestation and other crimes stemming from alleged incidents involving his accuser, then 13, and his family in February and March 2003. Jackson pleaded not guilty to the charges and did not take the stand during the trial.

During closing arguments Friday, Jackson's lead defense attorney attacked the credibility of the teenage accuser and his family, saying their allegations against the pop star are "the biggest con of their careers." Projecting transcript excerpts of their testimony onto a large screen, Thomas Mesereau Jr. pointed to "flip flops" in the accuser's various statements to show that "he's not truthful."

And he called the teen's mother "a complete liar and fabricator, a con artist," saying the family wanted to cash in on allegations with a civil suit, as they did four years ago with a lawsuit against J.C. Penney.
Prosecutor Ron Zonen, in his rebuttal, said the consistency of the family's testimony was "remarkable," given they were on the stand for a collective 12 days.

He also lampooned the idea that the mother, who "frankly can't string two consecutive sentences together that make sense," would be able to mastermind "such a vast fraud." (Closing arguments) The charges Jackson faces include: four counts of committing a lewd act on a child; one count of conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion; one count of attempting to commit a lewd act on a child; and four counts of administering an intoxicating agent to assist in the commission of a felony.

Earlier this week, Melville decided to allow the jury to consider the final four charges of furnishing alcohol to a minor as misdemeanors instead of felonies.

CNN's Dree De Clamecy, Ted Rowlands, Stan Wilson and Adam Reiss contributed to this report.

The future of Michael Jackson
Mood:  rushed
Topic: Main News
Self-titled 'King of Pop' has tough road ahead, observers say

By Todd Leopold
CNN

(CNN) -- Does Michael Jackson have a future in the music business if he's acquitted in his child molestation trial?

That depends on whether you believe he had a future before the child molestation trial.
"Is there something there to be recovered? I'm not sure that there is," said Syracuse University professor and pop culture expert Robert Thompson. "It's been close to a decade since people have looked forward to a new Michael Jackson release, rather than the latest scandal or bizarre event. ... What he was doing [in the last decade] was manufacturing scandal that we enjoyed consuming."

Indeed, scandal is what has kept Jackson in the news. As his album sales have declined and his singles have failed to approach the impact or chart position of "Billie Jean," "Beat It" or even "Black or White" (all No. 1 hits), Jackson has become better known as tabloid fodder rather than for his latest musical achievement.

Indeed, ask people about the last decade for Michael Jackson and they're more likely to talk about his two brief marriages, his baby dangling or his changing facial appearance rather than recall hits such as "Stranger In Moscow," "They Don't Care About Us" or "Butterflies."

'You're a superstar, you're a legend'

Thompson's comments echo those others have made recently. As a musical force, Forbes magazine said in 2002, Jackson is "a franchise in decline." Entertainment Weekly's David Browne was more pointed in a 2001 review of Jackson's lbum "Invincible:" "So out of touch with reality that he still calls himself the 'King of Pop' despite evidence to the contrary, he's clearly desperate to top every pop chart like he once did," Browne wrote. "... He's become more of a fairytale figure than he ever imagined: He's pop's Lost Boy." Said his one-time confidant Rabbi Shmuley Boteach just before the current trial, "Michael's life is in serious decline even without this indictment."

"His career was in dire shape before the trial happened," noted Entertainment Weekly Senior Editor Rob Brunner. "His 2001 attempted comeback album, 'Invincible' ... didn't sell near enough to recoup [his label] Sony's investment."

Which doesn't mean the music industry has given up on its one-time golden child. "Sounds like he's running. He doesn't have to," Island/Def Jam Records President Antonio "LA" Reid told CNN. "You are Michael Jackson. Understand what that means. You're a superstar, you're a legend." If Jackson were under Reid's guidance, the label president -- known for crafting Mariah Carey's recent comeback -- would get him out in public, away from the isolation of Neverland.

"Move to New York City and start to feel some of the concrete," said Reid. "Go to the restaurants, go out and hang, go to the club and listen to some music ... so people are like, 'Guess what, Michael is bordering on normal.' "

But Brunner said that taking on Jackson would be a risk for most labels, even with the upside. Making a Michael Jackson album is an expensive proposition, he observed, and Jackson's behavior even before the trial -- at a press conference, he called former Sony Music executive Tommy Mottola "devilish" and accused him of using racist language -- makes him a question mark for the big marketing campaign a new record would entail.

Whither Jackson?

Jackson would be far from the first celebrity to make a comeback from notoriety, even from sex-related charges.

Errol Flynn's fame only increased after his 1942 trial on statutory rape charges, though the actor was drained by the experience; Chuck Berry overcame conviction on Mann Act charges (transporting a minor over state lines for immoral purposes) -- and two years in prison -- to re-attain chart success, though he was never the consistent hit-maker he was in the late 1950s.

However, because of the charges against him, assertions regarding his behavior and -- no small detail in the youth-obsessed entertainment business -- his advancing age (Jackson will be 47 in August), Jackson probably has a tougher battle than other celebrities. "He still has some of the same mystique, but now the mystery has flopped from an asset to a liability," said Thompson. " 'Who is the real Michael Jackson?' is not a question people want to ask anymore, when you're accused of something like this."

Indeed, perhaps the most cautionary tale is that of Fatty Arbuckle, subject of perhaps the most infamous sex-related case in entertainment history: the rape and death of actress Virginia Rappe related to a party that Arbuckle attended in 1921.

Arbuckle was acquitted of manslaughter after three trials, but he was blacklisted by the film industry and, for many years, could find work only as a director. He made a short-lived comeback in the early 1930s but died in 1933 at age 46 before he could capitalize. (For more on the Arbuckle case, click here.)

Jackson has built his career on being family-friendly yet musically thrilling, safe for children yet engaging for teens and adults. Intimations of sexual predilections won't help his career; neither will the current music business, which has undergone changes in style and consumer tastes since Jackson's 1980s domination."The trial notwithstanding," says Thompson of Jackson, "all kinds of things conspire against his being a music superstar again." But Reid still has faith. If called by Jackson, he said, he wouldn't hesitate. "I would absolutely sign Michael," he said.

Find this article at:
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/06/jackson.future/index.html

Michael Jackson treated for back problems
Mood:  sad
Topic: Breaking News

The Associated Press
Updated: 1:01 a.m. ET June 6, 2005

SOLVANG, Calif. - Michael Jackson was taken to an emergency room Sunday for treatment of a back problem that has plagued him throughout his molestation trial. He later left to the thunder of flashbulbs.

Jackson, accompanied by a bodyguard, arrived at the Santa Ynez Valley Cottage Hospital about five miles from his Neverland ranch at about 2:30 p.m., spokeswoman Raymone K. Bain said. “Mr. Jackson’s back has spurred up on him again,” Bain said. “It’s pretty serious. It was serious enough for him to come over here.” Although Jackson wasn’t seen leaving the hospital, it was believed he departed shortly after 8 p.m. in a sport utility vehicle surrounded by a flurry of activity. His aides had erected white scaffolding outside the emergency room entrance to block the view of photographers gathered outside.

As flashbulbs popped and dozens of fans screamed, “We love you,” the SUV and another vehicle drove slowly through a street packed with reporters and fans. Several chased after the vehicles and one photographer was led away by police. Olivia Kennedy, switchboard operator at the hospital, said the staff had been asked not to release any information about Jackson.

Bain said stress contributed to the entertainer’s back problem. “He’s under a tremendous amount of stress right now,” she said at an impromptu news conference outside the hospital. “Other than his back, he is doing fine.” It was unclear late Sunday evening whether Jackson had been admitted to the hospital. Bain had offered no further updates since mid-afternoon.

Jackson’s health has been an issue throughout the trial. The 46-year-old pop star appeared gaunt in recent days, and officials at the hospital disclosed Friday that he had visited the emergency room overnight Thursday. They would not discuss the reason for that visit, citing privacy concerns.

Prior to last week, Jackson’s case was interrupted twice by hospital visits, once for treatment of flu symptoms. He first reported a back problem in early March, when he went to an emergency room on one of the days his accuser took the stand. Jackson arrived late, dressed in pajama bottoms, after the judge ordered him to come to court. The singer is charged with molesting a 13-year-old boy in February or March 2003. He is also accused of plying him with wine and conspiring to hold his family captive. The jury received Jackson’s case Friday afternoon and deliberated for about two hours before adjourning for the weekend. They will resume discussions Monday. Bain said Jackson planned to return to his family at Neverland when he is released from the hospital to wait for the verdict.
“His mother is a rock of Gibraltar. So is his father,” she said.

Also Sunday, the Rev. Jesse Jackson said in an interview that he has arrived in the area to meet with Jackson. “I talk to him almost every day, and we have prayer,” he said. “We are going to be in prayer as we watch and wait.”

? 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
? 2005 MSNBC.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8110442/

Delayed Court Doc Reveals Startling Info - HOT DOC
Mood:  surprised
Topic: Breaking News
MiniBullet #20
Date 2005/6/5 0:01:19 | Topic: MJEOL BULLET

In a court document not released until June 2 2005, but stamped April 20 2005, reveals starting information about the accuser's sister, Davellin Arvizo. I guess this doc just so happened to get delayed??..for months by the court?..until after the trial was over.

The defense motion is in relation to Manuel Ramirez, who was Davellin Arvizo's boyfriend at the time in the summer of 2003, and Carol Lemere.

According to the court doc, Arvizo moved into Ramirez's house and had a shared bank account with him in the summer of 2003; right around the time they started making allegations against Jackson.

The defense wanted Ramirez to testify concerning vital information he had about the Arvizo family.
Also according to the doc, Davellin Arvizo told Carol Lemere some very interesting and damaging things about Janet Arvizo. Excerpt from the court doc:

Davellin told Ms. Lemere that: (1) Janet Arvizo physically abused the Arvizo children; (2) Janet Arvizo taught the Arvizo children to shoplift and this is what took place during the J.C. Penney incident; and (3) she did not get along with her mother. (An interview of Carol Lemere by defense investigator, Scott Ross, is attached as Exhibit A.)

The defense investigation has demonstrated that Davellin Arvizo made exculpatory statements to Angel Vivanco, a Neverland employee with whom Davellin maintained a relationship with during and after her time at Neverland.

This relationship occurred during February through April of 2003, just prior to her relationship with Mr. Ramirez.

Davellin told Mr. Vivanco that: (1) she did not get along with her mother; and (2) her mother was planning "something big" with regard to Mr. Jackson and that she did not wish to participate in these plans.

We have reason to believe that Davellin Arvizo made similar exculpatory statements to Manuel Ramirez.

We have further reason to believe that Davellin Arvizo moved out of her mother's residence, and into Mr. Ramirez's home, due to her initial unwillingness to participate in her mother's plan to make false allegations against Mr. Jackson. (pg 2-3)


Wow. Well this isn't the first time we've heard the allegation of the mother abusing the children. This family has a history with the Dept of Children and Family Services.

According to a report from NBC(MSNBC), years ago Gavin Arvizo broke down and told one of his teachers that his mother was beating him. The teacher -- teachers being mandatory child abuse reporters -- contacted the DCFS. They began an investigation and the boy recanted his abuse allegations (see Accuser has history of changing his story).

This is the not the first allegation of abuse leveled concerning this family. During their divorce, the mother once accused the father of sexually abusing one of the children. And the mother tacked on a sexual abuse allegation over a year after her initial filing of a lawsuit against JC Penney.

So not only does this family have a history of leveling abuse allegations all over the place, but if Lemere is to be believed, there may have been something to that original physical abuse allegation against Janet Arvizo after all.

The interview done by the defense investigator with Carol Lemere was done Nov 12 2004. Lemere met the family through a tap school owned by Arlene Kennedy.

According to Lemere (and Brett Ratner in a previous interview with Fox), the mother was rarely there when Gavin Arvizo was in the hospital because she was seen as "disruptive".

We've even had testimony in this trial from the paralegal Mary Holzer who once talked about an episode where Janet Arvizo threw herself down on the floor, kicking and screaming, and calling the doctors "the devil" when she was taken to get check out medically for that JC Penney civil case.

In that interview with a defense investigator, Lemere says Arvizo was seeing another guy when she was still married to ex-husband David Arvizo. She says Davellin Arvizo started living with her at one point.

Also according to Lemere, Davellin A. relayed how Janet A. would beat her with a cord sometimes in the middle of the night. And unlike what Arvizo would later claim, according to the sister, it was Janet A. who would go after the biological father; hitting him:
She would tell stories about being awakened at 2:00 in the morning by Janet; being beaten with a cord by their mother; and being forced to clean the house. [Davellin] also would tell how Janet would hit their father, David.

Ms. Lemere said that [Davellin] would cry constantly and indicated that Janet would hit the children, all three of them. She was concerned about the behavior displayed by Star, indicating Star would flirt with grown women in an "unnatural manner."

Each time Davellin appeared at the house, she would have new stories about Janet and at one point in the summer of 2000 said that they were going to get a big house in the Hollywood Hills. She had no idea what that meant.

A house in the Hollywood Hills? Could that be with the money they were initially expecting to get from JC Penney? Or the money they were systematically scamming out of a number of celebrities who were donating for non-existent medical bills?

Also, according to Lemere, Janet A. would also tell Gavin A. how he was "going to die" and that she actually "started to make preparations for his funeral" (pg 9). Lemere says it was David, the biological father, who would repeatedly tell him he would be fine. Lemere says Davellin would be "very upset about Janet trying to bury Gavin before he was dead" (pg 9).

Janet A. also, according to Lemere, claimed she was jumped by "a black guy" and proceeded to describe the assault with the same allegations she used against the JC Penney guards. Coincidence? Of course not. From the doc:

With respect to the JC Penney incident she believes that this was a coordinated shoplifting attempt that went bad and Janet saw an opportunity to turn into a money making venture.


Lemere also says Gavin A. was already very computer literate and would already know how to surf the internet before they met Jackson. At trial, the accuser and his brother claimed Jackson and Frank Tyson showed them how to use the computer and how to access porn sites. They also testified under oath that they didn't know how to use computers until they were shown by Tyson and Jackson.

Lemere called the kids "trained con-artists" because they had all flipped the stories now to say that it was the father abusing them; that it was the father who had molested the children.

Remember in a pre-trial hearing the mother, during her testimony, pointed a finger at someone in the audience claiming they were "bothering her"? Well she was referring to Lemere because Lemere was in the courtroom during that testimony; although the only thing "bothering" her was simply Lemere's presence.

And there's more. Just read through the court document. You can download it in pdf form here:

Document

Jackson?s Fate in Jurors? Hands
Mood:  down
Topic: Main News
MJJF eNews #578 - Saturday Jun 4, 2005

Pop icon Michael Jackson was greeted outside court
Friday by hundreds of chanting fans. The singer
arrived with his parents and his famout siblings
Janet, LaToya, Jermaine, Tito and Randy. They waved to the fans chants of “Michael is Innocent!”

Defense attorneys completed their closing arguments,
labeling the Arvizo family liars and con artists
trying to pull “the biggest con of their careers”.

"They are trying to take advantage of Michael
Jackson," said impassioned defense attorney Thomas
Mesereau. "They are trying to profit from Michael
Jackson. They think they have pulled it off. They are
just waiting for one thing - your verdict."

"What they are trying to do to Michael Jackson is so
harmful, so brutal, so devastating … if you have any
reasonable doubt about the double-talk, the lies, its
over. You must acquit Michael Jackson," he told the 12 jurors.

Mesereau spoke about the American system of justice
and said, "We have the best system in the world and
ladies and gentlemen I'm begging you to honour the
system. … You must acquit him."

He accused prosecutors of trying to "dirty up Michael" because they lack the evidence to prove their case.

"The witnesses are preposterous, the perjury is
everywhere," Mesereau declared. "None of it works. The only thing they've had is to throw dirt all over the place and hope it sticks."

He added: "If you look in your hearts do you believe
Michael Jackson is evil in that way? Is it even
possible? It really is not."

Mesereau then played excerpts from a video in which
Jackson denies any sexual impropriety and said that he had “never been betrayed or deceived by children.”

The defense attorney conceded that Jackson had been
lax with his money and had let the wrong people into
his circle. But, he said, the singer was not the
“monster” the prosecution were trying to depict and
that he was not guilty of any crime.

Procecution Rebuttal

Afterwards, prosecutor Ron Zonen delivered a brief
rebuttal. He sought to answer the question of
Jackson’s motivation for the crime asking, "Why would
Mr. Jackson do it? Because he could … This child was
in love with him. This child would do anything he
said."

Zonen reminded jurors of the past allegations made
against Jackson saying that this was necessary in
order to “see the total picture”. He claimed that
Jackson was “in love” with his 1993 accuser and added
that the current accuser is a “clone” of the boy in
that case.

After both sides rested for the last time, Judge
Rodney Melville ordered the eight women and four men
on the jury to begin their deliberations. He gave them
a 98-page book of instructions.

The Judge told Jackson that he could stay at Neverland
during the proceedings but requested that the
attorneys remain within 10 minutes of the courthouse
in case the jurors had any questions.

These deliberations are the final stage of an ordeal
that began 14 weeks ago. During this time the jury has
heard testimony from over 130 witnesses.

A verdict is expected early next week.

Source: AP/CNN/MJJF

Message From Michael Jackson's Parents/Family
Mood:  hug me
Topic: Main News

We wish to thank the fans, for their zealous support for our son. Without the supporting fans, we wouldn't have been able to get through these days, and final days. The parents of Michael wish for all to know, that they appreciated their voices as they leave their vehicles to enter the court. They are pleased to hear the words, "Fight Fight, Michael, Fight." They wish for all the fans -- supporters that come to the court in Santa Maria, to know that they thank you, and that they love you all.

Family Spokesperson: Angel Howansky

Source: PV4MJJ.Com (Positive Voices 4 MJJ)

Jackson makes hospital trip as case wraps up
Mood:  sad
Topic: Main News
Defense closing arguments, prosecution rebuttal expected Friday

NBC News and news services

Updated: 9:54 a.m. ET June 3, 2005
SANTA MARIA, Calif. - Pop star Michael Jackson made a brief trip to a local hospital Thursday evening to be treated for dehydration, sources told NBC News, another sign of stress as his trial nears an end. His defense team is set to wrap up its closing arguments Friday, followed by the prosecution's rebuttal and then jury deliberations.

A spokeswoman for Jackson denied that the pop star was hospitalized but didn't rule out the possibility that he went to a hospital for a shot. Earlier Thursday, Dick Gregory, the comedian-turned-nutritionist and a Jackson friend, suggested to Jackson that he get a shot of electrolytes because he appeared dehydrated.

During Thursday's court proceedings, a prosecutor told jurors that the pop star targeted a vulnerable cancer survivor, brought the little boy “into the world of the forbidden” in his bedroom and molested him.

Defense attorney Thomas Mesereau countered that the accuser’s family consisted of “con artists, actors and liars.” He said prosecutors revealed the weakness of their case by attacking him during their closing argument.

“Whenever a prosecutor does that you know they’re in trouble,” Mesereau told the panel, which is expected to get the case Friday. “This is not a popularity contest between lawyers.” Jackson, who looked glum 24 hours earlier, said “I’m OK” as he left court Thursday.

Prosecutors, he said, engaged in a “nasty attempt, a barbaric attempt” to attack Jackson personally by bringing up his financial problems, collection of adult magazines and “sagging music career.”

Mesereau also showed charts suggesting it was ridiculous to believe that during a time when Jackson was under international scrutiny he would choose to commit a sex crime.
In a methodical closing argument, Senior Deputy District attorney Ron Zonen berated Jackson and his attorneys, stood by the testimony of the accuser’s mother, and used charts and graphics to show what he said was a pattern of criminal behavior.

Zonen argued for nearly two hours before he even brought up child molestation, focusing first on a complicated conspiracy alleging Jackson sought to hold the accuser’s family against their will.

He said it was toward the end of a period in which the accuser and his family stayed at Jackson’s Neverland ranch that “the behavior had turned to something terribly illegal.”

Zonen said Jackson began giving the boy alcohol and even though his mother at that time was unaware of any molestation, she insisted that her family leave Neverland.

“For all her shortcomings, (the mother), after learning Michael Jackson was giving her son alcohol, in 36 hours she had her children out of there,” Zonen said.

Is mother credible?

Mesereau said the real issue was “whether the accuser’s family was credible,” and he tore into the prosecutor’s claim the boy’s mother wasn’t out for money, repeatedly returning to the refrain, “Was she asking for money?”

“When she filed for emergency welfare 10 days after getting her (settlement), was she asking for money?” Mesereau asked. “If you do not believe (the family) beyond a reasonable doubt, Mr. Jackson must be acquitted. That’s the law.”

The prosecutor acknowledged she fraudulently applied for welfare after receiving a large settlement in a lawsuit, but asserted that was the only thing she had been proven to have done wrong in her life.

And Zonen ridiculed the idea the boy’s mother could have made up the entire story and prompted her children to lie in order to get wealthy at a future time.

“The suggestion this was all made up is nonsense,” he said. “It’s unmitigated rubbish.” Zonen depicted Neverland, Jackson’s fantasy estate and amusement park, as a place with no rules, no schooling and no discipline for children who stayed there.

“They rode rides, went to the zoo, ate whatever they wanted — candy, ice cream, soda pop. There was only fun. ... And at night they entered into the world of the forbidden. Michael Jackson’s room was a veritable fortress with locks and codes which the boys were given ... They learned about sexuality from someone only too willing to be their teacher.”
He said Jackson carefully chose the kind of boys he wanted to prey upon. “The lion on the Serengeti doesn’t go after the strongest antelope,” Zonen said. “The predator goes after the weakest.”

Referring to the boy’s testimony, he suggested the courtroom scared the teenager.
“It was intimidating. It’s intimidating for me. ... He had been molested by a man he once held in high regard,” Zonen said.

Jackson, 46, is charged with molesting the boy in 2003, plying him with wine and conspiring to hold his family captive to get them to rebut the documentary “Living With Michael Jackson,” in which Jackson held hands with the boy and said he let children into his bed but it was non-sexual.

Not coffeetable books

Zonen also projected on a large screen pages from books about male sexuality. Of one of them, he said, “This is a study of what two men are able to do with each other. The pictures are absolutely graphic. This is a publication you are not going to find on anyone’s coffee table.”

He added, “Are you comfortable with a middle-aged man who possesses this book getting into bed with a 13-year-old boy?” The prosecutor also showed again heterosexual adult material from Jackson’s collection of magazines and said jurors should understand these were part of the “grooming process” intended to get boys aroused. “These were not for him,” he said. “These were for the boys.”

Mesereau responded that Jackson wasn’t charged with possessing illegal pornography because everything in his home was legal, that no child pornography was found in his home or computers, and that prosecutors used the adult magazines just to make the singer look bad.
“They have dirtied him up because he’s human. But they haven’t proven their case because they can’t,” he said. Mesereau also said the boy was unemotional as he described the alleged molestation in the video and in testimony. “You saw no emotion whatsoever. When did you see him really get angry? When he talked about Michael Jackson abandoning his family,” Mesereau said.

Zonen spent much of his argument attacking Jackson’s current and former lawyers.He accused Mesereau of promising things in his opening statement that he could not produce, including mentioning celebrities who would testify who never appeared.

Zonen was defensive in talking about the boy’s mother, one of the most erratic witnesses of the trial.

“(She) never asked for one penny from Michael Jackson,” he said. “She never desired anything from him and she doesn’t today.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
? 2005 MSNBC.com
URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8083261/

Jurors to get instructions in writing
Mood:  hug me
Topic: Main News
Judge allows alcohol charge to be considered lesser offense

SANTA MARIA, California (CNN) -- Written copies of instructions will be given to jurors in the Michael Jackson child molestation trial, the judge in the case announced Tuesday.

Closing arguments could start as early as Wednesday after three months of testimony.

Lawyers on both sides spent Tuesday conferring with Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville over what would be included in those jury instructions.

Melville said jurors would not only be able to read along with his instructions to them, but they would be given "a packet they can use in deliberations."
Jackson, 46, did not attend Tuesday's hearing.

Spokeswoman Raymone Bain said the singer "is going through a lot of emotions right now -- relief that it's over, but very nervous. Because, of course you know, a very major decision is going to be made within the next several days."

The singer was indicted in April 2004 on 10 counts stemming from incidents prosecutors say occurred in February and March 2003.

The singer has pleaded not guilty to the charges and did not testify during the trial.

The charges against Jackson include:

 Four counts of committing a lewd act on a child;

 One count of conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion;

 One count of attempting to commit a lewd act on a child;

 And four counts of administering an intoxicating agent to assist in the commission of a felony.
On Tuesday, Melville said he would instruct jurors that the charges of furnishing alcohol to a minor -- normally a felony -- could be considered a misdemeanor.

Melville told lawyers he would include instructions to jurors on evaluating contradictory testimony and testimony "showing a witness or witnesses has engaged in past criminal conduct."

The judge also said he would instruct jurors to consider testimony regarding prior allegations of sexual misconduct against Jackson "only for the limited purpose of showing a characteristic method, plan or scheme" similar to the allegations that brought the singer into court.

Testimony concluded last week, sooner than what some observers predicted. Prosecutors last week played a videotape in which Jackson's teenage accuser told investigators the singer gave him wine and masturbated him as many as five times. (Full story)

Jackson's lawyers have tried to paint the boy's family as grifters with a habit of wheedling money out of the rich and famous. The defense rested after testimony from comedian Chris Tucker, who contradicted a major element of the prosecution's case. (Tucker's testimony)

Prosecutors tried to show that Jackson and his associates whisked the accuser and his family off to Miami to keep them from seeing the U.S. broadcast of "Living With Michael Jackson," an unflattering television documentary in which Jackson held hands with the boy.

CNN's Dree De Clamecy contributed to this report.

Jackson jurors left with accuser's image
Mood:  on fire
Topic: Main News
SANTA MARIA, California (AP) -- Investigators' first look at the boy who accused Michael Jackson of molesting him is also the last one jurors will be left with as they decide whether he is credible enough to convict the pop star.

With evidence that included phone records and adult magazines and testimony from more than 130 witnesses including Macaulay Culkin, Chris Tucker and Jay Leno, the case may come down to whether jurors think the boy is believable.

Testimony ended Friday after prosecutors showed the panel the boy's videotaped interview with sheriff's detectives in July 2003.

"Bottom line, if they don't believe the accuser, the jurors end up voting not guilty," said Jim Hammer, a trial analyst and former San Francisco prosecutor.
Jackson, 46, is charged with molesting the then-13-year-old boy in February or March 2003, giving him wine and conspiring to hold his family captive to get them to rebut the damaging documentary, "Living With Michael Jackson."

Jury deliberations could come as soon as this week.
The interview and other tapes played throughout the trial gave jurors several images of the boy. He appears downcast, weak and ghostly in a September 2000 tape, a home movie in which Jackson takes the boy's hand to help him onto a train, holds an umbrella over him as his brother pushes him in a wheelchair and sits with him next to a lake.

In later appearances, he is fresh-faced and confident. In the documentary footage -- and in a February 2003 video made by Jackson's associates to rebut the documentary in which Jackson said he allowed children to sleep in his bed -- the boy defends the singer and praises him for helping him beat cancer.

A different side of his personality appears on the tape jurors saw Friday. In a low, quiet voice, looking at the floor and pausing often, the boy tells sheriff's investigators that Jackson acted inappropriately with him almost from the beginning -- starting with his first trip to Neverland in 2000.
His account is similar to the one he gave on the witness stand in March, though a few details were missing or somewhat inconsistent.

In his first visit to Jackson's home, he said on the interview tape, Jackson showed him and his brother naked women on the Internet. But he did not tell investigators about two crude statements that he attributed to Jackson during his testimony.
He also said on the tape, as he did on the stand, that Jackson began fondling him one night in 2003 after saying he wanted to show him how to masturbate. The boy also told investigators that Jackson kept fondling him after he asked him to stop.
The boy did not tell the detectives something that he later said both Jackson and his grandmother told him: that men who don't masturbate sometimes commit rape.

The boy said on the tape that Jackson molested him no more than five times. In his testimony, he said he remembered two times, but that there may have been more. His brother testified that he saw Jackson fondling the boy twice.

After the police interview was played Friday, giving jurors their last look at the boy, the courtroom was silent. When the lights came up, jurors were looking down, appearing somber.

"This ending is really the best thing the prosecution could have hoped for," said Craig Smith, a Santa Barbara College of Law professor and former prosecutor.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Jackson jurors watch Neverland tape
Topic: Main News
Friday, May 20, 2005 ? Last updated 5:04 a.m. PT


By TIM MOLLOY
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

SANTA MARIA, Calif. -- In a victory for Michael Jackson's defense, jurors in his child molestation case were allowed to see a video tour of the singer's Neverland ranch that a prosecutor condemned as propaganda.

Jurors on Thursday saw idyllic scenes of amusement park rides, cheerful workers, zoo animals, blooming flowers and statues of boys and girls at play.

The video also showed numerous clocks, apparently countering testimony by family members of Jackson's accuser that they were unable to keep track of time while allegedly being held captive at the ranch.

Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville permitted the viewing over the vehement opposition of District Attorney Tom Sneddon.

Sneddon said the tape, made this year, showed a ranch that was somewhat different from its state on February and March 2003, when the accuser's family allegedly was held captive.

Sneddon, calling the video "propaganda," argued that it was designed to make Jackson look good, and cited a scene of a chalkboard containing a note by one of Jackson's children that said "I love you daddy."

Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting a boy and plying him with wine. He also is accused of conspiring to hold the boy's family captive. Prosecutors said he wanted them to rebut a TV documentary in which Jackson said he let children sleep in his bed, although he contended it was non-sexual.

On Friday, former Jackson attorney Mark Geragos was expected to return to the stand. Geragos testified last week that he once ordered surveillance of the accuser's family because he believed they were plotting to extort money from Jackson.

In other testimony Thursday, a witness said the accuser's mother told her the family was being kept away from Jackson during a time when prosecutors claim molestation took place.

Azja Pryor, a Hollywood casting assistant and girlfriend of movie star Chris Tucker, said the woman complained in March 2003 about two Jackson associates who were rude to her.

"I asked, 'Does Michael know anything about this?' She said, 'They won't let us around him because they know the children tug at his heart strings,'" Pryor testified.

The time period Pryor cited is significant because prosecutors allege Jackson molested the then-13-year-old boy between Feb. 20 and March 12, 2003.

Pryor testified that she and the boy's mother talked for hours on the phone and the woman never complained to her about Jackson.

Pryor said she and Tucker met the family at a Hollywood comedy club in 2001. At the time, the accuser was battling cancer and the club owner and comedians were raising money for his family.

The defense contends that the accuser's mother tried to bilk celebrities by exploiting her son's cancer fight.

Pryor said she gave the family money and that the accuser's mother and sister tried to pressure her to give them a car.

---

AP Special Correspondent Linda Deutsch contributed to this report.

Janet Arvizo, Direct 4-13-05 Part 2
Mood:  surprised
Topic: Direct Testimonies

Wednesday, 20 April 2005

As court resumed, Mr. Zonen said ?Where we left off, you were talking about the telephone call from Mr. Jackson?, but was asked by the bailiff to turn on the microphone. Mr. Zonen repeated his statement and added that he would now ask Janet Arvizo a couple of questions.

He asked if Ms. Arvizo had received a phone call from any member of the media or the press, prior to the phone call from Mr. Jackson in the early part of February, which she had. She was asked whether or not she had been personally contacted, and replied that what happened was ?reporters -- they said they were two reporters. Who knows? Okay. They had gone to my mom's house. My mom only speaks -- my mom only speaks Spanish. That's it. These two men, one of them was the speaker, kept telling my mom, "Gavin, cancer," and speaking in English. And the only two things that stood out in my mom, even though she knows only Spanish, like certain words mean something to her. And so they said, "Gavin, cancer; Gavin, cancer," and that stood out. So my mom called me immediately, you know, ?What?s wrong with Gavin?" And she -- I go, "No, nothing's wrong, Mom. They're at school." And she goes, "Well, there's two men here telling me about Gavin and cancer." And so she didn't know, so I thought maybe some -- some medical -- some ?? where she was stopped by Mr. Zonen.

Mr. Zonen tried to clarify how long prior to the phone call from Mr. Jackson this conversation happened, but Ms. Arvizo didn?t understand, and when we tried to make the witness understand, she replied ?Okay. They were still there while my mom was on the phone.? Mr. Zonen said he knew, and explained he wanted to know whether or not the conversation with Mr. Jackson was on the same day or not, which Ms. Arvizo confirmed, and continued that ?it was within hours that Evvy contacted me next?.

The mentioned reporters were the only members of the press who had contacted the family before the phone call from Mr. Jackson, but others had contacted them after the trip to Miami.

Janet Arvizo explained she had spoken to the member of the media who had called her mother. ?Well, my mom passed me the phone, and I spoke to him. And he says, "We just happened to see your son in England." And I go, "No, if my" -- "I just dropped off my son at school. And if he's in England, he's in big trouble," you know. And so -- and he was very vague. And I said, "You scared my mom. She only speaks Spanish, so please don't continue talking to her."?

When asked if she had an interview with either of the two people, Mr. Mesereau objected, stating that the witness had not completed her response, and Mr. Melville suggested Mr. Zone asked another question.

