Defense Continues to Knock Down Prosecution Allegations – MB#265 Testimonies of Violet Silva and Joe Marcus paint much different picture of Arvizo family than prosecutors have MAY 11 2005 — Michael Jackson’s defense team continues to tear down the charges against him with two very important witnesses who have all but completely obliterated the conspiracy theory. Much has been made about a directive at the gates of Neverland instructing that the Arvizo boys were not to be let off the property. The prosecution, and their sympathetic media pundits alike, used that directive as proof to suggest the family was being held hostage. One thing that never made sense was – if the prosecution’s allegation was correct – why the directive didn’t say not to let the “entire family” off the Ranch. Now through testimony, we have the full story that prosecutors didn’t want to tell the jury. The defense revealed that Ranch Manager Joe Marcus issued the directive because these specific children, reportedly 13 and 12 at the time, had actually gotten into some of the Neverland vehicles and started driving them around the property. The staff had to physically stop them. The children were also scheduled on that day, Feb 19 2003, to be at Neverland because their interview for the Fox rebuttal documentary was at first scheduled to be recorded at Neverland. Their interview never made it in the final cut, by the way. The directive was also there because they were currently unaccompanied by an adult; not even Jackson. These specific kids, the Arvizos, were very disruptive and there was concern by the staff that they would again get into these vehicles and take them onto the open road outside of the gates of the Ranch. The staff could have just kicked them off the Ranch and made them society’s problem, but for whatever reason, they may have wanted to make sure these kids were ok. Although it was Neverland policy not to let any children off the Ranch unsupervised, these particular hellions were doing things without being reprimanded by Janet Arvizo, their mother. It is unclear if Jackson himself was even on the property when some of their disruptive behavior would take place. Violet Silva was the first to confirm this behavior. Silva confirmed that these particular children, the Arvizo hellraisers, were beyond a little mischievous. According to a report from the Santa Barbara News Press dated May 10 2005 titled “Workers: Boys were out of control”:

Violet Silva, head of security now and when the family visited the ranch in early 2003, testified in the Santa Maria courtroom that the young teens were caught driving Mr. Jackson’s Navigator and the ranch’s Chevy Astro. “They were pretty reckless — driving fast in the golf carts and just getting into the ranch vehicles and taking off,” Ms. Silva said during questioning by defense co-counsel Robert Sanger. “We’d have to stop them.” The testimony bolstered the defense contention that the boys were unruly teenagers and that their bad behavior was not the result of an alleged molestation, which the accuser testified occurred later, during the last week of the family’s stay in March 2003. (see Workers: Boys were out of control)

If the Arvizos were bold enough to do this, they certainly would be bold enough to rifle through Jackson’s personal stuff. This spills over into the allegations of them being caught getting in Jackson’s personal adult material, telling three different stories about alcohol and getting into the wine cellar when Jackson wasn’t there. It also goes a very long way to prove that these kids’ behavior had nothing to do with “molestation”. If they were acting a fool way before any of these allegations, then their behavior wouldn’t have a damn thing to with that. This all but voids any “expert testimony” suggesting such. According to the courtroom transcripts via E! Trial Reenactments, Silva testified to the following under defense attorney Robert Sanger’s questioning:

ROBERT SANGER: Alright. Now, let’s talk about up to the point just before February 2003. Do you recall the last time that this family or any members of this family visited the Ranch? VIOLET SILVA: I believe it was the summer of 2002. SANGER: And how were the Arvizo boys behaving during that time in the summer of 2002? SILVA: They were quite active during that time period. … SANGER: Well, you have to be — it’s nice that you’re being polite but we have to ask you to just tell it like it is, whatever it is. SILVA: They were pretty reckless at the time. They were driving very fast in the golf carts. They were also driving Ranch vehicles. They’d get in a Ranch vehicle and take off and drive, and we’d have to stop them. You know, they were young. They couldn’t drive a regular vehicle. SANGER: Well, let me stop you at that for a moment. When you say Ranch vehicles, what kind of vehicles did you have to stop them in? SILVA: A regular van, like an Astro van. Mr. Jackson’s personal vehicle, a navigator at the time. Other things like — they were pretty destructive, I would say. (E! Trial Reenactments air date: May 10 2005)

Silva says once they actually drove the golf carts outside the gates on Neverland and onto the open road. Hence, the staff may have been all tense and especially wanted to keep an eye on these two kids to keep them from either hurting themselves or other people. Silva also cleared up the issue of the log files. Prosecutors tried to insinuate that the log books of Neverland concerning the Arvizo grifters weren’t at Neverland when they raided it. Silva testified that the cops actually searched the place where the logs were and didn’t take them. She says she went behind the police to see what was taken, she opened the file cabinet where the logs were kept and there they were. She testified she got them and turned them over to Jackson’s attorney at the time, which was Mark Geragos. Long story short, no one was hiding these logs from anyone like the prosecution tried to insinuate earlier in this trial. Neverland Ranch Manager Joe Marcus also testified and corroborated Silva’s testimony. He confirmed that it was he who issued the directive for security reasons. From an AP report dated May 10 2005 titled “Neverland Manager Speaks at Jackson Trial”:

Marcus said the reason for the order was that the boys often drove vehicles around the property, raising safety concerns. He said he was determined to prevent them from taking the vehicles out onto the open road. (see Neverland Manager Speaks at Jackson Trial)

Marcus, by the way, is NOT one of the prosecution-alleged “co-conspirators”. He testified he was not instructed to hold anybody against their will. As a matter of fact, Marcus himself once chauffeured the family off the ranch during the prosecution’s ridiculous “hostage” timeline: once to go shopping and once to go to a dental appointment. On both outings, Marcus stayed in the car while the family did whatever they wanted to do. More from that AP article:

“Did you ever receive any instructions from anyone to hold the (family) against their will?” Jackson attorney Robert Sanger asked. “No,” said Marcus. … “Did (the mother) seem to you to want to leave the ranch and she was not allowed to do so?” Sanger asked. “No,” said Marcus. “Did she ever complain to you about anything?” Sanger asked. “Never,” said Marcus. … “Were you there to guard them?” asked Sanger. “No,” said Marcus. When they went on a shopping trip in nearby Solvang, Marcus said, he stayed at the car while they wandered around the popular Danish-style tourist town shopping for an hour. Sanger asked if there was ever a time during that shopping trip and others when the mother was followed by a “positive PR film crew,” something she described on the witness stand. “Not to my knowledge,” Marcus said. (see Neverland Manager Speaks at Jackson Trial)

Marcus’s testimony all but put the final nail in the coffin of the conspiracy/kidnapping charge. Not only did Marcus twice take them off the Ranch at their request, but he also testified to another ridiculous allegation the Arvizos made. They all claimed they were held at Neverland and were kept away from clocks and dates. Marcus confirmed that there were no less than 6 different clocks in plain view on the outside and many more in various buildings around Neverland. Marcus, who has worked at Neverland for 18 years, testified that in all those years he’s never seen Jackson act inappropriately with any child, nor had he ever seen anything illegal. The defense is methodically and surgically attacking prosecution theories and witnesses. The public has already learned that, unlike what the prosecution claimed, little girls too have a history of sleeping in Jackson’s bed and two-story “bedroom” (personal living quarters). This completely kills the “obsessed with little boys” theory. There was also testimony from entire families who were around Jackson at various times, which confirmed that Jackson didn’t isolate these children from their families, tearing through another prosecution theory. And the only thing prosecutors are left with is to try to take attention away from that devastating testimony by asking the witness’ opinions about adult material. They did it with a number of defense witnesses already and tried to do it with Joe Marcus. Their strategy seems to be that when things are looking bleak, pull out some legal adult material and start talking about it. Some say the jury may already have grown tired of the discussion of adult material long before now. Grasping at straws, one of the prosecutors showed Marcus a picture of Jackson’s desk in his private office upon which were “tiny figurines of women in bondage attire” (see Neverland manager denies accuser’s family was held captive). Not “little boys”, but women. For the record, nobody has alleged that anything nefarious has been done with these art figurines, nor is Jackson accused of showing them to any child. But, as they try to distract from the issue before the court, the prosecution asked Marcus about these tiny figurines. From an AP report dated May 10 2005 titled “Neverland manager denies accuser’s family was held captive”:

The prosecutor then showed a picture of Jackson’s desk with tiny figurines of women in bondage attire standing upon it. “Would you consider the figurines I showed you adult materials?” the prosecutor asked. “A type of artwork of an adult nature,” said Marcus. “Do you think it’s appropriate for children to be exposed to these?” Auchincloss asked. Marcus paused and quietly said no. (see Neverland manager denies accuser’s family was held captive)

Again, there is no allegation before the court that any child was “exposed” to these tiny figurines. And Marcus’s opinion about these figurines is as irrelevant as Robson’s opinion about an art book that was sent to Jackson by one of his fans two decades ago. Marcus was also asked to name some female children with whom Jackson had a “special bond.” Of course, we can all tick off the male children because the media and prosecutors have made a point of alleging they were “victims” for 12 years now. What they have neglected to name are little girls who have had a close relationship with Jackson. Marcus could cite two on the stand: the grand child of Marlon Brando, and Karlee Barnes, Brett Barnes’s sister. The public also knows from testimony, Chantal Robson (Wade Robson’s sister) also had a very close bond with Jackson. Chantal has testified that she too slept in Jackson’s bed numerous times. This is also something she said back in 1993. There was also a question posed to one prosecution witness weeks ago about Kidada Jones (Quincy Jones’s daughter) and Nicole Ritchie (Lionel Ritchie’s daughter). Jackson has known both Jones and Ritchie since they were children and both have logged time at Neverland. Just piecing together this info, the public knows that there were at least 5 girls who have had a “special friendship” with Jackson. But the media – and the prosecutors for that matter – have no interest in making sure the public knows this information because it directly contradicts the prosecution theory that Jackson is “obsessed with young boys”. Marcus couldn’t tick off the names of the girls, although he says young girls too were around Jackson. The prosecution then asked him to name some of the adult women that he’s seen Jackson spend time with over the years outside of his two marriages. Marcus says he couldn’t recall the names, but that there had been a number of them. Why this would even be any of Marcus’s business anyway is beyond a number of non-media observers. This question is something he wouldn’t have been able to answer unless Jackson had a specific habit of telling him who he was spending time with, which Jackson didn’t. Would Jackson have gone around introducing the latest woman he was seeing to his Ranch Manager and staff?? Doubt it. It’s not like he would have called a staff meeting and announced, “Hey, I’d like you all to meet the latest woman I’m screwing….”. It just wouldn’t happen. By all accounts, Jackson is a very private person. For example, he and Lisa Presley were already married for 3 months before she finally had to issue a statement to the media confirming the rumors. And the prosecution may have been fishing for information by asking Marcus these questions anyway. Marcus was still on the stand at days end yesterday (May 10). According to recent reports, Mac Culkin and possibly Chris Tucker are expected to take the stand today and/or Thursday. Stay tuned. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply

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