Posted by Pt 1: Defense Destroying Brothers Story under Cross-examination MJEOL Bullet #251 MARCH 9 2005 — There is so much going on in the Michael Jackson trial, you can hardly keep up with all of the information coming out under the cross-examination by Tom Mesereau of Star Arvizo, the accusers brother. Court let out at around 12PM PT yesterday (March 8 2005), but it didnt take a whole day for Mesereau to start to totally dismantle the testimony of the accusers brother. To be clear, these children have a long history of telling lies for their own purposes, so any pundit making an issue out of the fact that S. Arvizo hasnt broken down and admitted to lying under such withering cross-examination should also note that these are two kids who once scammed two LAPD officers out of $200 and a free Christmas (see article | break-down). It is situations like these that show why it is never good to cite a witness with problems as credible before they have been cross-examined. All of the whiny, pro-prosecution pundits trying to hang their hats on something, jumped on this brothers direct testimony as proof of Jacksons guilt. Well what a difference a few questions make. There has been a number of devastating bombshells brought out by the defense by cross-examining the accusers brother; allegedly a witness to two incidences of molestation. During her interview with Jim Thomas and Ron Richards, one incredibly dense anchorwoman, Lisa Daniels, on MSNBC today (March 9 2005) called these problems little inconsistencies. No way in hell these huge problems, which go to the heart of the issue, can be characterized as little inconsistencies. Lets lay out a few of the bombshells revealed so far, then go into detail afterward.
1. According to courtroom observers, under direct questioning by the prosecution, the accuser was shown an adult magazine by prosecutor Tom Sneddon. Star Arvizo testified under oath that that magazine was shown to him. The only problem is the magazine didnt exist until after the family was no longer at Neverland or around Jackson. 2. Prosecutors claim that Jackson has an alarm the brother describes it as an electronic bell which goes off to warn him to stop molesting children. Or at least thats their theory. The brother claims the alarm was going off both times he alleges he saw Jackson molesting the accuser. And thus, the question becomes how could he have saw what he claims to have seen if the prosecution-alleged sinister alarm was going off? There is also a ticking time-bomb here concerning whether or not it was even possible for the brother to have seen what he says he saw, from where he says he saw it. 3. The brother totally changed his entire account of one of the incidences of alleged molestation he claimed he witnessed. He told psychologist Stan Katz one version, then goes up on the stand and gives on entirely different version. 4. The brother actually changes his story about whether he saw red wine or white wine in a coke can Jackson allegedly gave to his brother. But he didnt take responsibility for this. He blamed it on a court reporter.
And these are the major discrepancies the media chose to report! Who knows what other bombshells were revealed. The pro-prosecution hacks and crackpots continue to try to make every excuse in the world as to why these inconsistent statements exist, why this brother doesnt appear credible, why he can tell two different stories about the same incident; and why he only remembers in detail certain things fitting with the prosecutions theory, but cant remember things that the defense asks him which is supposed to have happened right during that same time period. Lets take the major bombs one by one starting with the magazine. The accusers brother, S. Arvizo, was shown adult magazines by the prosecution and asked to identify the magazines that Jackson showed him. From March 8 2005 direct examination by Sneddon:
1159 27 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Star, the exhibit that we 28 have on the board up there, the suitcase, and it’s 1160 1 open and displayed, are those among the items that 2 you saw with Mr. Jackson? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Do they represent the things that you saw 5 with him when he took the magazines out? 6 A. Yes.
At one point, Sneddon showed him the magazines, with the Barely Legal copy placed on top, for identification purposes according to a number of different sources. Foxs Laura Ingle gave a summary of what happened in court March 8 2005. From what she explains, this was more than just a little mistake:
LAURA INGLE: Now during the brother’s graphic testimony, he was asked about a porn magazine that Jackson allegedly showed him and his brother. The DA showed that porn magazine up on a big screen for jurors yesterday. And he said ‘yes that was the one that Michael Jackson showed me’. But today, Jackson’s attorney put up that magazine again for the boy to look at, tapping his fingers together, pacing in front of the podium, Tom Mesereau asked him ‘when did Michael Jackson show this to you?’ He said ‘He showed it to me before I left Neverland.’ (see Greta van Sustren: Cross-examination bombshells (March 8 2005) )
He directly identified that magazine as being the one he was shown by Jackson. For the record, according to reports, there were only 4 magazines, not a big stack of magazines like some has suggested. This magazine that the accuser identified as being one shown to him by Jackson couldnt have possibly been shown to him and his brother because it didnt exist at the time they were around Jackson. No, thats not a typo. The brother claimed that they left Neverland for good March 2003. Some sources say it may have been more like April or May 2003. Either way, this magazine was an August 2003 issue, not released until long after the accuser and his brother was long gone. It was also published after they had already gone to civil attorney Larry Feldman and later, to Sneddon in June 2003. The accuser tried to get out of the lie by saying that he didnt say this particular magazine was shown to him. Well, he may not be telling the truth here either. According to Jayne Weintraub, who appeared on Foxs On The Record March 8, he was much more certain than he later claimed to be:
WEINTRAUB: I’ll tell you what else bothers me about what happened today: the District Attorney himself is the one who went over on direct examination with this child, showed him the magazine and said ‘Is this the exact magazine that you saw?’ HAMMER: Jayne, I agree Jayne. The DA messed up. (see Greta van Sustren: Cross-examination bombshells (March 8 2005))
Weintraub isnt the only one who noticed the brother getting caught up in trying to explain away an impossibility. NBCs Mike Taibbi, reporting for MSNBC, says the brother was specifically asked by the prosecution to identify if those were the magazines he claims Jackson showed him. From his March 8 2005 report:
MIKE TAIBBI: In his testimony yesterday the boy said, in answer to questions from the prosecutor, that yes Michael Jackson provided us — meaning the accuser and himself — with pornographic material including magazines. Prosecutors showed him a photograph of a briefcase open to certain magazines: ‘Are those the magazines?’ ‘Yes’, the boy said. Today, Mr. Mesereau had him repeat that. [The accuser’s brother said], ‘Yes those are the magazines’. After establishing this family, including the boy and the accuser — his brother, the accuser had left Neverland sometime in March 2003, Mr. Mesereau said, ‘He couldn’t have shown you this magazine. He didn’t show you this magazine. It is from August 2003’. Now the boy was forced to say ‘Well, it’s a magazine like that’. ‘That’s not what you said,’ Mr. Mesereau said. ‘You said these are the magazines.’ That was the start of it. (see MSNBC Live: Mike Taibbi rept about cross examination (March 8 2005))
So while the media headline may be that he admitted to lying under oath in an unrelated case, he was also caught lying under oath on the stand yesterday (March 8 2005) about this specific case. And that goes to the heart of the matter. Jim Hammer at Fox clarifies for those still making excuses for this gotcha moment in the courtroom. Hammer, also appearing on On The Record:
HAMMER: Because it’s such a rarity, I wanna agree with Jayne. This is egg on the face of the DA here. It’s right on the top of the stack. I know, put it on the record. The date’s on there. It says August. And the DA — no, but there’s only four magazines Janine. They’re in a briefcase. It’s the top one. It says August 2003. The DA simply didn’t read the date. (see Greta van Sustren: Cross-examination bombshells (March 8 2005))
How in hell could this have gotten past unbiased law enforcement entities, who are supposedly seeking justice, and entered into as evidence? Well, when we find an unbiased law enforcement entity involved in the prosecution of Jackson, well let you know. Further, is this the only Barely Legal magazine that Jacksons owned up to Nov 2003? If so, then the prosecutions entire theory that Jackson was showing them adult material with young looking girls in order to arouse them is totally shot. Speaking of this adult material, this better not be the much-talked-about magazine with the fingerprints of the accuser and his brother on it. If so, this case should be dismissed and investigations of corruption and contamination into both the Santa Barbara Sheriffs Dept and the DAs office should immediately ensue. And Mesereau will surely seize upon every opportunity to show that these people have an agenda, and theyve been allowed to run amuck with the help of law enforcement officials who want to get Jackson in any way possible. __Thats really alarming __ One of the other important issues probably more so than the adult material is the issue concerning the alleged alarm or electric bell which goes off when someone enters the hallway up to Jacksons bedroom. Under cross-examination, he talks about that bell. From the transcript:
1199 6 Q. Is there an alarm that goes off when you 7 enter Michael Jackson’s hallway? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. How do you know that there’s an alarm that 10 goes off when you enter Michael Jackson’s hallway? 11 A. Because while you’re walking through the 12 hallway, you can hear it. 13 Q. And have you heard it before? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. When did you hear the alarm that goes off 16 when you enter Michael Jackson’s hallway? 17 A. Every time you walk through it.
The accusers brother calls it an electric bell. Mesereau asks him what his understanding of the purpose of the bell is. He confirms that, to his understanding, the bell is to let Jackson know if somebody goes through his hallway. Its not an unusual thing for rich and famous people to have certain security measures such as this in place, by the way. Star Arvizo testified that the alarm was going off both times when he was in the hallway allegedly witnessing molestation. From the transcripts:
1206 11 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, during the two times 12 you claim you saw Michael Jackson touch your brother 13 in bed, that bell went off, didn’t it? 14 A. Yes.
Its rather incredulous that this alarm system would be going off while hes standing there witnessing what he claims he witnessed. He tried to give an excuse as to how Jackson couldnt be aware of his presence AND the alarm could still be going off. The brother tried to assert that you cant hear the alarm when the door to Jacksons bedroom, reportedly at the conclusion of that hallway, is closed. From the testimony:
1207 21 Q. Okay. You have heard that alarm system go 22 off when you were upstairs, haven’t you? 23 A. When the doors open. 24 Q. Yes. You’re saying when the door’s closed, 25 Michael Jackson can’t hear the alarm system? 26 A. No. 27 Q. Is that what you’re saying? 28 A. Yes.
You just know that Mesereau is setting the stage to possibly introduce evidence that one can hear the alarm when that door is closed or something related to that fact. The brother is trying to weasel out of his testimony by trying to explain it away. However, that explanation also doesnt make sense because what would be the purpose of an alarm system that you cant hear when your door is closed? The very alarm system that prosecutors claim has a sinister purpose to warn Jackson? It doesnt make sense. __Exactly what do you claim you saw?__ Possibly the most revealing bombshell revolved around the alleged molestation he alleged to have witnessed. Foxs Jim Hammer was probably one of the first ones to publicly make the point that the story the boy told on the stand March 8 2005 is totally different than the account he told to psychologist Stan Katz. Katz testified to the grand jury about what Star Arvizo told him. Apparently this eye witness has given different descriptions of everything from what Jackson and Gavin Arvizo (the accuser) was wearing, to what he claims he saw Jackson doing to his brother. Mesereau got into the heart of the matter under cross:
1216 5 Q. Well, when you met with Psychologist Stanley 6 Katz, you also describe what you claim happened in 7 Michael Jackson’s bedroom, right? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And would you agree that you’ve given 10 different descriptions almost every time that you 11 have described it? 12 A. I don’t remember exactly what I said.
Why doesnt he remember exactly what he said if hes telling the truth? But getting back to the testimony:
1216 13 Q. Well, you’ve given different descriptions 14 about what Michael Jackson was wearing, right? 15 A. I don’t remember exactly what I said. 16 Q. You’ve given different descriptions of what 17 Gavin was supposed to be wearing, right? 18 A. I don’t remember exactly what I said.
Again, this stock answer of I dont remember is used. Then, Mesereau talks about things the brother had previously said in comparison to what he testified to in court under direct questioning by Sneddon. More from the transcript:
1216 19 Q. You’ve given different descriptions about 20 what you claim Michael Jackson did in the bedroom, 21 right? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Well, there were times you said that Michael 24 Jackson put his hand on top of your brother’s 25 underwear, right? 26 A. I don’t remember saying that. 27 Q. And there are other times you said he put 28 his hand inside his underwear, right? 1217 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And there are times you’ve said your brother 3 was wearing pajamas, right? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. There are times you said he was wearing 6 underwear, right? 7 A. I don’t remember.
He doesnt remember things that dont match with what he testified to under oath, I guess. The defense attorney continues to ask him questions. From the transcript:
1217 8 Q. And there are times you said that Michael 9 Jackson touched his butt and not his crotch, right? 10 A. When was this? 11 Q. When you did some interviews, right? 12 A. About what? 13 Q. About what Michael Jackson, you claim, was 14 doing in his bedroom, right? 15 A. I never said he touched his butt. 16 Q. Did you ever tell anyone that when you saw 17 Michael Jackson in bed with your brother, he was 18 rubbing his butt? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Never said that at any time to anybody? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Never said it to Mr. Katz, right? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Never said it to the sheriffs, right? 25 A. No. 26 Q. And never said it to a grand jury, right? 27 A. No.
Remember, hes no longer claiming he doesnt know. He is flat out testifying that he never made these allegations. Whats interesting about this is that there are interviews and previous testimony by him and Katz that he DID say the things Mesereau asked him about. Hammer, who again appeared on On the Record March 8 2005, talked about the situation. From his comments:
But the biggest problem is this: the boy described in exact detail the two alleged instances that he saw. The defense has him today with an earlier interview he gave to a psychologist, Dr. Katz. The account given by Katz at the grand jury is night and day compared to the version that the boy gave in court today. So if Katz is called, and gives a totally different version he says the boy did, then I think the boy’s credibility is shot at this point. And the entire case will rest upon the accuser’s testimony. (see Greta van Sustren: Cross-examination bombshells (March 8 2005))
Some observers say that Katz will not subject himself to perjury charges and a reputation for lying under oath just to protect this kid. If the kid told him a different story, then he will have to testify as to what he said. Like Hammer explained, the jury will (and should) totally disregard his story as being a lie if Katz later contradicts the brother. Thus, the question becomes if you lie about witnessing molestation, then how credible can any of the accusations against Jackson be? It is asinine to think one can get away with being caught making up an allegation of molestation and STILL want people to believe whatever else they have to say. Trace Gallagher gave a report during Foxs Studio B yesterday (March 8 2005) also talking about this varying description. From this report:
TRACE GALLAGHER: But here’s what could be the big bombshell. The boy testified that Michael Jackson fondled his brother while touching himself. But psychologist Dr. Stanley Katz, before the grand jury, said the boy told him that Michael Jackson was actually rubbing up against the boy’s back. Two totally different stories. And legal experts say that could be a big deal.
This isnt a small inconsistency. This is the brother completely changing his story. __Red or white?__ Yet another big issue concerns what the brother alleges he saw revolving around alcohol. Media reports say that Star Arvizo testified to this jury that he saw Jackson and the accuser drinking from the same can and that he saw red on the rim of the can; implying that there was red wine in the can. However, Mesereau brought up the fact that he had previously told police that there was white wine in the can. According to earlier reports, the brother allegedly said he too tasted wine in a can at one point when he was asked how he knew what was in that can. A report from Trace Gallagher on Studio B offers a few details:
TRACE GALLAGHER: That copy of ‘Barely Legal’ was from August 2003. The family left Neverland Ranch in March 2003. Then there is the issue of the coke can. The boy testified that on the way back from Miami on a flight that he saw his brother drinking coke with Michael — drinking out of a coke can with Michael Jackson, and there was red on the rim. And Mesereau says ‘well you told police it was white wine.’ The boy says ‘I never said that. It must be a mistake by the court reporter.’ (see Studio B: Gallagher report (March 8 2005))
So not only does he get caught in that lie, he then blames the court reporter instead of admitting it. I highly doubt the court reporter would just sit there and make up specific details like this without the boy saying it. It is instance on top of instance illustrating that this boy, Star Arvizo, simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth. These arent just one or two inconsequential things that are wrong. It is a series of allegations with devastatingly serious contradictions, which make his testimony wholly unbelievable. There is no excuse for this. You cannot chalk these numerous contradictions up to his young age, or his alleged naiveté, or him being tired. No. He wasnt tired or too young or too naïve when he was making the allegation, so he should not be allowed to get out of tough questioning with those excuses either. Stay tuned. -MJEOL