Mr. Zonen asked if Ms. Arvizo had an actual conversation with either of the two people over the telephone, and she replied that she had spoken to one them, and that he had identified himself as a reporter from England who had just flown in, and who would have to fly out immediately. He named himself either Garner or Gardner, but he had not stated which publication he worked for.

He didn?t say he wanted an interview with Ms. Arvizo, but wanted to meet with her, which she had refused, ?because he was vague? and she told him that he was ?scaring my mom. And that's not my house, that's my mom's house. I live in Los Angeles?

When asked which telephone the call was from, she replied it was from her mom?s, but that she wasn?t there. ?. I'm over here in Los Angeles. My mom called me because she was scared, because these two guys were saying Gavin -- and a whole conversation. But the only thing that jumped out in my mom was "Gavin" and "cancer.?





Mr. Zonen asked where she made a return phone call to the reporter, but she answered that ?there was no call back?, and they didn?t call her mother back either. She continued, ?My mom was courteous and polite, you know. Handed her the phone, because I wanted to know what the nature of their visit, why they were saying "Gavin, cancer??. Mr. Zonen asked if they were at her mother?s place in person, which she confirmed.

Ms. Arvizo said she did not discuss Michael Jackson in the conversation with the reporters, and they had not told her that they wanted to talk about Michael Jackson,

Mr. Mesereau objected, saying it was leading, which was overruled.

Ms. Arvizo explained the conversation with the reporters had only lasted just minutes, and said that it had taken about the same time, as it had taken her to explain the information she had given Mr. Zonen, and that it was the only conversation she had ever had with either reporter.

When asked whether or not Jay Jackson had told her that he had had conversations with reporters, she answered that she knows now, per this investigation, and added that she knows a lot of things now, because of the investigation.

Mr. Zonen said ?Listen to the question, okay? On that day prior to your going to Florida, did Jay Jackson tell you that he had conversations with reporters?? which she denied, and also denied having had any conversation with Jay Jackson about any reporters, nor did any other reporter try to contact her prior to going to Florida.

During questioning about the conversation with the reporter, Garner or Gardner, Mr. Zonen established that the reporter had not mentioned anything about a documentary, and the other thing he had said about Ms. Arvizo?s having been on television, was that he ?had said, ?I have just seen Gavin in England?? but Ms. Arvizo was not certain what that meant.

Turning to the conversation Ms. Arvizo had with Mr. Jackson, Mr. Zonen asked if Mr. Jackson had said anything about her children being on television, which he had not, but she had not asked him either. Mr. Jackson did not offer any information about the children being on television, and never mentioned the name of the documentary her children had been a part of, ?Living with Michael Jackson?

The only thing he said spoken of was ?Bashir? and Ms. Arvizo said she did not ask Mr. Jackson who Bashir was, or what it was about, until Miami, where she ?found out more things?.

Mr. Zonen questioned her about the trip to Miami, and she explained she flew with Chris Tucker and the children. Mr. Zonen asked if she knew how Mr. Tucker had become involved, and Ms. Arvizo replied that it was through Evvy. Evvy had contacted him but she ?didn't know about this until I got to the sidewalk, which Gary Hearn had meet us, and he says, "Guys, there's a change of plans," and that was it?

The family was taken to Chris Tucker?s house to wait for Davellin, and then flew on a private jet straight to Miami. Ms. Arvizo did not know they would go on a private jet until Mr. Hearn told her.

In Miami the family was taken to a hotel called ?The Turnberry? which Ms. Arvizo described as a Las Vegas kind of hotel, without the slot machines, though. They did not meet up with Mr. Jackson when they first got there, but they ?got right there until ? you know that time between -- before morning time where it's really, really dark? That's the time we arrived. So we went straight to -- dropped off Chris in his room, and then we went to our room. And our room was right underneath his room. And Chris, they had set him up in a completely different building, away from me and the kids?





Ms. Arvizo described their accommodations as being two rooms connected by a door which could be locked, however it was unlocked it?

In the daytime the family met up with Mr. Jackson and Ms. Arvizo were finally able to have a conversation with Mr. Jackson, after she had not talked to anyone about the danger Mr. Jackson had spoken about, during the course of the trip. The only ones present at the conversation were Ms. Arvizo, her children, and Mr. Jackson.

She claimed that Mr. Jackson had spoken to them in a very normal, very male voice, and told them how they should trust him because he was a father figure to the children. That he said he would protect the family, and that he was going to ?to do everything that Ronald and Dieter tell him, because this is what's going to fix the problem. He even had told me that he has read ? he knows what to do in this situation, because he's read hundreds of books on psychology, and he knows -- he knows what to do in these kinds of things, of what kind of frame of mind that these people that were threatening my children are. He had -- he had cried. I just thought, you know, what a nice guy, you know?

The conversation took about 45 minutes, but Ms. Arvizo had not asked Mr. Jackson about the nature of the threats towards her children, because she was like ?a sponge, believing him, trusting him?. The only thing Mr. Jackson had told her of the threats was that it was because of the Bashir thing. He did not offer any explanation of who had made the treats, and neither spoke of whether or not the police were being contacted, nor did he ask anything of the family during the conversation.

Ms. Arvizo said they were to be in Miami to do a press conference, but Mr. Jackson did not talk to her about a press conference.

Mr. Zonen asked the witness about Dieter and Ronald, whether or not Ms. Arvizo knew them prior to that day, which she did not, and whether she met them that day, which she confirmed.

Mr. Zonen asked if he could approach the witness, which he was granted, and showed Ms. Arvizo two exhibits, No 17 and No 18. He asked her to look at No 17, and asked Ms. Arvizo to identify who was in the picture. ?That?s Dieter? she replied, but she had not known his last name prior to the investigation, but had now learned it was ?Weisner?. Mr. Zonen asked the witness to identify the person in exhibit No. 18, and she identified him as Ronald Konitzer. Ms. Arvizo called the two ?those Germans?.





She knew they were German because they had told her, and had spoken amongst themselves in German.

Returning to the meeting with Mr. Jackson, Mr. Zonen asked if there was anything else that Mr. Jackson had told her, and she replied he had said, ?that he loves us; that he cares about us; that we're family; that we were in the back of the line, now we're in the front of the line, and because he's going to take care of us, protect us from these killers. Let me see. What else? That he's -- that he's not just a father figure to Gavin, to Star and to Davellin. Let me see. What else? And he's family to me and he's family to the kids. Let me see. What else??

Mr. Zonen continued, ?Do you know if Mr. Jackson had ever had ?? to which Mr. Mesereau objected, stating the witness had not completed her answer. Judge Melville replied, ?Go ahead and ask your next question?.





Mr. Zonen repeated, ?Do you know if Mr. Jackson had ever had such a similar conversation with your children?? which she stated that he had at the initial visit in August 2000. ?all his people, for example, Evvy was the No. 1 one that was pointing out that, "I want you to see Michael as like family, all" - "We see him and view him only as a father figure, "so ?? but Mr. Zonen asked her again whether or not Mr. Jackson himself had said anything to the children about being family.

Ms. Arvizo confirmed that Mr. Jackson had ?in a conversation with Gavin over the phone, that's when Gavin had told me one of the conversations?.

Jumping back to the meeting with Mr. Jackson in Miami, Mr. Zonen asked what specifically Mr. Jackson had told her to do with Mr. Weisner and Mr. Konitzer, and she replied ?To listen and do everything they say, because they're going to fix the problem?.

Afterwards she spoke to both Mr. Weisner and Mr. Konitzer at the same time in Miami, in Mr. Jackson?s room, and she confirmed that Mr. Jackson was present at her conversation. Mr. Jackson began the conversation, by introducing Mr. Konitzer and Mr. Weisner, and she continued ?And that's the point where he had taken off the jacket and handed -- and physically placed it on Gavin?.

Mr. Zonen tried to pinpoint when the conversation had taken place, and Ms. Arvizo explained it was the morning after their arrival in Miami. Returning to Ms. Arvizo?s comment about Mr. Jackson placing a jacket on Gavin, he asked ?What did he do with the jacket?? Ms Arvizo explained Mr. Jackson had taken his Jacket off, put it on Gavin, and had told Gavin not to take it off.

Mr. Zonen then asked whether Star and Davellin were there as well, which M. Arvizo confirmed, but said that Mr. Weisner and Mr. Konitzer had not been anywhere in sight in the hotel room, during the initial meeting with Mr. Jackson, and nor were they present when Mr. Jackson handed Gavin the jacket.

Returning to the conversation with Mr. Konitzer and Mr. Weisner, Mr. Zonen asked if Ms. Arvizo could tell him what Mr. Konitzer said during the course of the conversation. Mr. Mesereau objected, claiming hearsay, but Melville responded, ?All right. I'm allowing this particular testimony for purposes limited to possible conspirator statements. You may only consider it for those purposes in accordance with my earlier instructions.?

Mr. Zonen again asked Ms. Arvizo to tell him what Mr. Konitzer had spoken about, and she explained, ?in this conversation, all they wanted to know was basically of -- of who I am, where I lived, my brothers, my mother. Just basically information from me and the kids. That's all?.

She had given them the requested information, and said that neither Mr. Konitzer nor Mr. Weisner gave her any directions during that conversation. Nor did either of them talk to her about a danger the children were experiencing. Mr. Zonen started to ask whether or not Mr. Jackson was present during the entire conversation, but Ms. Arvizo broke him off, and confirmed Mr. Jackson?s presence. Mr. Zonen instructed the witness to please wait till the question had been asked in it?s entirety before asking.

He then moved on to ask, if Mr. Jackson had offered any information during the conversation that Ms. Arvizo had not spoken of till then which she denied.

Ms. Arvizo explained that they were in Miami for two nights, one of which was the night of the broadcast of ?Living with Michael Jackson?, but said that neither she nor the children were allowed to visit the documentary.





Returning to the first day in Miami, Mr. Zonen asked if Ms. Arvizo had any subsequent conversation with either Mr. Konitzer or Mr. Weisner, which she denied, and when asked about the following day, she replied, ?Just almost -- almost the whole day that's when we had stayed in Michael's room?.

Ms. Arvizo said Mr. Jackson was in his room, with the family, during that day, and that he was there the entire time. Ms. Arvizo never left the hotel, though she had never been to Miami before. She did not want to go see the city, she said, but when Mr. Zonen asked her whether she expressed any desire to leave the hotel, Mr. Mesereau objected, stating the question was leading, but before Melville had a chance to rule, Ms. Arvizo said ?No. I just wanted to focus there ?? but was interrupted by Melville, who asked her to wait for his ruling, then overruled the objected, and instructed the witness to answer.

Ms. Arvizo then repeated that she did not leave the hotel during that time, but did leave her room, in favor of Mr. Jackson?s room. She also left her room to get breakfast, but when she got there, Chris and the children were already done, and she continued, ?So all I had was, I think -- please don't quote me on this -- I know a lemonade and I think a some cheese that they had, like samples?

Besides that, Ms. Arvizo said she did not go to a restaurant, nor did she go anywhere else besides her room or Mr. Jackson?s room during the stay.

Mr. Zonen asked if she went to a spa, which she denied, and he continued to ask if any other members of her family did, which she confirmed, but Mr. Mesereau objected, calling the question leading.

Again the witness spoke before Judge Melville had a chance to rule, and after overruling the objection, he instructed her again to ?to slow down when I'm ruling?.

Mr. Zonen asked which other family members went to a spa, and she replied that Mr. Tucker took the three children to the spa. She did not go along because she was concerned about when they would ?take care of my kids from being killed??

On this second day, still nobody spoke to Ms. Arvizo of a press conference, but she spoke to Mr. Konitzer and Mr. Weisner. Mr. Konitzer wanted her to sign a blank piece of paper, and refused to explain why she should sign it, and she quoted Mr. Konitzer as saying that they were running out of time, and ?You want your kids to be killed.?, and Ms. Arvizo had signed the blank piece of paper.

Mr. Weisner asked her to sign a pre-written paragraph, plus asked her to write some things in her writing, and sign underneath it.

Mr. Zonen asked for permission to approach the witness, which was granted, and he showed her exhibit No 807, and asked her if she recognized the paper, but she only recognized her signature. She claimed she had not signed it, and explained she had never signed her name twice on the same piece of paper.

Mr. Zonen asked if any of the handwriting was hers, and she said that the hand printed name and signature was her handwriting, and also a second signature was hers, but she did not have any recollection of having signed the document twice, but claimed she had signed two different papers.

Mr. Zonen asked to have the piece of paper admitted into evidence, which was permitted without objection from Mr. Mesereau.

The prosecutor read the top part out loud, after having it published. ?I confirm that Theodore Goddard is authorized by me to file this complaint on behalf of my son, Gavin Arvizo.? And continued, ?The date is Miami, February 7th, 2003. Do you believe that you were in Miami on February 7th?? which Ms. Arvizo confirmed.





However, she did not know who Theodore Goddard was, and was never told who it was, nor had she ever seen the sentence preprinted on a piece of paper in Miami. She confirmed her signature was directly underneath it, and that the signature below her name hand printed was also hers. She did not, however, remember a line being there, nor did she draw a line there herself.

Again reading from the document, Mr. Zonen continued, ?"Mrs. Arvizo also learned that Davellin and Star have been on T.V. without her consent. Please act accordingly? and then asked if she had signed the signature beneath that. Ms. Arvizo denied having signed it, but said it was indeed her signature.

A handwritten paragraph started with ?Mrs. Arvizo also learned?? was also discussed by Mr. Zonen, but Ms. Arvizo denied it being written in her handwriting, and denied ever having seen it before. Again she denied having signed any document twice.

She claimed while in Florida, nobody spoke to her of a lawsuit, mentioned an attorney in England, or spoke to her about her or her song being represented. She also denied anyone discussing the presentation of ?Living with Michael Jackson? with anyone on the first day in Florida, and did learn what it was till later.

Ms. Arvizo said the presentation of the documentary in the United Stated was the night of her first full night in Florida, and she had wanted to see it, because of the sudden threats against her children. Previously she had mentioned the threat being directed toward Gavin, but Mr. Jackson had told her that had changed, and the threats were now directed towards all three children.

She explain the first time she learned of the presentation of the documentary was after Mr. Konitzer and Mr. Weisner had extracted all the information from her, but nobody had explained what the documentary was, besides that it featured her children, but not in which manner.

When asked with whom she had spoken of ?Living with Michael Jackson?, she replied, ?At this point, the initial meeting. Then the Ronald and Dieter with Michael. Afterwards, let me see, they kept pulling Gavin into -- Ronald, Mr. Weisner and Gavin (sic) kept pulling Gavin into a room by himself. I was thinking they're talking about the press conference. Then Michael kept pulling Gavin into a room all by himself over and over. So it was in the middle of the pulling Gavin into the bedroom?

Again Mr. Zonen asked who had told her the documentary would be on television, she said nobody had, but that she had overheard Mr. Jackson talking to Mr. Konitzer and Mr. Weisner. She had tried to be able to view the documentary, but did not view it, because Davellin had called her to the room, saying Mr. Jackson was angry.

She explained Mr. Jackson did not want her to see it, but offered no explanation why, and she did not ask why, because she kept thinking that since they were going to take care of her kids from the ?killers? she had better?

In Miami she had not clue about the contents of the documentary, and she did not make any questions or inquiries as to how her children were depicted until after Miami. She said, she had not seen the documentary in it?s entirety to this date, and no longer wanted to see it.

Mr. Zonen asked her, if she had any other conversation with Mr. Jackson on the full day she had spent in his room that she had not already spoken of which she denied.

The next day they had flown back to California, but not to her home. Ms. Arvizo said they never had a press conference, and nobody explained why a press conference had never taken place, or discussed an alternative. She did not ask anyone why there was no press conference and said that ?I did start to ask questions now, that's when a lot of craziness started happening?


She explained that she had approached Mr. Konitzer and Mr. Weisner, but they had shut her down saying ?Arghh, you stupid woman? and the entire situation escalated and ended with Roland saying things like he could have her erased if she made him angry, which terrified her.

Ms. Arvizo never went to Mr. Jackson and told him of the situation with Roland and Mr. Weisner, and she clarified that the situation did not happen till they got to Neverland.

The questioning turned to the flight from Miami to California, and Ms. Arvizo explained she wasn?t supposed to fly back with everybody else. Mr. Jackson?s head security of traveling, Big Mike, had spoken to her about flying separately. Ms. Arvizo said she did not know his real name. She said she had started crying, and Big Mike had told her he would speak to the boss, and then called her back, and confirmed she could fly back with the kids, if she would stay quiet.

On the flight the other passengers were Baby Rubba, Marie Nicole, all three of Mr. Jackson?s children, Patty and Grace, a doctor whom she knew as Dr. Farsha, her children, Mr. Jackson, one flight attendant and herself. Mr. Zonen asked her who Baby Rubba was, and Ms. Arvizo explained she had come to find out his name is Al or Aldo, and it was a relative of Frank Tyson.

Mr. Zonen asked Ms. Arvizo about whether or not she knew Frank Tyson at the time of the flight going back, and she explained she had met him in August of 2000 during the family?s initial visit to Neverland. Frank Tyson was also present in Miami, but did not speak to Ms. Arvizo.

The prosecutor also asked her about the possibility of a friendship between Davellin and Marie Nicole, and whether or not the two had gone to New York on a shopping trip. Ms. Arvizo said, ?A lot of things I haven't heard, and they just pop up?, and denied the two had been friends prior to Florida, or even in Florida. She said they weren?t together till Neverland.

When asked about if she knew where the plane was going to, she replied, ?Well, I thought -- I just thought that maybe it was going to land in Los Angeles, and then, you know, I'm -- you know, and that's it? but said nobody told her of the destination.

Returning to the trip to Florida, Mr. Zonen asked if she knew of the length of their stay in Miami when they flew to Miami, but she said she assumed they would just do the press conference and then go home, since the children were in school, and she noted the day of their departure for Miami was a school day, because they had to wait till Davellin got out of school.

Ms, Arvizo said there were no arrangements made to accommodate their absence from school, and she had not expected for the children to be absent from school for an extended period of time.

Mr. Zonen questioned Ms. Arvizo about the flight from Miami again, asking her when she realized the destination was not Los Angeles but rather Neverland and she replied it was on the flight.

The prosecutor then asked her if she remember which seats were occupied by herself, Mr. Jackson and her children, after showing her exhibit No 808, identified as a chart of the inside of an airplane. She explained some things ?Some things are just burned in here?

Mr. Zonen questioned her about the activity on the plane, and Ms. Arvizo replied, ?Baby Rubba, Marie Nicole were running all over the place. His kids were running all over the place? and that the flight attendant was very busy.

The witness was then asked to mark on the exhibit with a blue pen, where she sat by writing her initials, and Mr. Jackson?s seat with his initials, as well as anyone else she could remember the seat position for. Afterwards Mr. Zonen asked Ms. Arvizo to confirm that the names now written on the chart accurately depicted where everybody sat, and moved to have it introduced into evidence, which was allowed without object from Mr. Mesereau.





Mr. Zonen then had the chart published, handed the witness a laser, and asked her to point to where ?MJ? was. He asked if Mr. Jackson?s seat was facing the seat of Davellin correctly, which she confirmed, and she furthermore confirmed that Gavin was sitting next to Mr. Jackson, facing the seat of Star.

Questioning Ms. Arvizo about her seat, marked by ?JJ? the prosecutor asked what ?JJ? stands for. ?Janet Jackson?, Ms, Arvizo explained and showed in which direction her seat faced. She went on to explain that she was not able to see over the top of the seat, because they were really big and above her head. The prosecutor then asked her out about the people she sat with, which were Dr. Farshshian, facing her, as well as Patty and Grace, whom she said were nannies for Mr. Jackson.

Moving on to what Ms. Arvizo said was ?kind of like a couch? she confirmed four people were on that seat, and that there was another similar seat above it, but Ms. Arvizo did not remember if anyone sat in that seat. She furthermore stated the stewardess always sat in the back, because ?Grace would get mad at her and throw her in the back ? Like she had to be working, because ? and if you were not working, you go back?.

Mr. Zonen pointed the questioning to whether or not Ms. Arvizo saw anything on the flight what caused concern, which was confirmed by Ms. Arvizo.

When asked to describe what she saw, she turned to the jury and exclaimed ?Don?t judge me. At that time I was -- I hadn't slept for so long. When everybody had fallen asleep -- and it was hours into the flight. I hadn't gotten up, and so -- and I figured this was my chance to look and see what had -- what was going on back there. So I got up, and that's when I saw Michael licking Gavin's head. I thought it was me. I thought I was seeing things. I thought it was me. When we got off the airplane and I asked my son, I asked him, "Are you okay?" He said, "I'm okay." And that was it?

Ms. Arvizo explained Gavin was asleep at the time, and Mr. Jackson?s arm was around Gavin. She claimed Mr. Jackson licked the boy repeatedly in his hair on the side of his head, but she said she was not going to tell nobody of what she had seen. The first person she did tell was the police ?way, way after, way after Neverland? after Star had told her what he had seen.

The witness was not able to pinpoint exactly when during the flight the incident happened, except that it was after everybody had done to sleep.

After the plane landed, Ms. Arvizo said a car was right there when they got out of the plane, so she was unable to say which airport they landed at, or whether it was a small airport. She explained it took less than an hour to drive to Neverland, and that they had their luggage with them.

Mr. Zonen asked where the family stayed when they reached Neverland, and she explained she lived in one of the guesthouses, and that they arrived very early morning. She claimed Mr. Jackson had the car stop ?like way at the beginning, and then we all had to walk in the freezing night into Neverland? along a pathway.

Mr. Zonen asked if the family went straight to the cottage. Janet Arvizo's reply was "No. We went straight into the house. And then from the house, we got all our bags, and then that's where my garbage bag was missing I had tied up to my red sports bag. Mr. Zonen asked if she had a plastic garbage bag and she replied yes. She said "With my stuff. And then I had put in the Turnberry bag, I had put my shoes inside there, my Timberland shoes, so they wouldn't dirty the rest of my stuff."






Mr. Zonen asked if that was the only form of luggage she brought with when she went to Miami. She replied yes plus the red bag. Wasn't the red bag a Turnberry Hotel bag asked Zonen and the reply was "the red bag was my bag." Trying to clarify he asked "It was a separate bag that you had with you?" Ms. Arvizo said "Yes. And the white garbage bag was tied to the handles of my red bag." She added that the bag was not with her when she got to Neverland and she immediately told Jesus Salas and Jesus contacted Chris Tucker. Then Michael was told and he said "It's okay. We'll replace everything in there."

Janet Arvizo was then asked where she stayed that night at Neverland. She replied "Neverland, in the guesthouse." She was also asked where Davellin was and she said in one of the guesthouses. When she was asked where the boys were, she said with Michael. Where with Michael was the question and she replied "now I know, okay." At the time she knew they were in the house, but never walked there during the nighttime nor did she ever make an effort to contact either of the boys while they were inside the house.

Ms. Arvizo left her room about mid-morning the next day. Davellin was not with her. Davellin was with Marie Nicole and Baby Rubba. Zonen asked "Did Davellin stay the night in your room?" "Not in my room. In a guesthouse. She was asked if she knew where Marie Nicole or Aldo stayed or Baby Rubba. "Oh, Marie Nicole stood in the room ? they have a bed over there above the theater. There's a bed. That's where she slept. And Aldo and the boys, they slept with Michael."

Going back to the subject of returning to Neverland, Ms. Arvizo was asked if she expected to go back to Neverland and she replied no, that nobody asked her. She said she did not want to return because the kids were in school and she was just going to do this press conference and that's all.

Mr. Zonen asked if once she was back at Neverland if she saw either Mr. Konitzer or Mr. Weisner. Not immediately she said, but the next day Mr. Weisner came and Mr. Konitzer came several days later. However she admitted that she wasn't sure. When Ms. Arvizo was asked how long she stayed at Neverland, she replied until Jesus helped her.

Mr. Zonen asked to show an exhibit and then questioned whether or not it was in evidence. An off-the-record discussion followed. Mr. Zonen asked the clerk to confirm that No. 405 was in evidence and the clerk indicated that it was not. Mr. Zonen then asked for permission to approach the witness and showed her an exhibit for identification. He indicated that it was 405, a full page, and asked her to take her time and read it to herself.

When she had finished reading, he asked her if she knew who Bell Yard was. Her response was "no." She was asked if it was a press release and she didn't know. Was she quoted in it was the question and she said "yes" but she never made those quotes and wasn't interviewed for the content of the document. Actually she stated this was the first time she had seen it even though it was attributed to Janet Ventura-Arvizo on Sunday, February 9, 2003. At that point Mr. Zonen asked Judge Melville to introduce 405 into evidence and Mr. Mesereau objected stating hearsay and no foundation. Judge Melville said "I don't think there is a foundation. I was looking. It was identified on March 2nd, but I can't recall who identified it." Mr. Zonen thought it was Ann Gabriel and then asked to withdraw it for a later time.

Ms. Arvizo was asked how many days she stayed at Neverland and she had no idea. She said that she had indicated that she told Mr. Konitzer and Mr. Weisner, in Mr. Jackson's presence, that she wanted to leave Neverland. Mr. Konitzer and Mr. Weisner told her she had to do the rebuttal.


When Mr. Zonen asked her if that was the first she had heard about a rebuttal she replied "Right on." She also indicated that she had many conversations with Mr. Konitzer and Mr. Weisner while being prepared for the rebuttal. Mr. Zonen questioned what she meant by preparing and she replied "They had this -- this thing that I guess -- they had extracted all the information from us. It was like a script." Mr. Zonen continued by asking if anyone had mentioned a rebuttal in Miami and Ms. Arvizo said never.






The reply to who was the first person to broach the subject was Mr. Weisner. Mr. Zonen ask if Mr. Jackson had talked to her about doing a rebuttal and she said no, that Mr. Jackson said "Do everything that Ronald and Dieter tell you, and it will fix everything." Ms. Arvizo said, that Mr. Jackson had repeated the exact same thing as he had said earlier in Miami.

While Ms. Arvizo had concerns regarding Mr. Konitzer and Mr. Weisner, she never expressed her concerns to Mr. Jackson.

Mr. Zonen asked the witness what Mr. Konitzer and Mr. Weisner had told her regarding the rebuttal video, and she explained that it was ?In answer to -- in answer to everything of the "Living with Michael Jackson." They were concerned about how he looked. They weren't concerned about my children, me, anything else. Only him? and in regards her to children, they had told her, it would ?appease the killers?.

The prosecutor asked exactly who had actually used the world ?killers? and she replied it was Mr. Jackson, Mr. Konitzer, Mr. Weisner and later on Mr. Tyson and Vinnie Amen, and she added ?And you know what? They ended up being the killers?

Mr. Zonen tried to figure out where the word ?Killers? started from, and asked who the first person to use the word was, after instructing Ms. Arvizo, to answer that question only. ?Michael? she replied, and explained it was in Miami.

Afterwards Mr. Zonen focused on the rebuttal video, wanting to know exactly what Ms. Arvizo knew of the video beforehand. She knew it was in response to ?Living with Michael Jackson? and when the prosecutor asked if anyone had explained her contents of the documentary, she replied, ?No. They just -- it was a script, and that was it, and expressed -- worked with us daily, numerous times, on what to do, what to do in between the outtakes, what to do before, and that's it?

She explained Mr. Weisner had shown her a script containing nothing but ?glowing things about Michael? and had told her it would ?appease the killers?. Mr. Zonen asked her if she had said she would do the rebuttal, to which she replied, ?No. Prior to Jesus, it was a no? and this was ?Because I told them, "What's wrong with the truth?" And that's it?

Mr. Zonen asked Ms. Arvizo ?Why did you to go Jesus?? She replied, ?Because after asking them to leave so many times and they wouldn't let me leave. And then they were all working on a positive PR for Michael. They also wanted to point out how they were doing things for the mother and the kids. It was -- they were going to use it -- it went back and forth, and then they were going to use it in lieu, like -- also, like, they don't think that they were going to put out there. They're crazy. So that was ??

Mr. Zonen interrupted her, ?You don't remember the question, do you?? ?No?, she admitted.

He tried again, ?Why did you go to Jesus? and her reply was ?To help me?. She explained she spoke to Jesus Salas in both English and Spanish, because she was very concerned about anybody hearing. She had asked Mr. Salas to help her and the children to leave, and he had replied that ?nobody should ever be held if they don?t want to stay there? and he had helped the family to leave.

However, leaving Neverland with Jesus was not her first time off the Neverland grounds during the period of her time there. When Mr. Zonen asked her where, she replied, ?Ronald and Dieter said, like I told you about Michael's positive PR, and they wanted to show that he's doing things for the mother and the kids. And, you know, so -- they had me so wrapped up. I believed everything they said?. The prosecutor tried to catch the attention of the witness by calling out her name, and repeated his question ?Where did you go?? and she replied, ?Okay. I went to, like, a beauty place. And, oh, but get this-? Zonen again tried to catch the attention of the witness by calling out her name twice, while she said she paid for the treatment. For the third time Zonen repeated ?Where did you go?? and her reply was ?Okay. I went and got my legs waxed? and she continued before Mr. Zonen could speak ?And the key thing there??

?Hold on, hold on? Zonen said, but unfazed, Ms. Arvizo continued, ?-- I'll pay for it, because it was in replacement of my things?. Zonen instructed her to only answer the question asked, and he tried to clarify where she had been. ?You went to a beauty salon of some nature; is that right?? which she confirmed. ?Did you have a body wax?? ?No?, she replied, but acknowledged to have had her legs waxed. She said it was Mr. Konitzer and Mr. Weisner?s idea, because they wanted to do some positive PR, by doing something for the mother.

Ms. Arvizo explained she had said ?I -- I told them, ?The only way I'm going to do that is if you deduct that from the things that were lost or stolen.? Who knows?? and this was agreed on. She explained Christ Carter had taken her to the beauty salon ?and then their little surveilling people?. Her children were with Mr. Jackson while she was off the ranch, but she returned after the treatment.

Mr. Zonen asked, if this was the day she left Neverland, and she replied, ?I think it was, because I figured, you know what? That's it. That's enough. They got their positive PR, and now maybe I can go?. But ?The Germans? followed her everywhere, so when they fell asleep, she contacted Mr. Salas who agreed to take her and her children off the property, and drove them home to her mother?s house. She explained ?They had me scared about going to my mom -- to my own place? and when Mr. Zonen asked her what they had told her about her Soto Residence, she replied, ?That the killers had been there, that it had even been broken into. I believed everything they said. Now -- now I don't?

Mr. Zonen wanted to know if Mr. Konitzer or Mr. Weisner knew where her residence was, and she told him, that they found out all details in Miami, plus Mr. Jackson had known beforehand, and had picked up the children from that residence.

Continuing questioning, the prosecutor wanted to know how long the Arvizo family stayed at Ms. Arvizo?s mother?s house, but she didn?t remember. ?But I remember Frank convincing me that it's too scary to stay there. And I figured my parents are old, and so I went to Jay's house? and she took her children with her, because she still didn?t want to return to Neverland.

Ms. Arvizo didn?t know how long she stayed at Jay Jackson?s house either, but testified she received a lot of phone calls while she stayed with both her mother, and Jay Jackson. Most phone calls were from Mr. Tyson, but Mr. Jackson had also called once to speak to the boys while they were at her mother?s house. This phone call from Mr. Jackson was almost immediately after the family had left Neverland.

Ms. Arvizo testified Mr. Tyson called ?all the time? and said ?That he loves us, Michael loves us, and, you know, loves -- he wants to protect us. I'm in so much danger, me and the children. Just ? just everything in those kind of topics? and he had described the danger by saying, ?You don't know, Janet. We're receiving constant death threats here about the children?.

Mr. Zonen returned to the phone call from Mr. Jackson and Ms. Arvizo answered that she did not speak to Mr. Jackson, and continued, ?Frank had already done the legwork for him, let him know?. The prosecutor clarified that his question had only been, whether or not she had spoken with Mr. Jackson, which she denied.

Moving on, Mr. Zonen asked about what happened when the family went to Jay Jackson?s residence in mid-Wilshire on St. Andrews Place, and asked if the phone calls continued there. ?Yes?, she replied. ?Were you called Frank Back? Was he leaving messages? Were you returning his call?? Mr. Zonen asked, and she answered ?The ones I returned, probably maybe ? at that time, before returning to Neverland? I think maybe -- maybe once. Once or three times. Very -- definitely less than five. The rest were all him?





?Did Frank, in any of his conversations with you, tell you who it was who posed a danger to your children?? the prosecutor requested, ?No. The killers, you know. Now when somebody knocks, I say, "Okay, it's either a subpoena or a killer? she replied.

Mr. Zonen wanted to know is Mr. Tyson had ever discussed other matters with Ms. Arvizo over the phone, and she confirmed that he had also spoken of how much Mr. Jackson loved her and her children, and that Mr. Tyson had spoken of the rebuttal video, ?And I had told them no, because Dieter and Ronald had scripted it, and so they wanted us to say exactly what they wanted us to say for -- what they wanted us to exactly say? she explained.

Mr. Zonen asked if the children had gone back to school, after Mr. Salas had driven the family away from Neverland, but Ms. Arvizo said they had not, because she still believed that killers were after her children, but she also stated ?then afterwards, I came to find out from Mr. Davie that honestly no reporter ever came to my children's school?

Ms. Arvizo testified that when she came home to her mother?s house, the tables were filled with offers from reporters, including offers for vacations, money, cars, and the presence of the offers, convinced her that the talk of killers chasing her family, was true.

?Did anybody actually call and contact?and talk to you while you were there?? Mr. Zonen questioned, and she replied, ?The phone was ringing like crazy, so I would pick it up and pretend it wasn't me, you know, just in case it was one of my parents' family members, because my mother's mother has Alzheimer's, so my mom and her sister, or a combination, they take care of her, so, you know ??

Ms. Arvizo explained that the many letters of the table included monetary offers in exchange for interviews with either her, her children or the entire family, one offered as much as 100,000$ in cash, for story about Gavin. Ms. Arvizo denied ever calling any of the reporters, or having had any conversation with any reporters, besides the initial contact by two reporters, previous to the trip to Miami. She also denied ever communicating to any reporters that she was willing to do a story or receiving payment.

To this day, she said, she has still not accepted payment from any reporter, or given a story to any reporters, nor does she have any intentions of making any arrangements to do a story in the future.

Judge Melville called for a break, and when they returned, Mr. Zonen returned to the phone calls received from Mr. Tyson. ?Miss Arvizo, I've been asking you about a series of telephone calls that you received from Frank, and I asked you, I believe, if anybody else had called you about this same issue. Your answer was what?? Ms, Arvizo replied ?About?? and the prosecutor clarified ?About this matter of returning to Neverland?. She confirmed that Mr. Jackson had also called about the issue, but denied anyone else having called.

Ms. Arvizo explained Mr. Tyson had spoken of the family returning to Neverland, and she continued in regards to the rebuttal, ?Yeah. And also, you know, about the media, that they were all bad people. And, you know, they -- they made me believe that.? She turned to the audience in the court, and said, ?I think different of you guys now. That -- that's what they made me believe about you guys, but, you know, you guys are basically good guys, too. You guys are the good side. It's okay?

Mr. Zonen asked if she was aware that the phone calls were tape-recorded, which she denied, but admitted having listened to one of the tape-recordings. She explained the D.A.?s office had played her the recording at the grand jury, and that the first time she had heard the recording, was just prior to the grand jury, and then again at the grand jury.

The prosecutor wanted to know, if Ms. Arvizo remembered the specific phone call which was played, but she said, ?It wasn't one specific phone call. It was many conversations, and the masters of choreography blended it all into one tape?. When Mr. Zonen asked how she knew there was more than one call taped, she explained, ?Because I?m the one talking?.

Mr. Zonen started to ask, ?You simply remember that it was ?? but Ms. Arvizo broke him off, saying, ?That, and also the key thing such as, you know, my being at my mom's, being at Jay's, there's a difference. My children all not being there, and then Gavin being there. Just different little clues. Since I was the one talking, I knew. And also, one key thing. The original phone number that -- that Frank had given me was very different than the conversation that ended up being on the tape. And that -- that number was actually towards more over here rather than in the beginning?. He tried again, ?I'm not certain I understood that. There was ?? but again, she interrupted him, ?There were many conversations blended onto one tape and made as if it was only one conversation. So you're going to hear a series of different conversations all blended into one?

In an attempt to clarify, the prosecutor asked about a phone number Mr. Tyson had given her, and requested that she clarified what she meant. She replied, ?That phone number, the 201 number, was not the one that was originally given to you, it was a different number, that's why I know? but she continued that she didn?t call Mr. Tyson at that number at the time.

?At any time during this period while you were in Los Angeles, before returning to Neverland?? Mr. Zonen questioned, and Ms. Arvizo answered, ?Okay. Before returning to Neverland, I?m seeing -- I'm being generous. Maybe if ? maybe less than three, less than five. And I ?? and after an attempt to clarify by Mr. Zonen, the conclusion was, Ms. Arvizo had called Mr. Tyson back on the number given, perhaps once. She explained Mr. Tyson called so often, that she did not need to ever return a phone call.

Ms. Arvizo testified that Mr. Tyson left phone messages if she did not pick up, but she was unable to estimate how many times a day Mr. Tyson called her. Mr. Zonen asked if the subject of the phone calls was the rebuttal video, and she replied, ?This is when he was pulling me back in?.

Mr. Zonen played a CD marked as exhibit No 809 and promised he would bring a transcript of the recording the next morning. He asked Ms. Arvizo to confirm it was the same tape she had previously listened to, which she did.

Questioning Ms. Arvizo about Mr. Tyson, Zonen asked how she felt about Mr. Tyson at the time of the played phone calls. ?Well, I -- I thought he was a good guy. And he ended up being the worst one out of all of them? she replied. ?At the time of these telephone calls, you had trust in him?? Mr. Zonen continued. ?Yes, because he was repeating the same things. Not identical, but he was repeating the same things that Michael had told me in the Miami thing; that we were family. He had said that family never leaves family behind.? She answered.

Ms, Arvizo acknowledged she had only met Mr. Jackson on one occasion, and continued, ?But because he was going ? I knew violence, and so when he presented to me that there was a violence to my son and my kids, I thought, you know, what a nice guy?. She furthermore explained that she believed Mr. Tyson.

Mr. Tyson had explained to her when she returned to Neverland, that Mr. Jackson had fired Mr. Konitzer and Mr. Weisner because of the way they had tried the Arvizo family. In the phone conversations Mr. Tyson had asked if it was okay to post a 24-hour guard outside your home, and Mr. Zonen asked if that was the case. Ms. Arvizo said she repeatedly said no, and that she in fact never did have a guard outside her house.

She had turned down the offer, because she did not want her parents to get scared, and because of this, she hid many things from them.





Mr. Zonen asked when Ms. Arvizo returned to Neverland, and she testified it happened after Mr. Tyson convinced her. The prosecutor, still inquiring about what was said on the tape, asked if the mention video, equaled the rebuttal video, which Ms. Arvizo confirmed. She explained that she had agreed to do the rebuttal video, as long as it was not scripted, and that she at the time, had nothing but positive things to say of Mr. Jackson.

Also in the taped conversation, Mr. Zonen pointed to references to Mr. Jackson and Mr. Tyson being family, and Ms. Arvizo said she believed him, because she wanted friends ?so bad?, because her ex-husband, David Arvizo, had always told her nobody loved her.

Mr. Zonen also asked about what Mr. Tyson knew about her ex-husband, and she explained, ?He already had known. I was just gathering? She turned to Mr. Jackson and continued, ?I was still trying to help you. I was gathering paperwork to prove of David committing these crimes on me and my kids and my animals? Mr. Zonen asked why she was gathering up paperwork, and she replied ?To give it to you?, still addressing Mr. Jackson.

Mr. Zonen wanted to know why she gathered up paperwork for Mr. Jackson, and she said, ?. Because David was interview after interview and after interview; so they could know that he's a liar? Ms. Arvizo testified her ex-husband had given several interview to reporters, or at least Mr. Konitzer and Mr. Weisner had told her so.

She explained the two Germans had said bad stuff about her, the children and Mr. Jackson, and denied that anyone had asked her to gather paperwork, but did it to help. She had wanted to prove, ?everything that this man is saying from his mouth is untrue. David?

Zonen returned to Mr. Salas returning to her parents? house and asked what time of day or evening this had happened. ?I think -- I don't know. Maybe about one- something a.m? she replied. She testified she did not speak to Mr. Jackson before leaving Neverland. She also testified that the phone calls to her parents? house, and Jay Jackson?s house were continuous, and that it was the news of Mr. Jackson having fired Mr. Konitzer and Mr. Weisner, which caused her to return to Neverland.

Ms. Arvizo said she believed that the talk of the rebuttal video was over, that Mr. Tyson had told her, that she didn?t have to do it after all, and Mr. Zonen asked if she had expressed reservations towards Mr. Tyson about doing the rebuttal video. ?No, he -- I had told him that the Germans wanted to dictate exactly what we wanted to say, so I was -- I told him no. And so afterwards, towards when -- the end, Frank had said that, okay, that I didn't have to do it at all, me and the kids? she replied.

Before returning to Neverland, Ms. Arvizo testified she had an interview with Brad Miller, a man whom she did not know. She had never met him before, but the interview was arranged by Mr. Tyson. The interview took place in Jay Jackson?s apartment, and took place only hours after Mr. Tyson had arranged it for her.

Ms. Arvizo was asked which reason Mr. Tyson had given for the interview, and she explained, ?He had called me like in a state of panic, and he was telling me, "Quick, Janet, quick. We need you to talk to Bradley Miller because he's a P.I., and he just saw" -- "he just saw David make contact with the killers." And then he's -- he told me about how important it is to say nice things about Michael and that Michael was going to protect me and the kids?

Mr. Miller arrived by himself, had introduced himself as Mr. Jackson?s P.I. Ms. Arvizo said she had not had the opportunity to listen to a tape recording of the interview, but remembered at some point during the interview, Mr. Miller had turned off the tape recorder, and explained it was because ?I had walked in for that second, and then I had walked back out right after he had turned it back on, and he said that -- that -- here's that phrase, to say nice things about Michael, because that would appease the killers. That phrase is burned in my brain?





Ms. Arvizo testified she was not in the room throughout the interview, but that she kept going in and out, because Jay Jackson was very militant, and seemed upset, so she wanted to check on him. Regarding the length of the interview, she answered, ?It -- I since have seen the transcript to it, and it shows an ending time, and the ending time is inaccurate. It's incorrect?. In her opinion the interview lasted for a little over an hour.

She explained Mr. Miller instructed her before turning on the tape recorder, ?Yeah, he fed us. Sometimes we would rewind, stop, rewind, stop. And so he was feeding us, but everything I said, I said it with my heart?. She spoke nicely of Mr. Jackson, and believed in those things at the time.

Afterwards she returned to Neverland, per arrangements by Mr. Tyson. Mr. Zonen asked, ?When you got back to Neverland, what did you see?? ?And another thing, too, that I seen, which I wasn't that correct on, I noticed that there is -- the only way I can know this is because when Chris Carter brought me back, immediately the phone ? the phone stuff was subpoenaed, so on the day that I used Chris Carter's phone is the day that ?? she replied.

Mr. Zonen tried to back up ?We're jumping ahead of ourselves?, he said, but Ms. Arvizo continued, ?Well, okay. I feel the date may be incorrect also. But the only reason is because I found out afterwards of that phone call?. Again Mr. Zonen backed up, ?We're going to get there. We're going to get there. You're back in Los Angeles. Who is it who brought you back to Neverland?? She explained Gary Hearn had taken her and her children to Neverland, and they had arrived during the afternoon.

Mr. Zonen asked what she saw when she got there. ?Ronald and Dieter?, she replied. ?Did that surprise you?? the prosecutor asked. ?Minutes -- minutes into being inside the house? she replied. Mr. Zonen asked her to clarify which house she was talking about. ?Michael?s house? she replied. Mr. Jackson had been there, and had gone straight to the children, and took them into his office. Ms. Arvizo said she did not speak to Mr. Jackson when she arrived, but she saw Mr. Konitzer and Mr. Weisner right away, and knew Mr. Tyson had lied the entire time.

?What did you do when you saw them?? Mr. Zonen asked, ?I told them that I had an emergency and I have to go back home, me and the kids have to go back home? she replied, and explained she said it to Mr. Konitzer and Mr. Weisner. They had said no, the kids couldn?t go. She could go if she had an emergency, but the kids had to stay. She said, ?And that at this point is when they had pointed out to me that my outside phone calls are being monitored, that I'm being watched, listened to, and they can make my kids disappear?

Mr. Zonen started to ask, ?What this the first time?? but Ms. Arvizo interrupted, ?And that anybody -- anybody I told -- and at this time I'm like, what am I going to tell? That we're walking across the grass? You know, what am I going to tell? And that anybody that I told, their life was going to be in danger?. Mr. Zonen asked if she made a decision about whether or not she would leave Neverland, which she confirmed. ?What was that decision?? he asked. ?That?s the only way I could get out, because the other time it took -- it took a long process for me to leave. And this time, Jesus had told me he couldn't help me?. Mr. Zonen repeated his question, adding ?To leave?? She confirmed.

The prosecutor asked if Ms. Arvizo if she had spoken to anyone besides Mr. Konitzer and Mr. Weisner about leaving Neverland, and she replied, ?Yeah, well, Jesus, I asked him for help. We went from the -- from the video place, tried to talk -- I tried to talk secret with him in Spanish because I was talking to him in English and that's when Dieter had walked up, and then I -- and then I tried to talk to him in Spanish. And we went to the train station, and we went up -- up to the -- way up on the top, and I tried to talk to him, plead for him to help me, and he said he couldn't help me anymore, because when I had -- when I had left, the whole house turned into chaos?





She explained she had asked Mr. Salas specifically to take her children and her back to Los Angeles, which she confirmed, and when asked what Mr. Salas told her, she said, ?That he couldn't; that to ask Chris for help, because he doesn't know, and -- and I found out that everybody was on a need-to-know basis; that not unless they stumbled upon the problem or they were pulled into it, other than that, everybody was clueless?

Ms. Arvizo testified she was going to go look for Mr. Carter, but she didn?t have to, because she happened to see him. She knew Mr. Carter from a prior visit to Neverland, and knew him as Mr. Jackson?s personal bodyguard, and she had found him to have been nice in the past. She went up to him to ask if she could leave with her children, but she then she saw Mr. Konitzer and Mr. Weisner, and ?so I completely, you know, "pshooo," played it off; it was just an emergency?

She explained she did leave Neverland without her children, and when Mr. Zonen asked her why, she said ?Because I did. Because of the reasons that I just told you?

Ms. Arvizo had used Mr. Carter?s cell phone on the drive back to Los Angeles to call Jay Jackson, and she explained that she had been praying in the car, because she was scared. ?What were you worried about?? Mr. Zonen asked, and she replied, ?That they were going to make true on everything that they had said?. She testified she was not able to reach Jay Jackson on the phone, but that Mr. Carter had dropped her off at Jay Jackson?s apartment.

?Do you recall at approximately what time you arrived?? Mr. Zonen asked, and she replied, ?Oh, I don't know, but that -- that telephone call is -- you could see it on the subpoenaed phone record?. Mr. Zonen asked about how many phone calls Ms. Arvizo made to Jay Jackson, but all she could say was ?A lot of them?.

Zonen turned the attention to the conversation which had been played in court, and asked ?Frank mentions a trip, going someplace; says you'll be dancing every night. Do you remember that conversation?? which she confirmed. Mr. Zonen asked if she had had more than one conversation with Mr. Tyson about going someplace, and she replied, ?Yeah. They wanted us to leave the country?

?Did you tell you where they wanted you to go?? Mr. Zonen asked, and she replied, ?Well, this is in Neverland, when I -- and I found out that they were monitoring my phone calls inside Neverland. They had first mentioned Austria. And so I had mentioned it to -- to Jay, I think it was Jay, over the phone, and then they came in hollering, because nobody was supposed to know. Then they found out that I had -- that I knew Spanish and was a Spanish-speaking country and the end result was Brazil, so I knew that they wanted me out of the country since then?

Mr. Zonen wanted to know if the idea of wanting Ms. Arvizo to Brazil had begun prior to Mr. Salas, which she confirmed, and said, that Mr. Tyson had often mentioned it in the phone calls she had had with him. Mr. Zonen asked if Mr. Tyson had given a reason why he wanted her to go to Brazil, ?At first -- everything ? everything evolved. At first, it was to keep me and my children safe from the killers. Then -- then it just evolved into that, into -- and one of the maximum points was until they had damage-controlled everything for you?. ?No, you need to address us, okay?? Mr. Zonen instructed Ms. Arvizo, and she corrected, ?I mean for Michael. And it escalated to that there was no definite time of return, until they fixed everything for you, for Michael?

Mr. Zonen asked, ?Now, at some time after you came back to Jay's residence, at some point around that time, did you become aware of the fact that the Department of Child & Family Services wanted to talk with you?? and she said she became aware immediately. Mr. Zonen asked if it was before or after she returned to Neverland, and she replied, ?When Chris Carter brought me back, immediately like that, so then I said yes, I'm going to use this as an excuse to get my children out; that I need them for that. Oh, they went into high gear now, more?





The prosecutor tried to pull back, ?Hold on. We'll get there. We'll get there, okay? Now, who was it who called you from the Department of Child & Family Services?? and Ms. Arvizo replied, ?On the phone I spoke to three ladies at three different times, because I was trying to meet with the Child Protective Services by myself, in their office, because I figured -- because I believed what the Germans had said. So I figured, you know what? Maybe inside their office, you know, it's going to be safe to express to them that my children are still there and they're not letting them out?

Ms. Arvizo testified she had asked if the interview could be held at the office, but they had denied the request, and she added they were not helpful. Mr. Zonen asked for a clarification of who ?they? were, and Ms. Arvizo explained, ?Karen Walker. LaVerne. And I think ? I don't know whether it's Jackie or Yvonne. She goes by two ??

?There you two people that you had spoken with?? Mr. Zonen interrupted, and Ms. Arvizo replied, ?Three? and confirmed she had spoken to all three over the telephone. ?Same conversation or different conversations?? Mr. Zonen asked, ?Different conversations, because I couldn?t make them aware over the phone that - because I believed that my phone calls were being monitored - that they were over there? Ms. Arvizo answered.

She further testified that she did not know why the DCFS wanted to speak to her, and they offered no explanation either. They had said they would inform her in the meeting, and had not told her of any allegations till the meeting. Neither did they discuss the video ?Living with Michael Jackson?.

Mr. Zonen wanted to know if Ms. Arvizo had told anyone at Neverland that she had been contacted by the DCFS, and she said, ?Yes. I had called the administration office. I had called -- I had called -- I had called Jesus. Jesus did not return a -- not a single phone call of mine. And the administration offices, their business offices did not return any of my phone calls. And then so there was contact made between Frank and me?. Ms. Arvizo did not know if Frank had called her back, or if she had called him, but she said she remembered being ?completely desperate?.

Mr. Zonen asked if anyone from DCFS has requested the presence of the children during the interview, which Ms, Arvizo confirmed, and she testified they had told her they needed to see the children themselves. She had communicated this fact to Mr. Tyson, but had not told anyone else. The two had had a number of conversations regarding the interview with DCFS, and Mr. Zonen asked if she remembers any of these conversations, ?Yeah. That -- I mean, my kids, because of this meeting? she replied. She explained what Mr. Tyson told her during that time, ?At first, it was no, unless I do the video. Then it evolved into -- it evolved into more?

Ms. Arvizo testified that it evolved into that if she did a good job in the rebuttal video, she would not have to leave the country, and eventually she agreed to do the video. Mr. Tyson had told her the video needed to be before the DCFS interview, but she had no recollection of any of the dates of the events. The only date she remembered was that the interview was scheduled for the 20th, which was a Thursday.

Mr. Zonen asked the court to check that the 20th was indeed a Thursday, and Mr. Mesereau asked to see the calendar, after which it was decided it was time to call it a day. The day ended with Judge Melville instructing everyone, ?Is it time to stop? Okay. We'll stop. See you tomorrow morning at 8:30. Remember the admonitions? and court adjourned at 2:30 pm.

Janet Arvizo,Direct 4-13-05 Part 1
Mood:  surprised
Topic: Direct Testimonies
Sunday, 17 April 2005

These proceedings were held in open court in the hearing and presence of the jury.

After the jury was seated, Judge Melville instructed them in the following: "I'm going to read you again some instructions, and remind you that at the end of the case, I will fully instruct you on all of the law involved in the case, but I'm instructing you at this time to specifically deal with a specific problem that's arisen in the evidence of the case. So I'd like you to listen carefully to this.

The witness, Janet Arvizo, has made a claim of privilege under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In a hearing held outside your presence, the Court has determined that the rules of evidence preclude the parties in this case from examination or cross-examination of Janet Arvizo on the subject of possible welfare fraud.

When a witness refuses to testify to any matter relying on the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, you must not draw from the exercise of this privilege any inference as to the believability of the witness or any other matter at issue in this trial. This is a ruling that was not anticipated when the attorneys made their opening statements to you. Those statements, however, are not evidence. You should not consider the failure of the prosecution or the defense to cover this subject area in the examination or cross-examination of this witness as having any evidentiary significance or any importance in your ultimate decision on the case, nor should you speculate as to the possible reasons for the Court's decision. Evidence of possible welfare fraud and perjury may still at some point be presented in this case, but it will not be introduced through the testimony of this witness."

At this time, the prosecution was instructed to call their witness, Janet Arvizo Jackson. It was stated by the judge that she had previously been sworn and was reminded that she was still under oath.

Under direct examination, it was established that the witness currently is going by the name Janet Jackson, but throughout the proceeding may also be referred to as Janet Arvizo or Janet Ventura, her maiden name. It was further established that she is married to Jay Jackson, a major in the army, and she resides with him and her four children, Davellin, Gavin, Star, and an 8-month-old baby boy.

Mr. Zonen established, through questioning, that Ms. Arvizo first met Michael Jackson in August of 2000, through the circumstance of her son's illness with cancer. Someone had arranged an introduction at the time her son was going through chemotherapy, after his surgery. She and her family, including her now ex-husband, David, were taken to Neverland by limo in August of 2000, when Gavin was 10 years old. Ms. Arvizo described Gavin as having difficulty walking, "kind of like a toddler walk", taking medication, and tiring easily.

She also stated that, as a consequence of the surgery, Gavin continues on medications, one as a prophylactic because of "replacement of his spleen" to protect from infection, and the other medication because of a malfunctioning kidney.

When asked more about the family's first visit to Neverland, Ms. Arvizo couldn't recall the exact length of the visit, only that it was more than one night and not as long as one week. She stated that, "Me and David stood in one room. And my children were supposed to stay in another room
together, but it ended up just being Davellin." She and her husband were in one room, Davellin was in one room, and the boys stayed with Michael in his house. Mr. Zonen specifically asked, "Do you know, from personal observation - in other words, did you see where they stayed? Not from what anybody told you, but did you see where they stayed?" Ms. Arvizo replied, "No."

Ms. Arvizo was then asked if she had ever gone into Michael Jackson's residence. She said, "His residence -- there's an area where there's a -- like a kitchen area where everybody can go into, but the -- but -- it's -- it's open, you know, to that area, eating area." She stated that she did not go into his personal residence, his bedroom or his bedroom suite. She claimed that, to her knowledge and recollection, during the time her family was there for this visit, her sons did not ever stay in the guest cottage. At the end of this visit, her family returned to their home.

Mr. Zonen then asked where her home was at the time. She said, "Okay. It's -- can I explain to them?" Ms. Arvizo seemed to have trouble focusing on the question. She stated she did have a residence at the time and when asked if she had more than one or another place to stay, answered, "Me and the children, when Gavin - right after he would have -"

At this point, Mr. Mesereau objected, stating the witness was nonresponsive. The court did not rule, allowing Mr. Zonen to take care of it by instructing his witness to listen to the question as specifically as possible.


It was then established that Ms. Arvizo had a residence in East L.A. that she was paying rent on, and that Gavin and her then husband David were staying with her mother in El Monte. She explained the reasons for this by saying, "Because Davellin and Star were still going to school. I got three kids, you know. Only because Gavin has cancer doesn't mean the other ones, they're off. They got to go to school." She added that, "Because in my bachelor apartment, there's no divided rooms, bedrooms". Gavin's special needs required him to stay at her mother's residence because he needed "a sterile room after chemotherapy" and that "my other two kids were still going to school, so they had to be separated for that moment, because the children could have picked up some other germs, which at the time Star was nine, and -" At this point, Mr. Zonen asked if she was staying in East L.A. at the Soto Street residence, which she confirmed.

Ms. Arvizo described the residence by saying that, "I've lived there for about five years. From 1998 to 2003. It was just a room and a wall to divide the kitchen. And it had a rest room, too."

Mr. Zonen inquired about the period of Gavin's illness. Ms. Arvizo indicated that he did not stay at the Soto Street residence at all during this time and that "he -- the whole entire time while he had cancer he did not attend school one single day", and he was either at her mother's residence or at the hospital. Ms. Arvizo explained that Gavin didn't just go to the hospital for chemotherapy, "he was hospitalized -- sometimes because he had fevers, he had to get hospitalized. Any - any fragility in his health, he had to be hospitalized", and that chemotherapy lasted for almost, but not quite, one year.

It was then established that Gavin was determined to be in remission by the doctors in May of 2001. According to Ms. Arvizo, "They did a full checkup, and they concluded that it was not -- it was in remission. And then that's when -- he had to have a little thing going through his heart, his main artery, because he was receiving such strong dosages, so he had to have the strongest artery. That was removed." She stated that he is in remission today, but when questioned if he is healthy today, Ms. Arvizo explained, "Outside the -- the two specialists that see him continuously, his oncologist, his nephrologist, he's a healthy boy, but he's got medical concerns." She then added, "And then the scare we just had where he had a very serious test." At which point, Mr. Mesereau made an objection that the witness was nonresponsive.

Mr. Zonen moved on to discussion of when the next visit to Neverland occurred, to which Ms. Arvizo responded, "Me? Oh, let me see. Um -- um -- September 2002, because Chris had invited me, Chris and Aja."

Again, Mr. Mesereau objected that the witness was nonresponsive. Mr. Zonen then requested that the witness simply answer by stating the time of the next visit, which was given as September of 2002. Mr. Zonen inquired if Ms. Arvizo's sons or sons and daughter returned to Neverland any sooner than that, and was told that the boys went right after the initial visit in August of 2000 without her or Davellin. Ms. Arvizo said that she felt "felt it was more important for Davellin to focus on her school. She was already starting high school, ninth grade." Therefore, she stayed with Davellin, and the boys were accompanied by their father. She also mentioned that she didn't go "because of the little incident that Dave did over there." Mr. Zonen asked if she had problems with David over the years of their marriage, and she said she did.

Ms. Arvizo was asked if she knew how many visits her children had to Neverland after the initial visit and approximately when they were. She replied, "Okay. The first initial visit in August, and these are all approximate, August of 2000. Then the boys, when they returned with David, right after that. Then in the spring of 2002, with Chris. And then Michael invited them immediately back up. And then with Chris's -- the family birthday party that Chris had, Chris and Aja. And then the filming of this stuff in September."

Mr. Zonen tried to work this out saying, "You're not -- all right. Let's see if we can work this out a little bit. We have the initial visit August of 2000. Then you said they returned, your husband David and the two boys, soon thereafter, and by "soon," are we talking about within a week or two?" Ms. Arvizo said, "Yes". When asked about the length of this visit, Ms. Arvizo said, "Oh, I couldn't tell you. Just days", establishing that it was more than one night but less than a week. During this time, Ms. Arvizo remained home at the Soto Street address with Davillin.

Ms. Arvizo described another visit with Michael Jackson, apart from Neverland, in the year 2000, saying, "Michael had invited Gavin and David to go to the Universal Hilton in Studio City, and that's -- and in this time it was only Gavin in the hotel." This was a day visit only.

Ms. Arvizo testified that there were no other visits in 2000 or 2001 that she was aware of. She was then asked about telephone conversations with Michael Jackson in 2000. She stated that he had conversations with her son over the telephone, and they took place "sometime in the hospital, but mostly at my mom's house. Gavin had his own room. And he had his own telephone line, his own -- his own answering machine, because usually they -- the doctor had suggested that sometimes when we use a phone, we can easily pass viruses or anything on the telephone." She was asked if she was ever present during any of the conversations and she said, "Sometimes. Sometimes, but not -- they'd go on forever, so I'd -- you know, I have to go do other things." The telephone conversations were described as lasting "hours" and that "they were frequent. I couldn't - I couldn't be able to tell you. But I know that after he met him, it was more." Ms. Arvizo said these conversations took place over weeks but could not say approximately how many.

Mr. Zonen stated, "After the third visit at the hotel, there were no other visits that either or any of your children had with Michael Jackson during the balance of 2000 or 2001", then asked, "Do you know why that was?"

At this point, Mr. Mesereau objected, saying this called for speculation, foundation, and hearsay. The objection was overruled and the witness was instructed to answer the question.

Ms. Arvizo said, "Because I just felt a little bit uneasy. That's all. He didn't do nothing, you know. You know, it just felt -- it just felt uneasy." When asked if she did something to stop communication between her son and Michael Jackson, she said, "Um -- um, yeah, I just expressed I was uneasy about it."


Mr. Zonen then asked about the first visit in 2002. Ms. Arvizo described it saying, "That was with Chris Tucker and Aja. They had built so much credibility with me, they took my -- it was like everything was -- like doing family activities together, and so when Chris had asked me that he wanted to take the children to Neverland, I felt it was okay, because Chris - you know, they're decent people, Chris and Aja." Mr. Zonen established that Chris Tucker is somebody who befriended her son during the time he was ill, but did not know him prior to that.

Mr. Zonen then asked about celebrities that knew the children prior to Gavin becoming ill and asked who they were. Ms. Arvizo replied, "Well, let me see. I don't know if you call them famous or something, but they're famous to me. For example, Wheezy. Her name is Louise Palanker. To me, she's famous. Jamie, George Lopez, Fritz. And then Jamie had -- Jamie had, like, guests, comics that came, and celebrities, and so they would -- they met them there.

It was established that the introduction to Chris Tucker had been made by Jamie during the time Gavin was ill. Ms. Arvizo was asked if Jamie Masada often visited her son in the hospital. She said, "Oh, yes. Yes. Almost daily. My son even -- my -- Jamie would try to -- there came a point where Gavin wasn't eating because he was vomiting blood, because he was a very sick boy. And so Jamie was trying to get him to eat, and he'd -- Gavin had vomited on him, and that didn't keep him away. He still kept coming."

Mr. Zonen inquired about the visit to Neverland in 2002 with Mr. Tucker, asking who had arranged it. Ms. Arvizo said that Chris did and he took the children there. Mr. Zonen wanted to know how many kids went on that visit, the first visit in 2002. Ms. Arvizo replied, "On the baby boy's birthday party? Oh, I see. The best I can remember, Chris -- this is another thing, too. Chris was working on a movie that he was trying to put together called "The President." And he took his writer, Kelly. And he took the kids because he says they're funny and they give him ideas, you know, by them joking around with him." When pressed on the time of the first 2002 Neverland visit, she said it was in spring.

The next visit to Neverland was right after that. Ms. Arvizo said, "Michael had invited the kids right after." She said that Evvy called and spoke to Gavin. When asked how long that was after the first visit with Chris Tucker, she said, "I can't remember right now, but -- I think it was Michael, too, but -- unless I know for a fact, I'll tell you, but that's the best I can remember." It was established that the kids did go, that it was still spring of 2002, and that she had already been separated from her husband, David, since May of 2001.

In discussing the separation, Mr. Zonen wished to know if David had contact with the children since that time. Ms. Arvizo said he had not. She was then asked if there was an order prohibiting him from seeing them, to which she replied, "Okay. During the summer, even though he was -- he had done the things he had done, during the summer I still tried -- I thought it was my fault, so I tried to encourage. I figured - I figured he -- he can have some kind of - start becoming or having a father relationship with them in the summer. But that ended when those criminal things --." She said there were two criminal prosecutions of David, one involving her and one involving Davellin, two different years. Following those prosecutions, there was no contact between David Arvizo and her children, other than being in court and "except for that one time that he had violated the restraining order with Davellin."

In going back to the visit to Neverland by her children in 2002, Mr. Zonen asked, "Who did you understand Evvy to be?" Ms. Arvizo replied, ". Oh, his personal assistant, and his personal secretary, and his personal everything." It was established that she had never met Evvy but had "a lot of conversation with her on the phone". Ms. Arvizo did not speak to Evvy to arrange this trip to Neverland, Gavin spoke to her.

It was established that the three children did go back to Neverland in the spring of 2002, staying for a couple of days. Ms. Arvizo was then asked if she had been told that, at that visit, there might be a person filming a documentary. She stated, "No. That was spring. Now, this is - then we go -- the baby boy's birthday party is about September. And then right after that is the - that I come to find out now, that's when they did the filming for the Bashir tape."

Again, Mr. Zonen inquired, "We have one where the three kids went on invitation from Evvy in spring. They were gone approximately how long?" Ms. Arvizo said, "About a couple of days, and that was right after being with Chris."

It was established that after this visit they returned back to their home in East L.A. on Soto Street. Gavin, at this point, was back at this residence. It was during this period that Ms. Arvizo met Jay Jackson. She states, "I met him -- I met Jay in July of 2002, but just met. You know,
the children were attending this Sea Cadet program in his base. I don't know if you call it "base," but it's -- it's -- I don't know the appropriate -- correct thing. I used to do something. It's disrespectful, but it's funny. I would tell him that's the Sea Cadet Headquarters, but it was actually an Army base." This base was said to be in West L.A., where the two boys were taken. Ms. Arvizo said, "Just the two boys. But I was -- Davellin was involved with the LAPD Explorer program, but I was trying to see if Davellin would be interested in that, too." Mr. Zonen asked if Davellin was still involved in LAPD Explorers, to which Ms. Arvizo responded, "Yes. Well, to this day, no. Right now she's pretty busy. She's going to work and going to school."

Mr. Zonen wished to know how the boys became involved the Navy Sea Cadets program, and Ms. Arvizo explained, "Okay. Someone had gone to their school and kind of explained what this program was. And then I got interested, because in the packet it said a lot of interesting things to do to help them with hopefully becoming a better person, so - and leadership skills, so"?

When asked about a mandatory fee requirement, she said that as far as she knew there was none, but "there was a cost, depending on - depending on your -- if you wanted to volunteer/no volunteer. Not volunteer for everything, but -- you know, in the little thing." Regarding attendance, according to Ms. Arvizo, "They went -- well, Gavin -- Gavin and Star volunteered for just about everything possible. Twice a month, but because the boys were volunteering just about for everything, it would be more than twice a month."


Mr. Zonen asked Ms. Arvizo if she ever had a car from the time of her separation from David Arvizo. She stated, "From like when -- let me see. About the end of spring or the beginning of summer of 2001, they had -- the car that they had given Gavin they took back." According to Ms. Arvizo, she had the car for about one month after her separation. The vehicle was from Michael Jackson and had been delivered to her mother's house. The car was returned because "Well, the -- the little thing when you turn it on and off wouldn't work. Sometimes it would work, and sometimes it wouldn't. And where I live, you can't leave a car too long, because different streets are assigned parking things and they would tow the car away. And Michael had said if anything ever got broken, to send it back and he'll have it repaired. But it never came back."

Ms. Arvizo was asked if she had ever had a conversation with Michael Jackson prior to 2002. She responded that she did not, not even on the first visit to Neverland in August of 2000. She stated that she met with him at that time but David was doing all the talking, though she was present with Mr. Jackson at different times during that visit. She also stated she had no telephone conversation with Mr. Jackson subsequent to that visit.

Ms. Arvizo also did not go to Neverland in the spring of 2002, only her children went at that time. The next time she went to Neverland was "to Chris and Aja's baby boy's birthday party". She could not recall the age of the child, only that he was about "preschool age". She stated that those attending the party were, "Just about all of Chris's family. His mom and his dad. Everybody. All his family, practically. He flew them in from Atlanta." Ms. Arvizo said, "Me, my three kids, and Jay had also came."

When asked if she was in a relationship at that time with Major Jackson, if they were dating, she said, "Not really. I was kind of a little bit, you know, hesitant. I met him in July. But all we did was have phone conversations. It wasn't our first - he considered it our first date. I really considered it just a ride to the boys' graduation from Sea Cadet."

It was established that this visit to Neverland was not overnight. They returned the same day. Chris had asked them to meet outside a hotel where they were taken to Neverland by bus and returned home the same way. Ms. Arvizo said that Michael Jackson was not there during the birthday party.

Ms. Arvizo stated that the next time her children went to Neverland was "for the filming. But make it very clear, I wasn't -- now I know". This was in September of 2002. They happened to go to Neverland "because Evvy and Michael had called them over. And right before that, Gavin had -- had done a biopsy. So, you know, I thought -- I thought he was inviting him because of the biopsy". The biopsy was favorable, and Mr. Zonen asked, "And all of you were rejoicing in his remission?"

At this point, Mr. Mesereau made an objection that counsel was leading. This was sustained.

Mr. Zonen asked who had called them, and Ms. Arvizo said, "From -- from Evvy. But I didn't talk to them. Evvy - they hardly talked to me. It was always Gavin." She became aware of the fact that they were being invited back because Gavin had said that Evvy and Michael had invited them over to go have a day of fun. Ms. Arvizo stated, "And I figured -- I figured that Chris had communicated to Michael that he had -- you know, about his biopsy. Because Chris and Aja were very involved with my kids." Mr. Zonen asked if it was anticipated that this would only be for one day. Ms. Arvizo stated that it was, but they ended up sleeping there for just one night, and she did not go with them. She stated that she had no telephone communication with Michael Jackson personally with regard to that trip, or with Evvy. The children came home at the end of the second day.

Ms. Arvizo testified that she didn't know there was a film crew at Neverland "until he made me aware", "he" being Michael Jackson. She stated this was "way in February". She said her children did not discuss this with her and she did not know about it. Mr. Zonen asked if Mr. Jackson, Evvy, or anybody else from Neverland notified her personally prior to the visit that there was going to be a film crew there. Ms. Arvizo testified that they did not, and no one asked her to sign any documentation with regards to her children appearing in a film. This was in September of 2002. According to Ms. Arvizo, there were no more visits in 2002.

In 2003, she states she received a phone call from Michael Jackson, and that this call came to Gavin. She testified that she did get on the telephone with Mr. Jackson at this time, but had no other conversation with him prior to that phone call in February of 2003. She was asked if she knew the date of the telephone call and stated, "I've come to find out per the investigation, but I still always forget. The only way I know is because he had told me about it, and it had aired in England prior to it airing here. So consider the time difference and all that. So definitely before it aired here, and after it aired over there."

Mr. Zonen asked if Ms. Arvizo was aware of the documentary titled "Living with Michael Jackson". She stated she was not and that she had no personal knowledge it had been prepared. She testified that she was not aware that this documentary had been shown in England, and her kids had not mentioned to her that they had participated in a filming of some kind at any time prior to this conversation with Mr. Jackson. She testified that the name "Martin Bashir" had not been raised in her household and that she did not know who he was.

Ms. Arvizo stated that in early February Mr. Jackson called Gavin and she got on the phone at some point. She testified that, "He had told me that -- well, this is -- Gavin's talking to him first. He had told me that Gavin was in danger, and that there had to be a press conference because of this Bashir man." She states that she did not know what he was talking about, this Bashir matter, and she did not ask him to explain. When asked if he offered any explanation, Ms. Arvizo said, "No. At first I was telling him, "No, no, no, no, no, no," because he wanted him to come to Miami. But when he told me, you know, 'Janet, David'".

At this point, Mr. Zonen stopped and said, "Mrs. Arvizo, why don't you hold on a second. We're going to take it question by question. Listen carefully to the question asked, all right?"

Mr. Zonen asked if Mr. Jackson explained to her what the documentary was. She stated he did not, not there on the phone. He asked if Mr. Jackson mentioned the name "Martin Bashir'. Ms. Arvizo stated, "He just said 'Bashir'." She said she did not know what that meant. When asked if he said to her that her child was in danger, she said he told her "that he was receiving death threats" and that "he was in danger". She testified that she was alarmed.

Mr. Zonen asked if she believed what he said at that time. Ms. Arvizo said, "It's until he -- until he started telling me that the children had shared with him about how David was a bad guy, because my guard was here (indicating). And when he started telling me those things, oh, 'waarrrrr.'"

Mr. Zonen asked if the nature of the danger had been described. Ms. Arvizo stated, "Just death threats because of this Bashir thing." She testified that he did not tell her who the people were who were issuing the death threats. When asked if Mr. Jackson used the word "death threats" or the term "death threats", Ms. Arvizo stated, "He said he was in danger." She testified that her other children were not mentioned in that regard until they got there, and the conversation was "long enough to convince me", but she could not approximate the length of time.

Mr. Zonen then asked her what Mr. Jackson told her with regards to her ex-husband. Ms. Arvizo stated, "He told me that the children had shared with him what the children had gone through. And then he had told me that he understands, and that he doesn't want the children nor me around David anymore; that he's a bad guy. And -- you know. And to me - you know." She testified that her response was, "I was, like, wow, he understands." Ms. Arvizo stated that her kids had never told her they had talked with him about David Arvizo, and she was surprised that he had that kind of information, saying, "but I believed him. I believed him. And maybe they did, maybe my kids did."

Mr. Zonen inquired what Ms. Arvizo was asked to do in this telephone call. She testified, "That Gavin -- that he needed Gavin to do a press conference, and he could protect him." She said Mr. Jackson was calling from Miami and said the press conference would be there. She did not remember if she was told what he wanted Gavin to say in the press conference. Ms. Arvizo stated that she did not agree that Gavin could go to Miami. She told Mr. Jackson, "that if my son is in danger, then me and my kids have to go." She said she did not ask him if he contacted the police. When asked if she had any discussion with him about what he was doing to remedy this problem of danger, she said, "No, I just trusted him."

Mr. Zonen asked if Ms. Arvizo had come to an agreement with Mr. Jackson as to who was going to go to Miami. She stated, "Yes, my kids and me." She said she wanted to do that because, "Well, because if Gavin's going to be - you know, if there's death threats, then I guess we all have to be together." She testified that he did agree to that, "actually, he's the one that was going that route, because I had told him no." Ms. Arvizo testified that Mr. Jackson suggested that the whole family go to Miami, to which she agreed. She further stated that he wanted her and the children to go to Miami immediately.

Ms. Arvizo was asked whether Mr. Jackson or someone else make arrangements for them to get to Miami. She stated that it was "Michael and Evvy" and that Evvy contacted her after the telephone call from Mr. Jackson. Ms. Arvizo said the arrangement was to be that, "Gary Hearn, his personal, like, driver, the person who takes care of his cars, was going to fly with us on a commercial air flight to Miami." She stated that Davellin was in school and the boys were not. When asked where Gary picked Davellin up, she said, "From -- from -- I don't remember. I think it was -- I think it was my mom's. I think he went to go pick her up from my mom's or East L.A., one of those. Best person to ask that is Davellin."

Ms. Arvizo testified that, at the time of the phone call from Mr. Jackson, she was at Jay's house because, "Our phone in East L.A. had been disconnected. And so I had received a message from -- from Evvy that they had to be able to make contact, so I was in Jay's house." She was asked through whom the message she received was forwarded and she replied, "It was both, Evvy and Michael, to Jay's." When asked of she returned a call or if they had reached her there, she said, "They actually -- it was a combination of everything." She was asked to explain, and stated, "They contacted me there, and I returned phone calls from there to Evvy." It was after that when Mr. Jackson called. Ms. Arvizo stated, "And Evvy had also left messages at my mom's house before that."

At this time, Judge Melville called for a break, and recess was taken.

Larry King kept off stand in Jackson trial
Mood:  surprised
Topic: Main News
Judge: Talk show host's testimony isn't relevant

The Associated Press
Updated: 1:47 p.m. ET May 19, 2005


SANTA MARIA, Calif. - The judge in Michael Jackson?s child molestation trial ruled Thursday against allowing CNN host Larry King to testify for the defense, saying his statements would be irrelevant.

Judge Rodney S. Melville ruled after listening to King?s account of a conversation with an attorney, Larry Feldman, who represented the accuser?s family.

Without the jury present, King said that Feldman told him the accuser?s mother was out for money and referred to her as ?wacko.?

Testifying earlier for the prosecution, Feldman denied making such statements about his clients, saying, ?It is absolutely privileged, and if anybody tells you that, they are absolutely lying.?


After listening to an account by King and another man who heard the conversation, the judge ruled them out on grounds they would not impeach Feldman?s testimony because neither could say the attorney directly quoted the accuser?s mother.

The defense then moved on, calling Azja Pryor, the mother of comedian Chris Tucker?s son. She wept as she recalled meeting the accuser and his family when the boy had cancer.

Feldman was contacted by the accuser?s family members after they left Jackson?s Neverland estate for the last time in 2003. He referred them to Stan Katz, a psychologist who reported suspicions of child molestation to authorities after interviewing the family members.


On the stand and without jurors present, King said he spoke to Feldman at a Beverly Hills restaurant before the trial began. He said he and a producer were trying to get Feldman to appear on ?Larry King Live.?

He said Feldman told him he didn?t take the mother?s case because he didn?t find her credible and thought she was only after money.

?The mother was a ?wacko? was the term he used,? King said.

?He said he thinks she wants money. ... He said ?wacko? a couple of times and he said ?she?s in this for the money,?? King told the judge.

Jackson defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. asked King if he asked Feldman to clarify what he meant by ?wacko.?

?No, I think that?s self-explanatory,? King said.

There had been speculation that King might try to avoid testifying by invoking a state shield law that protects journalists from testifying in many circumstances. But the matter was not raised before the testimony was ruled out.

The judge also ruled against testimony by a publisher, Michael Viner, who was present during King?s meeting with Feldman.

Without the jury present, Viner told the judge that Feldman said ?he had met with them (the family) and felt that their statements, their case, didn?t hold up to scrutiny and he didn?t believe them.?

Accuser's behavior
On Wednesday, Jackson?s 12-year-old cousin testified that he saw Jackson?s accuser steal wine and money and secretly watch pornography on television while fondling himself.

Rijo Jackson said the accuser?s brother ? a key prosecution witness ? also took part in the misbehavior during visits to Neverland.


The defense elicited the testimony in an apparent effort to show that the accuser engaged in sexual activity and drank alcohol without Jackson?s involvement.

Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting a 13-year-old boy in February or March 2003 and plying him with wine. He is also charged with conspiring to hold the boy?s family captive to get them to rebut a damaging documentary in which Jackson said he let children sleep in his bed but that it was non-sexual.

Feldman testified in early April. The prosecution had called him as part of its explanation to the jury of how the alleged molestation came to the attention of authorities. But the defense used his appearance to pursue its contention that the accuser and his family were out to get money from Jackson.

Feldman had acknowledged under cross-examination that the boy, now 15, has until he turns 20 to file a civil lawsuit against Jackson.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
? 2005 MSNBC.com

URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7910923/

Jackson's cousin says saw accuser masturbating
Mood:  surprised
Topic: Main News
Wed May 18, 3:53 PM ET


Michael Jackson's 12-year-old cousin testified on Wednesday that he saw the boy who has accused the singer of molestation masturbating with his younger brother as they watched naked women on television.

Rio Jackson, who was 10 at the time he visited Jackson's Neverland Valley Ranch in February and March of 2003, said one night he stayed in the same guest unit as the then 13-year-old accuser and his 11-year-old brother.

"I saw them go to the TV, turn to a channel that had naked girls, and they did nasty stuff," Rio Jackson told the jury. Asked by lead defense attorney Tom Mesereau what he meant by "nasty stuff," the boy replied that he saw the pair masturbating.

"They said why didn't I do that, and I said I didn't want to because it was nasty," he added.

Rio Jackson, wearing a long pony tail almost to his waist and dressed in a gray suit and pink tie, said during his visit to Neverland he saw the accuser and his brother steal money from a chef and with items from a ranch manager's office.

He also said he saw the boys take wine by themselves to the sleeping-area in Jackson's bedroom. Rio's elder sister, Simone Jackson, in testimony on Tuesday, said she saw the boys steal wine from a refrigerator.

In earlier testimony, the accuser said Jackson introduced him to wine and pornography. He and his brother denied drinking when he was not around.

Prosecutors have charged Jackson, 46, with furnishing his accuser, a recovering cancer patient, with alcohol in order to abuse the boy.

Jackson is also charged with four counts of molesting the boy in early 2003, and conspiring to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion. He faces more than 20 years in prison if convicted on all 10 counts.

Jackson's defense team is attempting to diffuse prosecution testimony from the accuser and his family by painting the mother as a grifter out to get money from the entertainer and the boys as youngsters who drank, stole and ran wild while they were at Neverland.

Wednesday's testimony from Rio Jackson was the first time the jury had heard of the accuser and his brother masturbating.

But under cross examination by prosecuting attorneys, Rio Jackson admitted that on the occasion of the alleged wine stealing he ended up going to bed with Jackson.

It was the singer's practice of sleeping with young boys, which he admitted in a now infamous documentary aired in Britain and the United States, that led to him being charged with child molestation.

Jackson appeared in the video holding hands with his accuser and talking about how he liked to sleep with young boys, although he insisted that the practice was innocent.

The younger Jackson also conceded that he did not know if the accuser and his brother meant to steal or simply borrow some plastic crystals and a deck of cards that he saw them take from the ranch manager's office.

He also conceded that he did not see the brothers stealing wine directly from Jackson's two-storey bedroom. He said he and the brothers and Jackson were in the bedroom when Jackson ordered in some wine.

Jackson was the in the bathroom when the wine arrived and the brothers took it to the sleeping section of the bedroom and then left. Some of the wine of the wine was missing from the bottle, the boy said, suggesting the boys had stolen a drink.

It was after that that Jackson and his young cousin went to bed together, he said.



Copyright ? 2005 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.


Copyright ? 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
Back to Story - Help
Jackson's cousin says saw accuser masturbating Wed May 18, 3:53 PM ET



Michael Jackson's 12-year-old cousin testified on Wednesday that he saw the boy who has accused the singer of molestation masturbating with his younger brother as they watched naked women on television.

Rio Jackson, who was 10 at the time he visited Jackson's Neverland Valley Ranch in February and March of 2003, said one night he stayed in the same guest unit as the then 13-year-old accuser and his 11-year-old brother.

"I saw them go to the TV, turn to a channel that had naked girls, and they did nasty stuff," Rio Jackson told the jury. Asked by lead defense attorney Tom Mesereau what he meant by "nasty stuff," the boy replied that he saw the pair masturbating.

"They said why didn't I do that, and I said I didn't want to because it was nasty," he added.

Rio Jackson, wearing a long pony tail almost to his waist and dressed in a gray suit and pink tie, said during his visit to Neverland he saw the accuser and his brother steal money from a chef and with items from a ranch manager's office.

He also said he saw the boys take wine by themselves to the sleeping-area in Jackson's bedroom. Rio's elder sister, Simone Jackson, in testimony on Tuesday, said she saw the boys steal wine from a refrigerator.

In earlier testimony, the accuser said Jackson introduced him to wine and pornography. He and his brother denied drinking when he was not around.

Prosecutors have charged Jackson, 46, with furnishing his accuser, a recovering cancer patient, with alcohol in order to abuse the boy.

Jackson is also charged with four counts of molesting the boy in early 2003, and conspiring to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion. He faces more than 20 years in prison if convicted on all 10 counts.

Jackson's defense team is attempting to diffuse prosecution testimony from the accuser and his family by painting the mother as a grifter out to get money from the entertainer and the boys as youngsters who drank, stole and ran wild while they were at Neverland.

Wednesday's testimony from Rio Jackson was the first time the jury had heard of the accuser and his brother masturbating.

But under cross examination by prosecuting attorneys, Rio Jackson admitted that on the occasion of the alleged wine stealing he ended up going to bed with Jackson.

It was the singer's practice of sleeping with young boys, which he admitted in a now infamous documentary aired in Britain and the United States, that led to him being charged with child molestation.

Jackson appeared in the video holding hands with his accuser and talking about how he liked to sleep with young boys, although he insisted that the practice was innocent.

The younger Jackson also conceded that he did not know if the accuser and his brother meant to steal or simply borrow some plastic crystals and a deck of cards that he saw them take from the ranch manager's office.

He also conceded that he did not see the brothers stealing wine directly from Jackson's two-storey bedroom. He said he and the brothers and Jackson were in the bedroom when Jackson ordered in some wine.

Jackson was the in the bathroom when the wine arrived and the brothers took it to the sleeping section of the bedroom and then left. Some of the wine of the wine was missing from the bottle, the boy said, suggesting the boys had stolen a drink.

It was after that that Jackson and his young cousin went to bed together, he said.



Copyright ? 2005 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.


Copyright ? 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

Jackson Trial in Family Way
Mood:  sharp
Topic: Main News

By Joal Ryan
19 minutes ago



She isn't Janet--or even LaToya. But she is a real, live member of the Jackson family.


Simone Jackson, a 16-year-old cousin of Michael Jackson, took the stand Tuesday in the pop star's child-molestation trial--the first member of the show-biz clan to appear on behalf the defense team.


Elsewhere, two Los Angeles social workers gave new takes on an old subject at the trial: the welfare-check interview in which Jackson's young accuser denied ever being molested by the pop star and the accuser's mother denied having anything but love for Jackson.


On the stand, Simone Jackson offered testimony to another now familiar topic--the accuser and alcohol.


The adolescent Jackson said that one late night at Neverland Ranch in March 2003 she saw the boy, then 13, and his younger brother each grab a bottle of wine from the estate's kitchen. The brother also snatched a wine glass.


"After they saw me...I told them that [they] weren't allowed--they weren't supposed to do that," Simone Jackson testified. "And they told me to be quiet and not to say anything."


The prosecution contends it was Michael Jackson who introduced the boys to the bubbly; the defense contends the boys were way ahead of the entertainer.


Later, Simone Jackson said the accuser's sister told her "out of the blue" one day that "she had to go to Brazil and I probably wouldn't see her again."


According to Simone Jackson, the sister noted that, while the girl was unhappy about the trip, "her mom wanted to go."


The prosecution contends Jackson and his henchmen were planning to force the accuser's family on a South American excursion; the defense contends that, no, they weren't--forcing them to go, that is.


Under almost-breathless questioning by defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr., Simone Jackson also gave jurors an insider's look at a birthday party, Neverland-style.


"Was food served?" Mesereau asked.


"Yes," Simone Jackson said.


"Did everyone sit at a table?"


"Yeah."


"And were there presents?"


"Yes."


Simone Jackson's appearance comes as trial watchers have noted a decided lack of Jacksons in the Santa Maria, California, courthouse--save for the star defendant and his parents, Joe and Katherine.

The Jackson family has denied distancing itself from its most famed member. Joe Jackson is said to have insisted that he and his wife be the brood's designated courtroom observers.

Irene Peters and Karen Walker, meanwhile, told jurors of meeting the accuser's family on Feb. 20, 2003, as part of their investigation into possible child neglect.

Both women are employed by L.A. County's Department of Children & Family Services.

On the stand, Peters said her office received a complaint on Feb. 14, 2003--a complaint spurred by Martin Bashir's Living with Michael Jackson, which had debuted on ABC eight days earlier.

The accuser, then 13, was seen holding Jackson's hand in the Bashir special while the fortysomething entertainer talked about sharing his bed with children.

Peters said she was directed to look into both the accuser's mother and Jackson. The Santa Barbara County-based pop star, however, was out of her jurisdiction, so the investigation centered on the L.A.-based mother.

On Feb. 20, 2003, Peters, Walker and a third social worker met the accuser's family at the Los Angeles apartment of the mother's future husband, Peters said.

The mother immediately asked Peters to watch a video of "Michael Jackson and [her eldest son, the accuser] walking around Neverland looking at the swans," the woman said.

Then, Peters said, the mother proceeded to talk about how she made s'mores with Chris Tucker around Neverland's fireplace.

Later, once the social workers had cleared the apartment of ancillary personnel--Tucker's girlfriend, a couple of Michael Jackson associates--the interview began, as did the denials, Peters said.

The mother denied neglecting her children and declared she was "very upset" that Jackson's good name was being besmirched, as well, Peters said.

For the umpteenth time, jurors heard a witness--in this case, Peters--say the mother praised the pop star and hailed him as a father figure to her children.

When the mother was asked if she knew if Jackson ever slept in the same bed as her children, the woman said, "No, that never happened," Peters said.

When the accuser was asked if he'd ever been touched sexually by Jackson, the boy "became a little upset," Peters said.

"He [said], 'Everybody thinks that Michael Jackson sexually abused me. He's never touched me,' " Peters testified.

Jurors have heard the mother and the accuser talk about this confab themselves--the mother said she and hers had been kept up the night before shooting footage for a Jackson rebuttal documentary; the boy said he told the social workers that Jackson had never touched him because he hadn't--yet.

Indeed, the prosecution timeline fits quite nicely--for the prosecution--with the apparently conflicting statements of the social-worker interview. The prosecution alleges Jackson molested the boy "on or about and between" Feb. 20, 2003, and Mar. 12, 2003. In short, per the state, if the boy on the morning of Feb. 20, 2003, says he wasn't molested, despite frequent stays at Neverland and a cross-country trip to Miami with the pop star, that's because he wasn't--yet.

Prosecutor Tom Sneddon made no mention of how events stacked up for his side. He just hammered away at how it was unlikely that a teen boy, such as the accuser, would admit to abuse in the presence of women, such as Peters and the boy's mother.

Under questioning by Mesereau, Peters said she had had boys tell her they'd been abused, although the number was "very few."

Peters also said it wasn't just the boy's words, but his demeanor that she judged. To her, she said, he didn't show any signs of having been molested.

The part of the social workers interview that doesn't fit nicely into the prosecution's timeline is the contention that Jackson and his henchmen were holding the family against their will during much of February and March of 2003.

Peters said no one in the accuser's family told her they were captives of Jackson--the mother even suggested the interview be conducted at Neverland.

About a week after the interview, the L.A. social workers deigned that allegations of neglect against the mother and allegations of abuse against Jackson were "unfounded."

In an odd anecdote, both Peters and Walker testified of running into the accuser's mother and her children at a Fatburger in April 2003, shortly after the clan's final alleged escape from Neverland.

Even odder, Mesereau prodded Peters and Walker into talk about how the mother told them Jackson wanted to send her family to Brazil.

"Did she say the words to the effect, 'I don't want to go to that dump...?" Mesereau asked Peters.

Peters said that was correct.

Under questioning by Sneddon, Walker confirmed that the mother said her final days at Neverland had been "horrible."

Also on the stand: Angel Vivanco, the former Neverland chef's assistant, who wrapped his second day of testimony.

Something of a washout for the defense--Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville ruled Vivanco couldn't talk about potentially salacious conversations with the accuser's sister--Vivanco's most pointed testimony, that the accuser's younger brother pulled a nine-inch knife on him in the Neverland kitchen, was blunted by the prosecution.

When asked by prosecutor Ronald J. Zonen, if Vivanco thought the boy was joking, Vivanco said he did.

In March, the prosecution pulled a similar ploy on its own witness, former Neverland housekeeper Kiki Fournier, who under questioning by the defense revealed that she, too, had a knife pulled on her by the younger brother. With Fournier's help, the prosecution was able to suggest that that move was all for play.

The defense didn't let Vivanco's story go down without a fight. Jackson attorney Robert M. Sanger asked Vivanco if he thought the boy's joke was funny. "Not really," Vivanco said.

Then Sanger asked if the knife was dull or sharp. "It was sharp," Vivanco said.

Jackson, 46, is charged with molestation, administering alcohol to a minor and conspiracy. He has pleaded innocent to all charges.




Copyright ? 2005 E! Online, Inc.


Copyright ? 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

Mom praised Jackson for helping ailing son-witness
Mood:  surprised
Topic: Main News
By Dan Whitcomb
Tue May 17, 3:55 PM ET



A social worker testified on Tuesday that the mother of the boy who says he was molested by Michael Jackson told her she believed the singer helped her son survive cancer.

Child services worker Irene Peters said she interviewed the accuser and his family shortly after the February 2003 U.S. broadcast of a television documentary in which Jackson held hands with the then-13-year-old boy as the entertainer talked about sharing his bed with young boys.

The broadcast created a media furor and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services was asked to look into the case.

Peters said the mother told her that Jackson had been like a father to her children, saying at one point she thought Jackson was "responsible for helping (the boy) survive his cancer."

Peters said when she interviewed the boy, "I asked him very point blankly did he ever sleep in bed with Michael Jackson. He told me no. He became a little upset. He said, 'Everybody's saying Michael Jackson sexually abused me. He never touched me."'

The social worker said the interview took place on Feb. 20, 2003. The incident in which Jackson allegedly fondled the boy took place after that date. Jackson has denied the charge.

Peters said the boy's mother also told her she was very vigilant at Jackson's Neverland Valley Ranch in central California, and knew that her children spent time in Jackson's bedroom, "because the kids all play in the room."

"I did ask her if she was aware of her kids ever sleeping in bed with Michael Jackson. She said no, that never happened."

In testimony last month, the mother said she and her family had been pressured to paint Jackson in a good light in the interview with the social worker.

She said an aide "told me if I put Michael in a bad light, that they knew where my parents lived."

The mother also said during her testimony for the prosecution that Jackson aides attempted to sit in on the interview to make sure her answers were favorable to Jackson.

Peters said other people were initially present in the room she told them to leave.

She said the family did not seem to be giving scripted answers or be under pressure. Their answers to her questions, she said, seemed spontaneous and natural.

Jackson's lawyers are attempting to convince jurors that the family fabricated claims of molestation and false imprisonment at Neverland so they could extort money from the 46-year-old entertainer, who faces more than two decades in prison if convicted on all charges.

Jackson is accused of molesting the boy, plying him with alcohol in order to abuse him and conspiring to commit false imprisonment, child abduction and extortion. He has said he is innocent on all counts.




Copyright ? 2005 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.


Copyright ? 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

Social Worker: Boy Denied Abuse by Jackson
Mood:  a-ok
Topic: Main News

By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent
Tue May 17, 6:15 PM ET



A social worker testified Tuesday at Michael Jackson's child molestation trial that she met privately with the accuser and his family during the time they claim they were Jackson's captives, and they praised the singer and denied any sexual abuse.

Irene Lavern Peters, a 30-year veteran of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, said she met with the mother and her three children on Feb. 20, 2003, after the airing of a documentary that drew attention to Jackson's relationship with the boy who is now his accuser.

"I asked him if he had ever been sexually abused by Michael Jackson and he became upset. He said, 'Everybody thinks Michael Jackson sexually abused me. He never touched me,'" Peters testified. She said the accuser told her Jackson "was very kind to him and treated him like a father."

Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting the then-13-year-old boy between Feb. 20 and March 12, 2003, plying him with wine and conspiring to hold the family captive to get them to make a video to rebut the documentary "Living With Michael Jackson," which aired in the U.S. on Feb. 6, 2003.

The boy, a cancer survivor, appeared with Jackson in the documentary. Jackson told interviewer Martin Bashir that he let children sleep in his bed but that it was non-sexual.

Prosecutors first charged Jackson with committing lewd acts with the boy between Feb. 7 and March 10, 2003. A superseding grand jury indictment pushed back the time period to between Feb. 20 and March 12.

Peters said when she interviewed the mother, the boy, his younger brother and older sister on Feb. 20, all of them praised Jackson. She said the mother, who was present at each child's individual interview, even gave Jackson credit for curing her son.

Rather than wanting to flee Jackson's Neverland ranch, the mother initially asked if the social worker could do her interview at the pop star's estate, Peters said.

Peters said, however, that she wanted to see where they were living, so she was invited to the home of the mother's boyfriend, who is now her husband.

"She denied all allegations of general neglect," Peters said. "I asked her about the relationship with Michael Jackson. She went on to say he was like a father to her children and she felt he was responsible for helping (the boy) to survive his cancer, for his cancer to go into remission.

"I asked her if the kids ever slept in Michael Jackson's room and she said no, that never happened."

Under questioning by defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr., Peters said the family members never mentioned being held against their will.

The interview took place the morning after the family made the rebuttal video, which they later claimed they were forced to do by Jackson's associates.

Peters' testimony touched on an element of the prosecution's conspiracy case when she noted that she ran into the boy's mother in April 2003 at a restaurant.

Peters said the mother told her that "Michael wanted to send them to Brazil and she didn't want to go." Peters said the mother referred to Brazil as "that dump."

The prosecution claims that Jackson and associates wanted to send the family on a one-way trip to Brazil after the documentary aired. A travel planner has testified that she arranged a March 1, 2003, flight but the trip was abruptly canceled.

___

Associated Press Writer Tim Molloy contributed to this report.



Copyright ? 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright ? 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

Larry King to testify at Jackson trial Tue May 17, 4:38 AM ET
Mood:  surprised

US television host Larry King was set to testify this week at Michael Jackson's trial, as the defense team argues that the accuser's mother made up the child-sex charges to extort the pop star.

The CNN host was scheduled to take the witness stand on Thursday, according to Jackson's spokeswoman, Raymone Bain.

The defense was expected to ask King about a claim that a lawyer who once represented the young accuser and his mother told him he didn't believe their claims against Jackson.

Jackson is charged with fondling the then 13-year-old boy, plying him with alcohol and conspiring to kidnap him and his family two years ago.

The defense has claimed in a memo to the court that publisher Michael Viner heard attorney Larry Feldman make the comments about the boy and his mother during a 2004 breakfast meeting at a Los Angeles cafe.

In earlier testimony, Feldman denied ever making the comments and said he had never met Viner, who claims he sat with King and Feldman at the breakfast meeting.

But the defense memo said that in an interview with an investigator "Viner recalled that Feldman had referred to the mother as 'a flake' and said he did not believe the boy."

"Feldman added that he did not believe them and they were into this case for one reason, 'money'."

The defense is seeking to portray the accuser as a liar whose mother is scheming to get Jackson convicted at the criminal trial so she can then make millions in a civil case.

On Monday the star's attorneys focused largely on shooting down the claim Jackson and his aides held the family captive in order to silence them.

Jurors heard how the mother never called for help when she took her two boys to an orthodontist or when she went for a full-body waxing at a time she claims she and her children were held captive at Jackson's Neverland ranch.

And Maria Gomez, who has worked as a maid at Neverland for 10 years, said the woman told her at the time that Jackson had "been a blessing for us and that he was like a father to our children."

But a little later, apparently in February or March 2003, the mother talked "about being held there against her will" and asked "that we help her leave," the housekeeper said.

At the same time, the mother complained that Jackson's aides were "interfering" in her relationship with the star and keeping her away from him, the witness said.

The defense also suffered a setback when a policeman mentioned a 1994 meeting he had with two former Neverland guards who told him they might have information about the star "kissing, fondling and sucking on the penis of a young boy."

But Detective Russell Birchim said the two indicated they feared for their safety and did not volunteer further information.

One of the former guards, Ralph Chacon, told jurors in April that he saw Jackson in the early 1990s performing oral sex on a 12- or 13-year-old boy who later won a multi-million-dollar settlement from the star.

While Jackson is only on trial for the alleged 2003 acts, the prosecution has mentioned five uncharged claims dating back to the 1990s in a bid to demonstrate he has a history of sexually abusing young boys.

Jackson, who could face up to 20 years behind bars if convicted, has pleaded innocent to all 10 charges against him.



Copyright ? 2005 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse.


Copyright ? 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback