Astonishing Revelations from Mary Holzer – MB#272 JUNE 9 2005 — As we wait for the jury’s verdict, let’s go back and discuss some details concerning the testimony of Mary Holzer. Testifying on May 24 2005, defense witness Mary Holzer revealed that Janet Arvizo (Janet A.) coached her kids to lie to authorities and to doctors in relation to the $3 Million lawsuit she filed against JC Penney. Holzer is the paralegal who worked for the firm Feldman & Rothstein; the firm that represented her in that lawsuit. You may be familiar with the JC Penney lawsuit. The Arvizo brothers were caught in the mall parking lot with unpaid merchandise from JC Penney. To put it bluntly, they were shoplifting. Security stopped them in the parking lot and an altercation ensued. The lawyer who represented JC Penney spoke out in an interview in March 2004 with NBC. NBC got their hands on over 100 pages of documents related to that case, although they haven’t released any of it nor have they done a follow-up report about it. Anyway, included in those 100 pages were psychiatrist reports of Janet A. The psychiatrist hired by the department store found Janet A. to be “schizophrenic and delusional and severely depressed” (see ‘The Abrams Report’ for March 4 2004: JC Penny lawyer speaks out). The report says Janet A. was “sad over being a nobody…a sad housewife getting fat.” She accused the guards of brutally beating the family.What’s worse is that, reportedly, 2 years after the incident, Janet A. tacked on another allegation of sexual molestation against one of the guards. She said one guard “fondled her breasts and pelvic area for up to seven minutes” in broad daylight. And she claimed in the deposition that they reportedly pinched her breasts about 25 times; allegations she later got her children to echo. None of them said anything about this before that time, during the initial filing of the lawsuit. But they all fell in line right behind Ma’ Arvizo. Gavin Arvizo apparently used a broken arm obtained during a baseball game (as Azja Pryor says she was told) as “evidence” against JC Penney. Did I mention that Janet A., during her testimony, had to admit she lied in her deposition? She was asked certain questions about her family which had the effect of putting her in the position of either admitting she lied back then, or she’d have to admit to lying now. The second option just wasn’t feasible. Getting back to Holzer’s testimony, she says she had a lot of contact with Janet A. during the JC Penney litigation. She says she was in-charge of basically holding the hand of Arvizos; chauffeuring them around, helping out with child care, etc. From the transcript:

HOLZER: I was in charge of — I don’t want to call it hand-holding, but pretty much — they didn’t have a car, so I drove them to appearances. I sometimes helped out when they didn’t have child care, when they needed — if David or Janet needed to go somewhere for the case. Not personal. (1-6 (pg 11747))

Holzer says she talked to Janet A. on a daily basis, sometimes several times a day during this period. Although Holzer says she saw Arvizo as a “client”, she testified about the effusive nature of the children. Apparently their shtick is to tell people – people whom they barely know — that they love them. She testified that the children would come to the law office every once in a while, play, and tell her how much they loved her:

HOLZER: They would come into the office. Usually they would pop in every once in a while and the children would come in my office, and sit on my lap, and draw me pictures, tell me how much they loved me, and write little notes and post it on my pin board, and say how great I was, and that I was helping their family. MESEREAU: Would Janet tell you how great you were? HOLZER: Yes. 1-9 (pg 11748)

Holzer says Janet A. would say things like when the JC Penney case was over, she was going to have a “girl’s weekend” in Las Vegas with Holzer. Holzer says she never went to Las Vegas with Arvizo. And she appears not to have wanted to go anyway. Holzer’s chauffeuring duties included taking the family to “Defense Independent Medical Examinations, mediation, the minors’ comps, hearings, depositions.” She say she drove them to such appointments more times than she could count. __He’s ready for his close up, Mr. Sneddon__ Mesereau asked Holzer about whether or not Janet A. talked of sending Gavin and Star A. to acting classes. According to Holzer, Janet A. confessed that she wanted her children to become “good actors” so she could tell them what to say:

BY MR. MESEREAU: What did Janet Arvizo tell you about her children learning to act? HOLZER: She said she wanted them to become good actors so she could tell them what to say and how to behave. MESEREAU: Did she ever say anything to you about Gavin getting his stories straight in the J.C. Penney case? HOLZER: Yes. MESEREAU: What did she say? HOLZER: She said she wasn’t worried. This was at the Independent Medical Examination for psychiatric of all three, Gavin, Star and Janet. And when we were at the doctor’s office, she was very concerned about them completing general forms, you know, like, “Generally do you feel happy?” “Generally do you feel sad?” You know, “What kind of days” — “How do you feel when you wake up?” Those kind of forms. And she refused to have the children fill them out. And then she wanted to participate in the medical examinations with the doctor and the children. And I asked her, you know, I said, you know, “It doesn’t work that way.” You know, “The doctor sees the children on their own.” You know, “You can’t go in there.” And she said, “Well, I’m pretty sure Gavin will get the story straight, but I’m not sure Star will remember what we practiced and what I told him to say.” 18-28 | 1-19 (p 11761-11762)

Wow. She didn’t want them to fill out the forms; didn’t want them to see the doctors by themselves. And she was afraid Star A. wouldn’t remember what she told him to say. And more telling, she says she was “pretty sure Gavin will get the story straight”. That means she didn’t worry about Gavin A. remembering the lines she practiced with him; even when he was much younger than he was in 2003. These types of revelations put an entirely different view on everything; even that summer 2003 police video. By that time, Gavin A. was already well-trained; having had those acting lessons and having talked to at least 2 attorneys and psychologist Stan Katz. The mother “practicing” or coaching them was also a point made by more than one defense witness as well. And there’s no telling how many times she practiced Gavin A. for his latest role as the victimized and molested recovering cancer patient. __Arvizo’s gift for spotting devils__ She talked about one weird episode at one of the independent medical examinations for the JC Penney litigation. This is where the doctors were supposed to determine the extent of their alleged injuries thought to be inflicted by the JC Penney guards. Janet A. threw herself down on the ground and proceeded to throw a complete temper tantrum. Arvizo was calling doctors “the devil” just as she would later call Jackson “the devil” in the grand jury proceedings in 2004. Specifics from the court transcripts:

BY MR. MESEREAU: What did Janet Arvizo do in the driveway when she was there for that examination? HOLZER: She threw herself down on the ground, started kicking and screaming, carrying on that the doctor was the devil, and the nurses were the devil, and they were all out to get her. And I explained to her that they were only asking her standard questions that they ask in an Independent Medical Examination; that — the history of her injuries and how she obtained the injuries. And she was very defensive. And they asked us to leave because she was so irate. MESEREAU: Did you leave? HOLZER: Yes, I took her out. 28, 1-14 (pg 11750)

It appears Jackson isn’t the first person to be accused of being the devil. It also seems as if she was stalling and may not have wanted to go through with that particular appointment…at least not until she got her story straight. __Tales of the photographs __ Mesereau talked about the photographs showing some bruises on the mother’s body taken as part of the JC Penney litigation. Prosecutors showed the jury these photographs as some sort of proof of Arvizo’s claims against the department store. However, Holzer testified the mother confessed to her that the bruises in those photographs were inflicted upon her by David Arvizo, the biological father. From the transcript:

MESEREAU: Did you ever have a chance to discuss with Janet Arvizo those photographs? HOLZER: Yes. MESEREAU: And what did she tell you about those photographs while that lawsuit was going on? HOLZER: She told me that the bruises that were on her body were inflicted by David that night after the altercation at J.C. Penney’s. (11-18 (pg 11757))

This is certainly not what prosecutors wanted the jury to hear. But whether Janet A. even told the truth about these bruises still remains to be seen. If she told this to Holzer, that would certainly explain why, in the mug shot taken directly after the altercation, there are no bruises, no busted nose, no split lip, no redness or swelling anywhere on Janet A. Oddly enough, there wasn’t a hair out of place and she even appears to have a very slight smile on her face in that mug shot posted on Matt Drudge’s website. Either way, this info was kept from JC Penney. And more than likely, they certainly wouldn’t have settled the case had they known about this confession. __Threats, threats and more threats__ When this confession was made, what did Holzer do? She testified that she was scared because when a client admits to fraud it’s a very scary situation to be in. She testified she told Janet A. that she couldn’t do such things; that she needed to retract the allegation to talk to Mr. Rothstein, the attorney. From the transcript:

MESEREAU: And what was your response to her telling you that? HOLZER: Well, it scared me. MESEREAU: Why? HOLZER: Well, I represent my law firm, and when a client admits to fraud, it’s kind of scary. MESEREAU: And did you say anything to Mrs. Arvizo in response? HOLZER: Yes, I did. MESEREAU: What did you say to Ms. Arvizo about that? HOLZER: I told her that she couldn’t do that, that that was wrong, and that, you know, she needed to retract that, and that she needed to speak to Mr. Rothstein about it. MESEREAU: Did you tell her that was fraudulent? HOLZER: I don’t know whether I used that word. I told her it was wrong; that “You can’t do that.” MESEREAU: And — HOLZER: I was very upset. (19-28 | 1-9 (pg 11757))

One has to wonder if JC Penney will press charges for fraud against this family, assuming a statue of limitations haven’t expired. They may not want to be bothered anymore with the Arvizos. But this is absolutely devastating testimony. No doubt about it. Janet A. told Holzer not to tell anyone because at the time, she was in a custody battle with the biological father, David A. This custody battle could explain why she suddenly started blaming David A. for those bruises? Or she may have been flat-out lying. Holzer says she and her 9 year old were threatened in a round-about way; not directly by Janet A., though. According to Holzer, the scheming mother told her David A.’s brother was in the Mexican mafia and know where she lived. I kid you not. From the transcript:

MESEREAU: Did she threaten you? HOLZER: Yes, she did. MESEREAU: How? HOLZER: She told me that David’s brother Ray is in the Mexican mafia and runs drugs between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, and that she knows where I live, because she had been to my house on several occasions, and they would come and kill me and my nine-year-old daughter. MESEREAU: Did this terrify you? HOLZER: Yes. MESEREAU: Did you ever tell anyone at the law firm about what Janet had told you? HOLZER: No, I did not. (15-28 (pg 11758))

Now we have the mother manipulating Holzer by throwing around threats against Holzer and her daughter. She obviously knew Holzer could have put a stop to the JC Penney case. So here comes this cunning threat. A threat which, again, set Janet A. as an innocent victim and the husband as the evildoer. Couple this threat with the insane behavior of Janet A. at the doctor’s office, and Holzer may not have wanted to take any chances. She says she also had more conversations with Janet A. about the false JC Penney claim. She testified she tried to get Janet A to talk to Mr. Rothstein, her boss. Again, Holzer says, Janet A. threw the threat of David A.’s brother in her face. From the transcript:

MESEREAU: Or, let me rephrase it. Did you ever have any further discussions with her about the fake claims against J.C. Penney? HOLZER: I did. I tried to get her to speak to Mr. Rothstein about it. I asked her if I could speak to Mr. Rothstein about it, because we run a clean law firm, and I really didn’t feel that we should be involved in something like that. And she proceeded to call me daily and tell me she had told David, and David was raging mad, and that he was going to come after me, and that I better watch my back. MESEREAU: How many times do you think Janet Arvizo threatened you and your daughter? HOLZER: I’d say about eight, nine times. (7-21 (p 11759))

Who even knows if David A. has a brother in the Mexican mafia. But in her extremely manipulative way, Janet A. would constantly remind Holzer about how afraid she was for Holzer and Holzer’s daughter. According to Holzer, the mother would say “ …that she didn’t want to see anything bad happen to us, because she considered me her dear friend” (p 11759). Mesereau then directly asked Holzer if she considered Janet A. to even be a “dear friend” of hers. Her answer: “Not at all. I was just doing my job” (2, pg 11760). Ouch. It was Holzer’s job to secure the blocked bank accounts for the Arvizo brothers. By law, it’s required that any monetary settlement made to someone under the age of 18 have an account that is untouchable by the parent. Holzer is the one who purchased the certificates of deposit at the bank so that “they roll over until they’re 18.” Janet A. went with her to fill out these forms, so she obviously knew all about these accounts; accounts with money that was earning interest all while Arvizo was collecting welfare. Holzer says Janet A. also talked about Jackson as well. She says Janet A. actually invited her and her daughter to come to Neverland with her family. She says Janet A. described Jackson as “wonderful” and told Holzer that her daughter would have a wonderful time there. The paralegal, however, never accepted Arvizo’s invitation. At no point during the JC Penney case did Janet A. want to inform JC Penney that she lied under oath. And forget about giving the settlement money back! At the beginning of this trial, prosecutors tried to paint David A, the biological father, as the opportunistic con-artist. This was undercut somewhat with Holzer’s testimony. It came out under cross-examination that David A. dropped out of the JC Penney litigation and didn’t receive any money from that settlement. And Zonen seemed shocked at that. From the transcript:

BY MR. ZONEN: And from that settlement was spent all the expenses, was paid for the expenses; is that correct? HOLZER: A. Some of it was expenses. There was attorney fees. There was expert fees. ZONEN: Yes. HOLZER: The children received a portion. ZONEN: Yes. HOLZER: And David rejected any portion. And, you know, he had dropped out of the case, so…. ZONEN: David Arvizo was paid nothing? HOLZER: Paid nothing. ZONEN: Are you certain? HOLZER: Yes. 4-17 (p 11764)

Not exactly something a money-grubbing shyster would do. Ironically, through Zonen’s cross-examination, he established that the mother didn’t go to the emergency room directly after being arrested in the JC Penney altercation until over an hour after David A., too, was released from jail. Reports from some pro-prosecution pundits previously suggested that Zonen “clearly established” that there was no time for Janet A. to get beaten up by David A. before checking herself into a clinic after the altercation. Well that’s not exactly true. Janet A. told Holzer, according to testimony, that David A. was furious over the JC Penney altercation and apparently the way it escalated into an arrest. Holzer explained to the prosecutor the story Janet A. told her. From the transcript:

ZONEN: Did she tell you that she went home and picked up the children first? HOLZER: She told me that when they got — she said when they got home — these were her words. When they got home, David was raging mad and accused her of creating the chaos at J.C. Penney’s and Tower Records. 22-28 (p 11769)

Again, Holzer can only testify as to what Janet A. said. She would have no way of knowing whether or not it was David A. who actually beat her and caused those bruises outside of the mother’s word. Another reason why it’s always good to actually read the transcripts instead of relying on the media is the way certain pundits tried to overstate what prosecutors tried to do on cross-examination. I specifically remember one of the talking-heads on Court TV emphatically state that Zonen made a good point that Holzer had later contact with Janet A. after the settlement, someone who was “instrumental in arranging the assassination of” Holzer’s child; insinuating that Holzer may be lying. Well, it turns out that Zonen was misstating Holzer’s testimony. Remember, Holzer previously said Janet A. claimed her husband had a brother in the Mexican mafia. Still with me? Now, Holzer also described the threats as coming from the husband and his brother. So some years later when Arvizo sought help from Holzer again, Holzer tried to get her help by going with her to see attorney Michael Manning. By the way, Manning is the divorce attorney who was quoted in the AP as saying that Janet A. had nothing but good things to say about Jackson as late as “April or May” of 2003 (see Lawyer: Jackson accuser never mentioned alleged abuse). But it was Zonen who tried to make a big deal out of Holzer helping the mother years later. He’d ask questions like “Did you just tell Mr. Mesereau on direct exam that she had threatened to have your child killed?” Uh no. Holzer never said the mother threatened to have her child killed. She said the ex-husband had a brother who was in the Mexican mafia. Holzer may have been more threatened of the husband and wanted to make sure Janet A. took steps to get him off the street. Hence, the help. Tale of the photos….revisited On-redirect by Mesereau, he says those photos of a bruised Janet A. were taken at least a week after the JC Penney altercation. And she didn’t seek to file a lawsuit through Rothstein’s law firm until at least 9 months after the actual incident in the parking lot. From the transcripts:

BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever see the booking photos at the jail which were taken when Janet Arvizo was arrested the day of the J.C. Penney events? … MESEREAU: They don’t show any injuries, do they? HOLZER: No. MESEREAU: Do you recall ever asking her, “When did you take the photograph that shows the injuries?” that Prosecutor Zonen just described? HOLZER: No, I never asked her. MESEREAU: And just to clarify, how long after the J.C. Penney incident did your law firm get involved with the Arvizos, if you know? HOLZER: I would say nine months maybe. 10-13…17-26 (p 11783)

__Possible witness tampering?__ Holzer said Arvizo even called her 3 or 4 months ago (as of Holzer’s May 24 2005 testimony). So as of Feb or March 2005, Janet A. may have been attempting to weasel her way back into Holzer’s life; possibly in hopes of forestalling Holzer from testifying for the defense. She says Janet A. told her Jackson was now the devil. From the transcript:

BY MR. MESEREAU: When did you last talk to Janet Arvizo? … THE WITNESS: She called me, I would say, about three, four months ago. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you know why? HOLZER: She wanted to be friends. MESEREAU: What did you say? HOLZER: I said I was very busy. MESEREAU: Did she say anything else? HOLZER: She asked me to call her. She’d like to get together and maybe have a girls’ weekend. And that she had just had a baby and she was remarried. And I felt like — … BY MR. MESEREAU: Did she say anything about this case at any time? HOLZER: No. MESEREAU: Did she say anything about the J.C. Penney case? HOLZER: Well, yes, she did. I rephrase that. Yes, she did. MESEREAU: Did she talk about the J.C. Penney case? HOLZER: No, she talked about this case. MESEREAU: Did she remind you of her threats? HOLZER: No. She proceeded to tell me that Michael Jackson was no longer her savior. He was now the devil. 17-18…23-28 | 1-5…9-21 (p 11787-11788)

Suddenly out of the blue, Arvizo wants to be “friends”? Have a “girls’ weekend?” This wouldn’t have anything at all to do with the fact Holzer’s name came up as a possible defense witness, would it? Remember, it was Feb 25 2005 when ABC News broke the story about the paralegal being deposed over a weekend by both the defense and the prosecution (see Mystery Witness Emerges in Jackson Case). Could Janet A. have tried unsuccessfully to tamper with this witness in some way? Has she attempted to do this with other witnesses? Who knows. But Holzer’s testimony put Janet A. as coaching her children to be liars. She coached them to lie to the doctors when the boys were being examined. Most observers say she coached them to lie under oath in the JC Penney deposition. Gavin A. himself admitted on the stand that he lied under oath in the JC Penney lawsuit. Holzer says Janet A. made sure the brothers, particularly, got acting lessons so she could tell them what to say. On the stand, Gavin A. claims he was acting during that rebuttal interview – the one that didn’t make the final version of the Fox “Take Two” rebuttal special. And this was long before the allegations in this “case” were made and long before his current starring role. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply

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