Former Maid Undermines Alcohol, Molestation Allegation? MiniBullet #15 Talks about the Arvizo children not appearing intoxicated, their guest rooms a mess, and the younger brother pulling a knife on her MARCH 20 2005 A former maid, Kiki Fournier, who worked off and on for Michael Jackson was called by prosecutors March 17 2005 to testify about what she allegedly saw at Jacksons Neverland Ranch in 2003. Prosecutors want to claim that Jackson is somehow responsible for what children do, out of his presence at Neverland. She claimed she saw kids at Neverland who appeared to be intoxicated. Whats wrong with her observation is that she made no showing of how she knew these kids were allegedly intoxicated. Reportedly, she didnt check their breath for alcohol, she never saw Jackson give any child alcohol, she never saw any kid falling down drunk at Neverland, and she never saw the Arvizo children even so much as appear to be intoxicated. All she seemed to offer was her suspicion. Her answers to the question of whether or not kids were allegedly drunk is a hell of a lot less certain than media headlines have reported. Fournier was asked questions like During your entire employment at Neverland Ranch, have you ever observed children to appear to be intoxicated? When specifically asked if she saw kids intoxicated in Jacksons presence, she said she didnt know:
Q. Okay. Have you seen children to be intoxicated in the presence of Michael Jackson? A. Thy were acting different. I dont know if they were intoxicated.
They were acting different? This is supposed to be proof that they were intoxicated?? Uh, I dont think so. But more importantly, her actual testimony isnt as sure as the media has made it in their recounting of what she supposedly said. She also said she couldnt remember of another time when kids appeared to be intoxicated. Again, appear to be is the operative phrase. Whats the difference between a kid hopped-up on cotton candy and soft drinks, and an intoxicated one? The difference is the presence of alcohol (which she never saw) and alcohol on their breath (which she never smelled). She also says she never saw Gavin or Star Arvizo appear to be drunk either. This is a major point because they claimed they were drunk every night up until the time they finally left Neverland. From the transcript:
Q. Okay. You never saw the Arvizo kids look like they were intoxicated. Did you? A. No. I dont remember them specifically being intoxicated. I dont. Q. To the best of your knowledge, during the time you observed the Arvizo children at Neverland, you never thought they were intoxicated, right? A. I didnt think so, no. Q. Did you ever, in your mind, smell alcohol on the Arvizo kids? A. No. I never paid attention.
She claimed other kids appeared to be intoxicated, without offering proof of intoxication. But whats interesting is that she never claimed the Arvizo brood appeared to be intoxicated. Remember, they claimed they were either drunk or passed out drunk every night at Neverland. So Fournier would have seen this had it been true. Theres some issue with this appeared to be phrase. Either they were intoxicated or they weren’t; either she smelled it on them, or she didn’t. There is no “appeared to be” to it. But more importantly, how incredibly odd is it that one would see drunk or kids that appeared to be intoxicated, and wouldnt alert the authorities? I dont even think she went to Jackson with her concerns. Were still trying to get ahold of those full transcripts. But it really makes no sense at all. Although this was supposed to be a prosecution witness, she quickly became a defense witness under cross-examination. She talked about how some people around Jackson seemed to think they were more important than they really were. She also made startling revelations about the Arvizo children: (1) They seemed to have been sleeping in the guest suites, not in Jacksons bedroom, when this alleged abuse was supposed to have happened; (2) Star Arvizo, the accusers brother, pulled a knife on her and held it to her back after she wouldnt let him cook in the kitchen; and (3) The Arvizo kids became very demanding and disruptive while at Neverland. Reportedly, Fournier gave a vivid description of how the boy and his brother wreaked havoc in the guest quarters assigned to them, (see article). A March 17 2005 AP article detailed some of Fourniers testimony. From the article titled Jackson Housekeeper Says Boys Ran Wild:
She said the destruction increased just before the family left Neverland for the last time, which occurred in March 2003. But even before that, she said, the boy and his brother had “become demanding.” She said they never seemed to like what was being served for dinner and would demand something different. “There was no respect,” she said. (see Jackson Housekeeper Says Boys Ran Wild (March 17 2005))
Remember, prosecutors at first tried to sell the jury that these were some innocent, uncorrupted little victims of Jackson. Nothing could be further from the truth. Starting even before they met Jackson, Gavin Arvizo has had disciplinary problems with just about every teacher hes ever had. Now theres confirmation that he was beyond out of control at Neverland. More from the AP article:
She also said she once summoned another maid to see the mess in the room where the two boys stayed. “They were always sloppy,” she said. “But toward the end things were broken and it was a mess. … There were things spilled, the refrigerator was a mess. It was like someone had gone in there like a tornado.” Mesereau asked if it appeared to her that in the two weeks before the family left the boys were sleeping in their own quarters. Fournier said she assumed they were, given how the place looked. (see Jackson Housekeeper Says Boys Ran Wild (March 17 2005))
Prosecutors have claimed that the alleged molestation occurred during the last week(s) the family was at Neverland. Now, the maid is saying that the rooms assigned to the Arvizo children were routinely a mess during the last two weeks they were at Neverland. She also says the beds were not made when she would come to clean the rooms they were assigned to be staying in. This means that neither one of them were sleeping in Jacksons bedroom. Aside from the fact that he would never molest a child, he couldnt have molested this kid because they werent with him at the time they claimed they were either allegedly molested or witnessed alleged molestation. This is a point not lost on Howard Weitzman, who appeared on the E Trial Reenactment program March 18 2005 to discuss the trial. From his comments:
WEITZMAN: What it gets the defense is this: if he was in the room near the end of his stay, which is the implication — the inference from the testimony, and that’s when these episodes were suppose to have taken place, and he was supposed to have stayed overnight in Michael’s room, I think she impeaches or at least casts some doubt on the credibility of the story. That’s the purpose of the cross-examination. And this is a witness who I believe does not favor either side. She’s just telling it like she remembers. (see E: Trial Reenactments (March 18 2005))
And really, the prosecution only has itself to blame. They initially tried to use Fournier testimony against Jackson by claiming that on occasion when she saw unmade beds in the guest quarters, she assumed whoever was supposed to be staying there, was staying in Jacksons room or somewhere else. But the defense used that theory against the prosecution by getting Fournier to admit that the beds the Arviso children were assigned to looked like they were used right during the molestation allegation timeline. Of the fact that she had a knife pulled on her by the younger brother, both Weitzman and Rikki Klieman commented that this wasnt a simple joke:
HOST: A knife, Rikki Klieman. That sounds kinda serious. KLIEMAN: I think it is serious. Even if it was a joke, it is serious to have a child put a knife in your back or in your front, or any other part of your body. I mean there’s one thing as (sic) play. It said that this was as he was trying to cook in the kitchen. This is not a pretty picture even if she wants to toss it off and it plays right into Mesereau’s hands of saying that these little boys were monsters. (see E: Trial Reenactments (March 18 2005))
Weitzman as well weighed in on this discussion by saying that if there were nothing to this like the prosecution claims, she probably wouldnt have felt the need to tell anybody in the first place:
WEITZMAN: I’ll tell you what I found most interesting about this testimony. Obviously, this lady told someone about the incident before. She thought it was serious enough to repeat it. It obviously bothered her and concerned her. She’s just trying to be honest. She’s just trying to be honest. Clearly it bothered her or we wouldn’t know about the incident. And to me, that’s the key. (see E: Trial Reenactments (March 18 2005))
Well probably get more information to fill in the holes once the defense starts to present its evidence. Stay tuned. -MJEOL