March 3 2005 Trial Update #4

Posted by

Eyewitness to Serving Alcohol? MARCH 3 2005 (5:50 PM) — The accuser’s sister, Davellin (Davallin) Arvizo is claiming that Michael Jackson was serving alcohol to her, her two brothers and two other children, a boy and a girl, in the wine cellar. The allegation is strange, to say the least, because she also testified that Jackson spent time with her brothers and that she was just left to wander around Neverland. So 1.) How is it that she too is the recipient of this alcohol if Jackson is allegedly giving the children alcohol in order to “molest” the accuser; and 2.) how is it that she was even around them at all if Jackson was supposedly only or mostly spending time with the two boys?? Listening to the allegation, the question immediately pops up of why would Jackson be serving little girls alcohol as well? According to the prosecution, he’s supposed to be “obsessed with young boys”. What’s the reason for getting the girls drunk too?? If the defense calls these two other kids to testify, and they don’t corroborate the sister’s story, how will the jury judge the sister’s credibility? Further, when was this supposed to have happened? Because if it was supposed to have happened while they were allegedly kidnapped/held hostage, where were their kidnappers when this was occurring? Were they standing there, too, watching Jackson get children drunk? I doubt it. As mentioned in previous updates, the validity of her testimony will become apparent under cross-examination from the defense some time tomorrow (March 4 2005). To reiterate, it’s important to note that this is direct examination. The prosecution will only bring up want he wants the jury to know. It will be the defense’s job to bring in the context and other pertinent information that the prosecution is undoubtedly and conveniently leaving out.

Step-father Already Brokering Deals before Doc Aired in US MARCH 3 2005 (5:21 PM) — Apparently the sister testified under oath that Jackson told them not to watch the Bashir hit-piece/”documentary”. However, there’s a question here about the reason why this would be of import, or whether it’s even true. There was a pre-trial hearing where the step-father, Major Jay Jackson, testified that he was in contact with two British reporters — after the documentary aired in Britain, but before it aired in the U.S. — trying to broker a deal for an interview with the family. Compounding problems for prosecutors is the fact that not only did the stepfather seek money from Jackson, but he also sought thousands of dollars from these two British reporters as well. The following is from an AP report dated August 19 2004:

The witness testified that he also asked for compensation at some point from a British journalist who came to the family’s home to try to interview them after a documentary on Jackson aired on British television. “Two British journalists showed up and I talked to them,” the witness said. “They said they wanted to do an interview with (his wife) and the children. I said, ‘what are you offering?’ They said, ‘what do you want?’ And I said I didn’t know.” He said the journalists left and said they would return with an offer. (see Accuser’s Stepfather Wanted Money from Jackson)

As a matter to fact, NBC’s Mike Taibbi tracked down one of those British reporters who had contract with the stepfather. Alec Byrne confirms that it was the father who initially brought up the subject of money. The following is an excerpt from his report:

He also testified that before the documentary aired in America, 2 British journalists offered to pay for the family’s story. Alec Byrne told NBC news exclusively he was one of those journalists. And that is was the stepfather who broached the subject of money.

BYRNE: The starting figure was $500 from myself. And that’s supposedly when he consulted with the mother. TAIBBI: And it ended up at what? BYRNE: It ended up at $15,000

(see MSNBC Live: Mike Taibbi – Stepfather Asks for Money August 20 2004)

So the question becomes why would Jackson be essentially forcing them not to watch the documentary, if their mother’s boyfriend was, by that time, already brokering deals for interviews with the family? These are issues sure to be addressed under cross-examination by the defense.

Alcohol on a Plane Full of Witnesses? MARCH 3 2005 (4:30 PM ET) — It is unlikely that the defense will have enough time to get into cross-examining the accuser’s sister today. But she made the allegation that Jackson gave the accuser wine in a coke can while on a plane full of people. Without knowing what points the defense will bring up in their cross-examination, what is known is that Jackson’s doctor was also on that flight along with security and number of other people who the defense says totally and flatly deny the events alleged by the sister and her grifting family. A short report about what happened in court from Savanna Guthrie today included an interesting point, which may serve to put this allegation into perspective. The allegation is that alcohol was supposedly given for the sole purpose of committing “molestation”. And this is a point the host and Guthrie spoke about. From a transcript of Guthrie’s report:

HOST: Intersting. Savannah don’t you think on cross-examination the attorneys will make a big deal about the fact that she never saw an alleged molestation whatsoever? And the drinking of the alcohol, the way the count reads, it has to be ingesting the alcohol with the intent to molest a child. So won’t this be a big deal on cross? SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Yeah, that’s a very good observation. Remember, Mesereau said in his opening statement jurors, this alcohol business, even though Jackson obviously denies it, that it’s not one of those cases where it’s like a misdemeanor crime — a bartender serves someone underage. This is a very specific charge. It’s giving alcohol for the purpose of committing a felony specifically the felony of child molestation. And I’m sure that they’ll hit hard on that. And also the fact that she didn’t witness any molestation

Thus the question is why would Jackson be giving the accuser alcohol on a plane full of witnesses if the alcohol was supposedly being given in order to molest the accuser? That doesn’t make sense. And she will still have to explain why she said nothing to any of the people on the plane — the flight attendants, security, anybody. From our understanding as of now, none of the alleged co-conspirators were on the plane with them, holding them hostage or threatening them at that time. It’s also important to note that this is direct examination. The prosecution will only bring up want he wants the jury to know. It will be the defense’s job to bring in the context and other pertinent information that the prosecution is undoubtedly and conveniently leaving out. So we will see how this witness stands up on cross-examination and whether or not a number of witnesses will dispute the sister’s testimony.

Vantage Point the issue Under Police Cross-examination MARCH 3 2005 — The accuser’s now 18 year old sister, Davellin (Davallin) Arvizo is on the stand right now. But before her testimony began, a police officer was cross-examined the by the defense. This police officer shot video attempting to corroborate the brother’s story and to see if the brother could have seen what he saw from his vantage point. As you know, the accuser’s younger brother is claiming that he saw Jackson allegedly “molest” the accuser while he was coming up the steps towards the area where Jackson’s bed is located. Jackson’s personal living quarters is massive and it’s 2 stories high, with the bed being on the top floor. They apparently showed video showing that you can see Jackson’s bed from that vantage point….if you’re the right height. There was a huge point brought out by the defense under cross-examination. According to Court TV’s Savannah Guthrie, the defense made the point that the police officer is 5’10 and had the camera on his shoulder when he shot the video. The accuser’s brother is much, much shorter than that and couldn’t have seen Jackson’s bed from the vantage point he claims he saw it. This is big because the defense may have already undercut the brother’s testimony even before he’s called to the stand. Stay tuned to this topic for the latest up-to-the-minute updates:

Leave a Reply