May 26 2003 Trial

Posted by

MAY 26 2005 — Apparently the prosecution aren¬ít aware of the old saying “When you’re in a hole, quit digging”. They want to bring in a police taped interview of the accuser, Gavin Arvizo, done in July 2003. The judge is allowing them to play an edited version of that tape. For the record, after each side rests it’s case, the prosecution gets to put on a rebuttal case, after which the defense gets to put on a surrebuttal case. The prosecution didn’t show this tape during their case-in-chief. Some observers say that the defense’s case was so devastating to the prosecution, that prosecutors now want a second chance to put on a case during their rebuttal phase. The defense of course isn’t taking this lying down. Since the judge has decided to allow prosecutors a second stab at it, the defense will now call the accuser, his mother, Larry Feldman and Stan Katz to the stand as hostile witnesses during their surrebuttal case. By prosecutors playing this tape, it opens the door for the defense to get a second chance at this accuser and his mother. While some pro-prosecution pundits see this as a good thing, other pro-prosecution pundits and pro-defense pundits see this as a possible disaster for the prosecution. If the defense calls the accuser to the stand in their surrebuttal case, they can now ask him about a number of things that have come out already during the course of this trial. They could possibly walk Gavin Arvizo through the prosecution’s ridiculous timeline. A timeline which drastically changed from the original charging document filed against Jackson in Dec 2003 and the indictment. Not a lot of pundits want to get into this fact, but originally — according to the original charges filed against Jackson — the accuser claimed abuse BEGAN Feb 7 2003. But according to the indictment in 2004, he claimed abuse BEGAN Feb 20 2003. Some have speculated that prosecutors changed the dates specifically because of all the prior statements this entire family made after Feb 7 2003, which directly contradict what the accuser would later allege. It was after Feb 7 that the accuser was still saying Jackson never molested him. He and his family denied abuse to the LA Dept of Children & Family Services. He and his family denied abuse to Bradley Miller, who came to Maj. Jay Jackson’s apartment to interview the family, reportedly on Feb 16 2003. There’s also the issue of the details of the allegations. Reportedly, those too have changed over time. At one point, according to, the accuser alleged Jackson tried to give him pills, not alcohol. He told the story that Jackson sent him to a Neverland chef to get those pills. This is sure to be brought up by Mesereau. It’s not a stretch to say the defense may point out every single inconsistency in the accuser’s story and possibly put a big fat spotlight on the changing timeline. The defense may also get another crack at Janet Arvizo, Larry Feldman and Stan Katz; knowing now all that they know. Also the defense may get into a line of questioning concerning who was where, and when they were around Jackson. Azja Pryor testified that the mother complained to her that the family was being kept away from Jackson during the prosecution’s alleged “molestation” timeline. Defense attorneys may ask Gavin or Janet Arvizo about whether or not he was being kept away from Jackson. If he says no they weren’t being kept from Jackson, then he’ll be calling both Azja Pryor and his mother a liar. Pryor, by all accounts, came off as totally credible, sympathetic and having a real affinity for the accuser and his siblings. It’ll also be on the record that the accuser called his mother a liar. If he says yes he was being kept away from Jackson, then of course the defense is going to ask how in hell Jackson would have had the opportunity to molest him if they were being kept away from him. This has the possibility of being disastrous for a prosecution who may think the defense is bluffing about recalling the accuser. Some also make the point that prosecutors may have thought the defense was bluffing about turning the 1108 nonsense into little mini-trials, too. But the defense did just that, which included making the prosecutors look like unethical fools when they called Wade Robson, Brett Barnes and Mac Culkin to the stand to tell their story. But then again, this entire “case” was a disaster from the outset and prosecutors appear not to have learned their lesson, say some observers. No 1993 Photos The prosecution also tried to weasel in the 1993 photographs of Jackson’s genitalia, claiming that the 1993 accuser’s description of Jackson’s genitalia matched. The judge said no to that prosecution request. The 1993 accuser, Jordan Chandler, prefers to sit on his insurance money instead of coming to court to testify, so the defense would have no way of cross-examining him. They would need to establish when this description was given and whether or not there were previous non-matching descriptions given before he finally got it right. For 12 years now, there has been information floating around that Chandler gave approx 2 different descriptions of Jackson’s body before he finally gave one that apparently “matched”, conveniently only after police had already taken pictures of Jackson’s body back in 1993. According to old reports, one description by the accuser apparently was that Jackson had his original dark skin from the waist down. Also according to those reports, another description claimed he had a tattoo the lower portion of his body and had no blemishes on his body. Suddenly, the police get the photographs of Jackson in 1993, and Chandler accuser magically comes up with the right description? The defense would have certainly needed to be provided with a chance to ask about these reports and cross-examine Chandler, whose story has never been cross-examined on the stand by anyone in 12 years. Had the judge ruled in the prosecution’s favor, I wouldn’t be surprised if the defense would have tracked down Chandler, subpoenaed him and called him as a hostile witness. Remember, this is someone who apparently doesn’t want anything to do with being challenged about his allegations against Jackson because he has purposely not cooperated with prosecutors in this “case”. Ridiculous Alcohol allegation In their rebuttal case, the prosecution put Jesus Salas back on the stand to talk about alcohol. He made the allegation that during the prosecution’s timeline, Jackson was “intoxicated” 4-5 times a week. Some court observers actually found this allegation to be rather ridiculous for a number of reasons. One main question was how could Jackson have been intoxicated 4-5 times a week and there not be a string of witnesses who confirm this? There really hasn’t been any witness, on the prosecution side or the defense side, who claims Jackson was intoxicated 4-5 times a week during this time. It’s a little more than suspicious that Salas would be the only person to see this IF Jackson was intoxicated these many nights over a 2 month period of time. That’s simply isn’t logical. Salas also says that the accuser and brother slept in Jackson’s room 90% of this time. It’s unclear if Jackson was even at Neverland 90% of this time, let alone sleeping in the same room with the Arvizos. We’ve already had testimony from several witnesses corroborating that they were assigned to sleep in a guest suite, not in Jackson’s bedroom during that time. More info as we get it.

Leave a Reply