Pros. to Rest ‘Case’ Next Week, More Holes in Arvizo Story – MB#259 APRIL 19 2005 — A lot of information is coming out today about what happened in court. Probably the biggest news is that the prosecution announced that it intends to rest its “case” next week, reports the AP. After a year of investigation and 100+ search warrants, the only thing prosecutors have proven beyond a reasonable doubt is that Jackson loves to look at naked women. The AP reports that the prosecution is having problems with witness availability for Friday, April 22 2005. So there won’t be any court on that day. It has been a grueling past couple of days for the prosecution with the unbelievable testimony of the accuser’s mother, both under direct and cross-examination. It got to a point where during day 2 of the cross-examination, even the prosecution was objecting to some of the answers Janet Arvizo was being allowed to give due to her rambling and volunteering information; info that could be used as ammunition by Jackson’s defense. This comes after her pleading the 5th Amendment not to incriminate herself about welfare fraud and perjury committed against Los Angeles County. An attorney not on this Jackson “case”, Tony Cappozola, has officially actually asked that the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office launch an investigation into the accuser’s mother because of that. According to explosive reports from NBC via Mike Taibbi, the mother accepted tens of thousands of dollars from various sources and that $150,000 settlement from JC Penney, and didn’t declare any of this money on her welfare applications. It is rather ridiculous that she would scam the welfare system after receiving thousands of dollars anyway. That smacks of pure greed. She also didn’t disclose, on those welfare applications, that they were covered 100% by the father’s Teamster health insurance. It got more ridiculous today (April 19 2005). Under re-cross examination, at still combative J. Arvizo claimed that she “never solicited money from celebrities for her son when he was stricken with cancer” (see Jackson prosecution plans to rest next week – AP). She claimed she had no knowledge at all of any fundraisers being held for the accuser at a comedy club and didn’t know anything about any donations being put in a “special bank account for his benefit.” Even this money was raised under false pretenses because the father’s Teamster insurance covered 100% of the accuser’s medical treatments. However, the defense got her to admit that there was money being deposited in a bank account for her son that only she could officially access. According to reports from Court TV, she was the signatory on the account. But this is from the AP report:

She said she had no idea why money was being put in the account and that all of it was being handled by a husband she has since divorce. “You had no idea why anyone put money in it. You just withdrew it?” asked Mesereau. “I did what (my husband) told me,” the woman said. “And you had no idea that Chris Tucker was going to wire money in to that account,” asked the lawyer, referring to the comedian who became a benefactor of the family. “This is correct,” she answered.

So she’s disavowing knowledge of anything at all about fundraising for her son. What’s worse is that Mesereau also got her to admit she used some of that money donated for her son’s medical treatments on cosmetic surgery. I kid you not. She also contradicted testimony from Louise Palanker. From the AP report:

The attorney asked if she was aware that comedians held a benefit for her son at the Laugh Factory in Hollywood while the boy sat in the lobby collecting money. She said she knew nothing about it. “And do you remember using money donated for (him) on cosmetic surgery?” asked Mesereau. “No,” said the woman. “I used a credit card.” She was asked if she knew that comedian Louise Palanker had given the family $20,000 to build a germ-free room for her son, and she said she knew nothing about it other than that she endorsed a check for $10,000 and gave it to her husband. Palanker has testified that a second check was made out to the husband. The mother insisted that Palanker never mentioned to her that she was writing any checks and that she knew nothing about the hiring of a contractor to construct the room.

On the issue of bruises after an altercation with JC Penney guards: The family previously sued JC Penney claiming guards had brutally beaten them. The guards stopped them because the accuser had shoplifted clothes out of the store. Reportedly, the family claimed the accuser was just “modeling” the clothes. When they were stopped in the parking lot with the shoplifted clothes, that’s when an altercation began. The lawyer representing JC Penney maintains that they were shaken down by this family. The prosecution presented photos showing the family, including the mother, with bruises all over in an effort to prove that the JC Penney lawsuit was legitimate. The mother allegedly even had a big bruise on her face. However, according to reports, what came out under cross-examination is that they didn’t sue until a year after the alleged beating. What’s worse for the prosecution is that the defense, according to Savannah Guthrie (Court TV), brought up the mug shot of the mother taken right after the altercation, and there were no bruises. Particularly, there was no bruise on her face. Her face wasn’t even red or swollen, and she appeared to have had a very slight smile on her face while taking the mug shot. She certainly didn’t appear to be disheveled or appear like someone who was just recently brutally beaten. The Drudge Report posted the mother’s mug shot on the website earlier today. Mesereau tried to get the mother to pinpoint exactly when these prosecution photos of bruises were taken and she gave a convoluted answer, appearing to contradict her previous testimony from her JC Penney deposition and her testimony on the stand. From the AP report:

Mesereau tried to pin her down on when the photos were taken. She at first acknowledged that she said in her deposition in that case that bruises do not immediately show up and over time they get “blacker and blacker.” “Did your attorney have these photographs taken?” asked Mesereau. “Yes,” said the woman. “But you didn’t go to a lawyer ’til a year later,” he said. “Those pictures were taken with the criminal case,” she said. “I had these photos already.” She then said that defense attorneys had the pictures taken for a criminal case when she was charged with burglary, assault and petty theft stemming from the store incident. But she also said the photos were not taken by a police agency and that her husband took her to a one-hour photo place. “When did he take you there?” asked Mesereau. “Immediately,” said the woman. “But didn’t you testify that you didn’t have those bruises immediately?” asked the lawyer. The woman gave a convoluted response: “When the defense attorney told us was the time.” The woman acknowledged waiting a year before taking her complaints to a lawyer, and asserted that all she really wanted then was an apology.

Arvizo tacked on a sexual abuse allegation 2 years after she filed the lawsuit as well. According to previous reports from NBC, she claimed she was sexually fondled for up to 7 minutes in broad daylight by these security guards as well (see JC Penny lawyer speaks out: Transcript). So, what appeared to be “corroboration” at first, turned out not to be so after the defense’s re-cross examination. The accuser’s grandmother also testified today as to receiving phone calls from what she claims was Jackson’s people. She said that she could read on the caller ID “Neverland” and “Frank” apparently meaning Frank Tyson. The mother doesn’t speak English and testified through an interpreter, by the way. She also claimed that there was a behavioral change in the accuser after he came back from Neverland. The prosecution attempting to show that this behavior occurred after the accuser was alleged “abused”. However the prosecution called another witness who, under cross-examination, contradicted the grandmother’s testimony. The witness, a counselor for the accuser named Michael Davy, testified that the accuser was disrespectful and a disciplinary problem both before and after he went to and came from Jackson’s Neverland Ranch. This completely knocks out the excuse given by so many prosecution pundits who used the accuser’s “behavioral problems” as some kind of proof that he was telling the truth. Obviously, that can’t be applied to this “case”. And don’t forget the devastating testimony from prosecution witnesses like flight attendant Cynthia Bell and former maid Kiki Fournier. Both of them talked about the disruptive and repulsive behavior of the accuser and his brother while at Neverland and on that famous flight back from Miami to Neverland. Bell says the accuser was absolutely obnoxious on that plane ride and that it was really an embarrassment to have him on board. She says he treated her like his maid and was very disrespectful (see Witness thwarts wine allegation – SBNP). She also says that the accuser’s sister asked for and was given alcohol on that flight after she was carded by Bell. Apparently the sister showed her a fake ID. This contradicted the sister’s testimony, who claimed that she had only ever tasted alcohol at Neverland. Bell, by the way, also testified that it was her idea to put white wine in a soda can for Jackson and that she does the same thing for other clients she’s worked for as well. This completely shoots down a key prosecution theory about alcohol. She also said she never saw Jackson sharing his soda can with the accuser on that flight back from Miami. Fournier’s testimony about the accuser and his brother’s behavior also backfired on the prosecution. She testified that the brother, Star Arvizo, once held a knife to her back after she stopped him from trying to cook in the Neverland kitchen. She thought he may have just been joking but was apparently creeped out enough by it to recount the story to investigators and later in court. More importantly, through circumstantial evidence, Fournier placed the accuser and his brother in the guest suites and not in Jackson’s bedroom during that crucial time-period. The suite to which the accuser and his brother were assigned was always messy, there was food all over the place, and furniture moved. The beds weren’t made when she would come to clean their suite, indicating that they were slept in. This was right at the time they claimed they were sleeping in Jackson’s bedroom. So they were disruptive and disrespectful before and after the prosecution’s alleged “molestation” timeline. Say whatever you want about the separation of the conspiracy allegation and the molestation allegation, they all are linked through the bridge of J. Arvizo. If she can get her children to tell very detailed and elaborate lies about allegedly being held hostage and threatened, she can certainly get them to lie about allegedly being molested, witnessing alleged molestation and allegedly being given alcohol. Shawn Holley, appearing on E!’s trial reenactment program, commented about how the mother has a large influence on these children. From the show:

HOLLEY: …No. She is what she is from the start. And as we said before, not only does she lack credibility as we’ll see, but also she had to have had a tremendous influence on these children. It’s very sad.

Even prosecutor Rikki Klieman commented that the mother’s testimony has caused her to have to consider the fact that Jackson is innocent of these set of charges leveled against him. She says she has a new respect for the presumption of innocence. From the show:

I wanna echo that because I really had an enormous change of heart last night. I wanna be in – I’m serious. It was like a crisis of conscience. I went in, I read the transcript, and as I’m reading the transcript I went ‘oh my goodness, we have to really consider the possibility that he is completely, utterly innocent of this crime’ by virtue of reading the transcript of this mother. It’s not only that she’s crazy, it’s exactly what Shawn said. She’s so manipulative in a way that nothing about the law stands in her way to get what she wants that she could have had enough influence over these kids. And it’s the first time where I really understood the presumption of innocence in this case.
 
 
 

That’s why the information about the “conspiracy” and the JC Penney lawsuit is so important. The two are inextricably linked because the jury may not buy that they made up this elaborate “conspiracy”, but are telling the absolute truth about alleged “molestation”. That doesn’t wash. Stay tuned. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *