As Accusers Story Falls Apart, More Excuses are Made MiniBullet #14 MARCH 15 2005 — Day two of the cross-examination (cross) of Gavin Arvizo revealed so many substantial inconsistencies that pro-prosecution apologists couldnt come up with enough excuses to explain them away. From the beginning of yesterdays (March 14 2005) cross-examination, the accuser started off as argumentative, petulant and unresponsive on the witness stand. Those who were in the courtroom describe a very different accuser than the one prosecutors tried to show the jury under direct questioning. That Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde theory spoken about earlier certainly is at play under defense cross. According to published reports, more than 60 fans arrived early for court today. They undoubtedly would have also been cheering in the courtroom if that were permitted as well. Jackson attorney Tom Mesereau with the obvious support of the defense team members Robert Sanger, Susan Yu, Brian Oxman and defense investigators began to ask the hard questions that Sneddon had been able to hide the accuser from until now. But really, this case shouldnt have ever materialized. The longer this nonsense drags on, the more disgusted one gets with writing about it because realistically, anyone else wouldnt have been prosecuted. Maybe this is to Jacksons advantage; a way to clear his name in the courts and in the court of public opinion. But in this specific case, there are TOO many things wrong with the accusers story, TOO many inconsistencies, TOO many contradictions, and TOO many convenient excuses for any of them to be sheer coincidence. Every crackpot — from wanna-be Jackson lawyers to commentators who simply want Jackson to be guilty no matter if the allegation is legitimate — are still acting as blind as can be about the facts coming out in court. And those who previously were so sure of themselves — to the point of warning other people not to be so stern in their Jackson is not guilty stance are starting to have doubts about whether the pedophile label is one that Jackson deserves. If it happens, Id be shocked, but this was never going to be a situation where the accuser was going to break down on the stand and admit he made the whole thing up. This family is professional. They have a very long history of telling detailed lies and fleecing people out of money. Because the accusers story is unraveling on the stand and this is just cross-examination, not even the defenses case those nut-jobs are now pinning all of their hope on 1993. The introduction of that allegation may be a complete trap set up by the defense, however. But lets focus on this non-case for a moment. The defense has blown hole after gaping hole in the accusers story. If we get the transcripts of the March 15 2005 testimony, we can take an in-depth look at what the accuser said. The first bombshell to come out in court was that the accuser told the Dean of his school after he left Neverland for good, sometime in spring 2003 that Jackson never touched him sexually or inappropriately. Dean Alpert was questioned in a secret meeting by prosecutors and defense attorneys, reportedly on Saturday March 12 2005. The information was introduced in court. Mesereau asked the accuser if he had ever told Dean Alpert that Jackson never touched him. The boy said yes, he denied the abuse allegation to Alpert. Timing is everything here. This makes yet another witness to whom this street-smart, smart-aleck accuser denied abuse to. The accuser is not likely to be anyones victim as evidenced by other revelations that came out during cross-examination. Gavin Arvizo was trouble even before he had ever met Jackson. This wasnt some sudden occurrence of an attitude problem around these allegations. He was a disciplinary problem to damn-near every teacher he ever had. These facts too, according to commentators, are in direct contrast to what the sister testified to in court. Mesereau went down the list of reportedly about a dozen teachers that the accuser had a problem with. Putting this in context, this means that the accuser has a very long history of talking back and standing up to figures of authority. It means that more than likely, he too would have stood up to Jackson. As you well know from previous reports, this is no introverted, shrinking accuser. It is facts like these, added to the inconsistent and contradictory statements, which speaks more towards an innocent Jackson that anything else. But some arent ready to accept that reality yet. Already pro-prosecution hacks are using every excuse in the book as to why this accuser said what he said, and when he said it. Even after he left Neverland for good and was no longer under any alleged duress, the defense got the accuser to admit he told people nothing happened. The excuse being made is that sometimes alleged victims dont tell why they were abused. The problem with that excuse is that sometimes they DO tell. The prosecution wont be able to get out of this by simply sticking a shrink on the stand to talk about what SOME victims do. The question is what did this accuser do, when did he do it, and what is his history of standing up to authority figures. And maybe what he told Dean Alpert at that time was the real truth. In court, the defense quoted from Alpert and the boys conversation. Alpert told the boy, according to an AP article dated March 14 2005, titled Accuser told educator Jackson did nothing:
Mesereau, during his cross-examination, quoted Alpert as telling the youngster: “Look at me, look at me. … I can’t help you unless you tell me the truth — did any of this happen?” When asked when the conversation occurred, the boy said: “I believe it was after I came back from Neverland.” (see Accuser told educator Jackson did nothing (March 14 2005))
More information on that teacher was provided by an ABC report, also dated March 14 2005. From the article titled Potential Surprise Witness in Jackson Trial:
In a secret meeting on Saturday, Santa Barbara County, Calif., Prosecutor Tom Sneddon and Jackson’s defense attorneys interviewed the teacher from Burroughs Middle School in Los Angeles, where the alleged victim was a student while he and Jackson were friends. According to sources, the teacher said that the young accuser told him in the spring of 2003 after “Living With Michael Jackson” aired and after the alleged molestation occurred that “nothing had happened between Michael Jackson and him.”(see Potential Surprise Witness in Jackson Trial – Teacher says accuser denied abuse)
The attorney for that teacher, Tom Forsyth, reportedly says Alpert came forward after realizing that this case was actually going to trial and probably that the accuser was on the stand saying something completely different from what he (Alpert) was told. This new info seemed to take the prosecutors by surprise. It also just begs the question of whether prosecutors went looking for evidence to bolster their belief in Jacksons guilt instead of looking for the truth. The reality is that a number of people have come to believe that is innocent of these allegations. And this is all before the defense presents their case. To get the admission that Jackson is looking more innocent than not is like pulling teeth from some pundits. Some of them have future book profits to protect as they have already signed book deals. What makes it worse is that the accuser cant even give exact dates of when he claims he was allegedly molested. Mesereau pointed out that at one point the accuser was alleging that he was allegedly molested BEFORE the Bashir hit-piece aired. Trent Copeland appeared on The Early Show March 15 to talk a bit about this:
TRENT COPELAND: First of all, there’s this issue of timing. Remember, the prosecution has said all along in this case that Michael Jackson molested this young accuser after the Martin Bashir video. Tom Mesreau got this young accuser to admit that he’d given a statement indicated that the molestation had occurred before the video had ever aired. And you know really this is a major inconsistency because it undercuts the prosecution’s timeline.
This is explosive because if there was ever an allegation that any alleged abuse whatsoever occurred before the Bashir documentary, it would be absolutely devastating for an already non-existent case. If the alleged victim cant even pin down when he was supposed to have been abused, thats a hell of a lot more than reasonable doubt. That goes to help prove that no crime occurred. __Perfect Victim .for law enforcement?__ Other pro-prosecution pundits have described the accuser as a perfect victim because of his family history. Well he could also be the perfect false accuser because of that same baggage. The mother and her 15 and 14 year old hell-raisers are just as susceptible to being victims of the prosecution as anyone else. They have major, law-breaking baggage already. The mother has defrauded the welfare system and defrauded numerous celebrities and other entities. It wouldnt be surprising to some observers if the prosecution were threatening to file charges against this mother, get her children taken away from her, and put her sons in juvenile hall if she doesnt cooperate (stick to the script) in this Jackson case. So if one wants to claim this is the perfect victim for Jackson, the flipside is that they all are just as susceptible to duress from law enforcement as anyone else. As far as Im concerned, Janet Arvizo, the accusing mother, could rob a bank right now and Sneddon wouldnt touch her as long as she and her brood stick to the script against Jackson. And no expert or strained explanation can change that. Stay tuned. -MJEOL