Trial Review: Testimony of Brother Filled with Inconsistencies & Illogical Allegations – MB #293 DECEMBER 27 2005 – Continuing our look back at the Michael Jackson trial, MJEOL comes to the testimony of the accuser’s brother, Star Arvizo (Star A.). The younger Arvizo alleged to have witnessed sexual abuse, twice, against his brother. His alleged eye witness accounts seemed, to many, to be a bit too coincidental upon first hearing about them in various media reports. As with the accuser’s sister (Davellin Arvizo), having the brother back up some of the allegations is a form of built-in corroboration…if you want to believe the tall-tale. Remember, this is the same person Chris Tucker testified was so smooth that he would feel like checking the younger Arvizo’s pockets before they left Tucker’s house. Tucker called Star A. “definitely cumming”, and said Star A. would say things “all the time like, ‘You got too much stuff.’ And, ‘you don’t need all this stuff’ ” (p 12051 lines 25-27). The Rush Hour actor also told the jury that he never really trusted Star A. When Mesereau started to ask questions about Star A’s allegations, the figurative wheels fell off of his story. He was not a credible witness at all and it may have had something to do with the shift in the timeline. If you remember, there were initial charges filed against Jackson by Sneddon on Dec 18 2003. Those allegations claimed “molestation” began around Feb 7 2003. Once information became known about numerous comments the family made — denying any ill-treatment on Jackson’s part and defending his innocence – the timeline shifted. After generating massive media attention by filing charges, Sneddon then took his ridiculous “case” to a secret grand jury. From the grand jury came a different timeline, a different set of charges and a different number of counts. Some observers questioned the backwards nature of these prosecutorial actions, while others flat out disbelieved the timeline. Robert Gottlieb, for example, commented on Court TV (May 17 2005) that the timeline prosecutors tried to sell the jury was illogical. The timeline shift may have been partly due to Star Arvizo’s allegations. Let’s get right into the main allegation, shall we? __Do my eyes deceive me…__ Star A., the younger brother, claimed he sneaked in and stood in a hallway, twice, just in the nick of time to witness alleged “molestation”. One problem with that allegation is Jackson has an alarm which goes off every time someone enters that hallway up to the top level of his “bedroom” (personal living quarters). Oops! Star A. even testified that the bell was going off when he claimed to have seen his brother’s alleged “abuse”. He was asked about that alarm. From his testimony:

MESEREAU: And your understanding is that the purpose of that bell is to let Michael Jackson know if somebody goes through his hallway, right? STAR A: Yes. MESEREAU: That’s the purpose of the alarm, right? STAR A: Yes. (p 1201 lines 2-7)

Of course the obvious question is how in hell could he have been in that hallway watching his brother getting “molested” if there was an alarm going off? It was all the more perplexing once information came out about just how secure Jackson’s personal living quarters (“bedroom”) is. The description of Jackson’s “bedroom” makes it impossible to “sneak” in undetected not only because of the alarm, but also because of security cameras. Through the younger Arvizo’s testimony, the public not only learned Jackson’s personal living quarters is quite large, but also that there are surveillance cameras inside it. Oops! x 1,000,000. Star A. says that when a person walks through the hallway in the area of Jackson’s bedroom, there is a camera above the door. From his testimony:

MESEREAU: Okay. Do you recall in a police interview, when you were discussing Mr. Jackson’s bedroom, saying, “There’s a camera looking at you”? STAR A: Yes, when you walk through the hallway. MESEREAU: And was there a camera that would look at you when you walked through the hallway into the area of Michael Jackson’s bedroom? STAR A: When you walked into his bedroom, yes. (p 1351 lines 17-24)

So apparently Jackson may not be quite as naïve (or reckless according to critics) as some believed. If he has surveillance of who is going in and out of his “bedroom”, security presumably would be better able to keep an eye on certain people. Mesereau got him to describe this area. Continued from the testimony:

MESEREAU: Do you have any idea if Mr. Jackson could see if anybody was walking into his bedroom through a camera? STAR A: Yes. MESEREAU: Okay. Did you talk to Mr. Jackson about it? STAR A: Yes. MESEREAU: Now, at this point, you had told the police there are sensors that you trip when you go into Mr. Jackson’s bedroom, right? STAR A: Hallway. MESEREAU: Hallway. That’s the hallway going into the bedroom, correct? STAR A: Yes. MESEREAU: And what did you mean by “There are sensors that you trip”? STAR A: A bell goes off. MESEREAU: And to your knowledge, where is the camera? STAR A: Above the doorways. MESEREAU: And which doorway are you talking about? STAR A: The one where you enter Michael’s bedroom. … MESEREAU: Okay. And the camera produces a videotape, right? STAR A: I think so. (p 1352 lines 4-23, p 1353 lines 4-5)

A bell alarm and a surveillance camera? And he wanted the jury to believe that he somehow slipped in undetected, TWICE, and witnessed what he claimed he witnessed. It was another incredulous aspect of his testimony. But that’s not all. Jackson’s “bedroom” has another surveillance camera, attached to videotape, near the fireplace inside his personal living quarters as well. Plus, there are 2 large grocery store-like sensors as one comes into the hallway according to Star A’s testimony:

STAR A: You know how you walk out of the supermarket, and there’s like those things to see if you’re stealing? MESEREAU: Right. STAR A: Those. I was talking about those. MESEREAU: And where are those located? STAR A: On both sides when you exit Michael’s bedroom. … MESEREAU: Okay. Where in the hallway would you find those two big sensors, if you know? STAR A: On both sides. MESEREAU: Of the hallway? STAR A: Yes. (p 1354 lines 1-8, p 1355 12-16)

The description of his “bedroom” segued right into Mesereau asking the obvious question so many have asked: if there is all of this security, how in the world did Star A. manage to allegedly sneak into Jackson’s “bedroom” and witness “molestation”? It’s important to clarify some information before continuing. There were 3 different sets of interviews Star A gave. He gave sheriff’s interviews, grand jury testimony (grand jury) and trial testimony (trial jury) from which Mesereau pulled his information. He was asked about all of them and he was all over the map with inconsistencies. By the time Mesereau got to cross-examination, Star A. had already told the court under prosecution questioning that the lights were on in the hallway where he was standing, and that there was no light on over the bed where he alleged his brother and Jackson were. According to him “The lights above the bed were off…the lighting was from the stairs” (p. 1192, lines 15,19). He told the jury that during both times he was allegedly witnessing “abuse”, the alarm/ bell was going off. Defense attorney Thomas Mesereau asked Star A. about giving different descriptions concerning what he claimed he saw happening in Jackson’s “bedroom”. Star A gave different descriptions about what Jackson was wearing, different descriptions about what his brother was wearing, and different descriptions of the same incident concerning what Jackson is alleged to have done to the accuser. He tried to get out of hard questioning by claiming he didn’t remember what he’d said. This testimony is graphic, but it’s important to note the specific inconsistencies in the accuser’s bother’s testimony. From the transcript:

MESEREAU: Well, there were times you said that Michael Jackson put his hand on top of your brother’s underwear, right? STAR A: I don’t remember saying that. MESEREAU: And there are other times you said he put his hand inside his underwear, right? STAR A: Yes. MESEREAU: And there are times you’ve said your brother was wearing pajamas, right? STAR A: Yes. MESEREAU: There are times you said he was wearing underwear, right? STAR A: I don’t remember. (p 1216 lines 23-28, p 1217 lines 1-7)

“I don’t remember” seemed to be a family theme. As a matter of fact, Star Arvizo has given so many conflicting stories that it seems even he couldn’t remember them all. More from the testimony:

MESEREAU: And there are times you said that Michael Jackson touched his butt and not his crotch, right? STAR A: When was this? MESEREAU: When you did some interviews, right? STAR A: About what? MESEREAU: About what Michael Jackson, you claim, was doing in his bedroom, right? STAR A: I never said he touched his butt. MESEREAU: Did you ever tell anyone that when you saw Michael Jackson in bed with your brother, he was rubbing his butt? STAR A:. No. MESEREAU: Never said that at any time to anybody? STAR A: No. MESEREAU: Never said it to Mr. Katz, right? STAR A: No. MESEREAU: Never said it to the sheriffs, right? STAR A: No. MESEREAU: And never said it to a grand jury, right? STAR A: No.

At some point, Star A. clearly made that allegation. He denied telling psychologist Stan Katz about another allegation involving his brother’s buttocks and smelling marijuana. Evidently Katz told the grand jury many, many allegations supposedly relayed to him by the younger Arvizo, which the younger Arvizo later claimed he didn’t say. When asked about them at trial on the stand by Mesereau, Star A. completely denied ever making such allegations. In effect, his trial testimony contradicted Stan Katz’s grand jury testimony. Thus, the question is was Katz lying to the 2004 grand jury and tacking on allegations to ensure that Jackson would be indicted? Or was Star A. lying to the trial jury on the stand? Star A. told the sheriff’s department that the second time he saw his brother allegedly getting “molested”, he (the brother) was pretending to be asleep on a couch. However, he told the trial jury that the second time he claimed to have seen “molestation”, he was standing in that hallway with bells going off. This isn’t just a small inconsistency. This is a major change between his original eye-witness allegation and his subsequent eye-witness allegation. Further, when being questioned about this, he blurted out “there was actually three times” (p 1365, line 15). Say what?! The story changed….again. And with each addition to the allegation, it looked worse and worse. To make matters worse, he also claimed he saw all of this, including a vodka bottle, over the course of a few seconds. Let’s review: No lights were on in the bedroom where Jackson and the accuser were alleged to be. The only light was where the brother was standing in the hallway. He wasn’t at the top of the stairs, by the way. The door is opened and the security bell in the hallway is going off which is supposed to alert Jackson when someone is coming. This is totally incredulous. What’s more devastating to the allegation is that the younger Arvizo may not have been physically tall enough to see Jackson’s bed from where he claimed he witnessed the alleged “molestation”. Prosecutors previous called a sheriff’s deputy to the stand who took video showing the viewpoint that Star A. would have had when he says he witnessed “molestation”. However, the deputy was about 6 feet tall and took video from that vantage point. Defense attorney Robert Sanger established that the video was in fact not taken from the vantage point of the Star Arvizo who was much much shorter than the deputy at the time. And as if it couldn’t get any worse for prosecutors, Mesereau read excerpts from Star A.’s grand jury testimony and asked questions about it. Star A. was asked at the grand jury if he’d ever seen Jackson touch the accuser’s genitals or penis to which he replied: “I never saw that. I saw it in the paper” (p 1417 lines 1-8). When you see a quotation mark in the testimony quoted below, it signified Mesereau quoting from the earlier interview of Star A.:

MESEREAU: Okay. You were asked the question,

“He would be touching him a lot?” “A. Yeah. “Q. Not his genitals, not his penis? “A. I never saw that.”

STAR A [interrupting]: At the table. MESEREAU [continuing to read from previous testimony]:

“I saw it in the paper.”

STAR A: I saw it on paper? MESEREAU: That’s what you said, right? STAR A: I don’t know what I meant by saying not on paper. (p 1416 line 28, p 1417 lines 1-10)

He doesn’t know what he meant?! Good grief. And clearly he told the grand jury in 2004 that he “saw it in the paper”. Does that mean he read about what he was alleged to have seen in a newspaper? Or did he read it in a document someone handed him to memorize? On the stand, the younger Arvizo tried to put limits on what he was talking about by trying to explain he meant he’d never seen Jackson touch his brother at the dinner table. Later on re-cross, Mesereau asked him about the telling statement again, making it clear that Star A. had never limited his recollection to the dinner table in any previous statements before the trial:

MESEREAU: And in none of your police interviews do you limit that statement about not seeing genitals or penis touched to any table, right? STAR A: No. MESEREAU: Today is the first time you ever limited that statement to what you saw at a table, correct? STAR A: I don’t — yes. (p 1475 lines 11-18)

Either way, it was suspicious as hell and he didn’t provide an adequate explanation of why he would tell the 2004 grand jury that he “saw it in the paper”. It simply smacks of allegations added after the fact; possibly to shore up an initial allegation. A notable moment came during Mesereau’s questioning of the younger Arvizo. He was asked if he had told sheriff’s that one time Jackson walked in front of his brother with an erection. The prosecution wanted to put this out in front of the jury, but the brother apparently didn’t remember saying it. From the testimony:

MESEREAU: Do you remember describing for the Santa Barbara Sheriffs the incident where you say, “Michael Jackson had an erection”? STAR A: No, not really. MESEREAU: Well, you described it for the sheriffs in an interview, didn’t you? STAR A: I don’t know. (p 1367 lines 20-26)

Ouch. Poor prosecutors. He had too many stories to keep straight, I guess. Also, on re-cross, Star A. admitted that the first time he ever mentioned witnessing alleged “molestation” was to Stan Katz. And he even gave a different description of what he saw. From the transcript:

MESEREAU: And you have admitted that you gave Stanley Katz a different description than you’ve given in this courtroom, right? STAR A: Yes. MESEREAU: In fact, you never mentioned the third event that you’ve described today to Stanley Katz? STAR A: Because I might have forgot about it. (p 1475 lines 24-28, p 1476 lines 1-2)

Star A. also admitted he and his brother stayed in Jackson’s room when Jackson wasn’t there. From his testimony:

MESEREAU: You and your brother used to go into that room when Michael wasn’t even at Neverland, right? STAR A: Yes, Michael opened his room up to us so we could sleep there while he was gone. (p 1277 lines 5-8)

Keep this fact in mind because the accuser would later claim they were never in Jackson’s room when he wasn’t there. __Girlie magazines_ One prosecution allegation was that Jackson showed them adult magazines in some sort of absurdly convoluted “grooming” theory. Put aside for a minute the fact that if Jackson was “grooming” Gavin A. for alleged molestation, it wouldn’t explain why he would also show the brother adult magazines too. That was one level of ridiculousness. Star A. was asked about a prosecution exhibit featuring photos taken of a briefcase with adult magazines in them. He was asked by prosecutors to identify the magazines in the briefcase which he did. Under cross-examination came one of those “Perry Mason” or “Matlock” type moments which stunned those who were in the courtroom and those who would later read about it. One of those magazines, “Barely Legal” was identified by Star A. as being the magazine which was supposedly shown to him by Jackson. This turned out to be a total impossibility. From the transcript:

MESEREAU: You told Prosecutor Sneddon that Michael Jackson had showed you those magazines, right? STAR A: Yes. MESEREAU: Michael Jackson never showed you that magazine, “Barely Legal,” did he? STAR A: What? MESEREAU: Michael Jackson never showed you that magazine, “Barely Legal,” did he? STAR A: He did show us. MESEREAU: He did? STAR A: Yes. MESEREAU: Well, Star, did you look at the date of the magazine? It’s August of 2003, is it not? STAR A: Well, I never said that was exactly that one. MESEREAU: Well, your family had left Neverland many months before, never to return, correct? STAR A: That — I’m telling you that that wasn’t exactly the one he showed us. MESEREAU: That’s not what you said yesterday, and it’s not what you said today, right? … MESEREAU: You told the jury yesterday that Michael showed you the particular magazine depicted in the photograph, didn’t you? STAR A: No. I said that he showed us those type of magazines. MESEREAU: You’re saying it now because you just found out what the date is, right? (p 1280 lines 3-23, p 1281 lines 6-12)

Had it been a TV show, the dramatic music would have been playing at that moment. The magazine he claimed to have seen didn’t exist when the family was at Neverland for the last time, so there is no way in the world it could have been shown to him or his brother by Jackson. Previously, the prosecutor went through and identified the pictures shown to him. He was asked if each photo was an accurate depiction of what he was shown and he affirmed it. The briefcase these girlie magazines were in was the subject of questioning as well. Mesereau asked him if he and his brother were ever caught trying to get into that briefcase. He denied it. But he testified that he found the briefcase cracked open. He also denied being caught looking at those magazines. More from his testimony:

MESEREAU: — you told Mr. Sneddon, in no uncertain terms, that those were the magazines you had seen, didn’t you? STAR A: I said those — those are the type of magazines we saw. MESEREAU: Okay. Had you ever seen any girlie magazines in your life before you say Michael Jackson showed them to you? STAR A: Hmm, no. MESEREAU: Never? STAR A: Well, I was only like 11, 12. MESEREAU: Weren’t you caught at Neverland looking in girlie magazines? STAR A: I said no. MESEREAU: No one ever caught you and your brother looking at girlie magazines at Neverland? STAR A: Never. (p 1284 lines 21-28, p 1285 lines 1-9)

The defense contended that the accuser and his brother were snooping around in Jackson’s room and found Jackson’s briefcase of adult material. The jury already knew from Star A.’s own admission that he and his brother were allowed to sleep in Jackson’s room even when he wasn’t there. What’s worse is that one of the Neverland maids, who was in charge of cleaning the guest suites to which Star A. and his older brother were assigned, testified that she found adult magazines in an open backpack carried by the younger Arvizo. __Codes and Locks__ One of the security people gave the master code to keypad locks at Neverland to Star Arvizo, according to his testimony. Either that, or he watched the security person who used the combination to get into various places at Neverland and remembered the code. Star A. not only said he had the master code to the key pad locks at Neverland, he also said he had the 4 digit code to get into Jackson’s “bedroom”. Star A. says the security guard “just showed us one day” (p 1267 lines 25-26). One of Jackson’s hopefully former security guards gave him the master code to Jackson’s ranch which would get them into every door at Neverland, including Jackson’s children’s rooms. Why the hell a security guard would divulge this information is beyond me…unless this was planned. Coincidentally, or maybe not, he was given the master code after they came back from the trip to Miami. Star A. says he used the master code and the code to Jackson’s bedroom “hundreds of times” (many times). And they knew at least some of these codes before the Miami trip, according to Star A. Star A. also voluntarily gave up specific information about what one needed to do to get into Jackson’s wine cellar. Later he would tell the trial jury how to get into the wine cellar and where the key was located. Mesereau said at one point, Star A. asked for the key to get into the wine cellar. It appears that someone actually saw him take that wine cellar key at least once because Mesereau asked him about that also (p 1274-1275). He completely denied it. He denied also being caught drinking alcohol anywhere else either. __Alcohol__ Their allegation was that Jackson had given them all alcohol and that they had only ever drank alcohol at Neverland when Jackson gave it to them. On the subject of alcohol, Mesereau asked the younger Arvizo if he ever told Stan Katz he was given “red wine and vodka”. He flipped back and forth about whether or not he told Katz about “red wine and vodka”. More of his evasive testimony:

MESEREAU: You told Stanley Katz that Michael Jackson gave you red wine and vodka, correct? STAR A: I don’t remember saying that. MESEREAU: Would it refresh your recollection if I show you his testimony? STAR A: Whose testimony? MESEREAU: Stanley Katz. STAR A: I never said that to him, so — MESEREAU: Would it refresh your recollection if I just show you what he says you told him? STAR A: That’s what he said. MESEREAU: Okay. Would it refresh your recollection if I just show you what he said? STAR A: Okay, but it’s not going to help. MESEREAU: It’s not going to help you? STAR A: Yeah, I remember saying red and white wine, and there’s one time we got vodka, yes. MESEREAU: You told Stanley Katz that you were given vodka? STAR A: Yes. (p 1310 lines 23-28, p 1311 lines 1-14)

What?! He just denied he had ever made the allegation, only seconds later to “remember” it… with the additional of the white wine no less! Further:

MESEREAU: But yesterday you told the jury it was just wine, right? STAR A: I forgot. MESEREAU: You might have forgot yesterday? STAR A: Yes. (p 1311 lines 15-19)

Maybe he forgot that the jurors had brains. Geez. Mesereau asked Star A. if he was ever caught in… [pagebreak] …the wine cellar when Jackson wasn’t there, and he said “never”. This would later conflict with the testimony from the security guard who actually caught both he and his brother down there with an open bottle of wine. Star A. was asked questions about whether or not he would drank alcohol, when and with whom. He alleged he never drank alcohol until that plane ride back from Miami in Feb 2003. He described what he drank as wine. As a result, Mesereau’s question was “How did you know it was wine…if you’d never had a drink before you were on the plane?” (p 1345 lines 8,10). Ever the excuse-maker, Star A. claimed he knew how wine looked….even in a soda can. I suppose he had x-ray vision? Even if he looked down into the soda can, there’s still a question as to whether – having no previous experience with wine (so he says) – he would know it was wine he was drinking. He never said he saw anyone pouring wine into that soda can, so it could have been grape juice for all he knew. It added another level of implausibility to his accusations. He professed that he and the accuser were drinking at Neverland between the time they got back from Miami until the time Jesus Salas (the house manager) drove them from Neverland; in a Rolls Royce no less. Some observers say it is highly unlikely that many people wouldn’t have noticed such behavior seeing as how many people were in and out of Neverland. By the way, the Salas event morphed into one of the ‘great escapes’ from Neverland by the time the mother testified. Again, Mesereau caught him on a lie/inconsistency between what he told the grand jury and what he said on the stand in front of the trial jury. He told the grand jury that if he wanted to get into Jackson’s wine cellar, he could. However, he told the trial jury March 8 2005 that he didn’t know how to get into the wine cellar himself. Evidentially he knew how to get in and knew where the key was located to get in as well. From the transcript:

MESEREAU: You didn’t know how to get into the wine cellar? STAR A: Yes. MESEREAU: You told the Santa Barbara Grand Jury:

“Q. Would you have been able to get into 16 the wine cellar without Michael Jackson? “A. If I wanted to, yes.”

Do you remember that? STAR A: Yes. MESEREAU: How would you have gotten into that wine cellar if you wanted to? STAR A: I’d search the lounge from top to bottom to find the key. MESEREAU: Didn’t you tell the Santa Barbara Grand Jury, “There’s an easy way to get in”? STAR A: No, I don’t remember saying that. MESEREAU: Did you tell the Santa Barbara Grand Jury, “It’s just like the key would be on the hook in the maid room, because they used to have a resting room thing”? Did you tell them that? STAR A: I don’t remember. … MESEREAU: You told them you knew how to get the key, right? STAR A: Yes. MESEREAU: You told them you knew how to get in, right? STAR A: Yes. MESEREAU: Yesterday you told this jury that you didn’t know where the key was or how to get in, right? STAR A: Yes. MESEREAU: Why did you not tell the truth yesterday? STAR A: The key was on a hook, but we didn’t know where it was. MESEREAU: The key was on a hook, but you didn’t know what it was? STAR A: No, where it was. (p 1347 lines 11-28, p 1348 lines 1-3, p 1349 lines 3-16)

Okay, stop! He didn’t know where it was or how to get it, but he knew it was hanging on the hook in a lounge? That is ridiculously illogical. Either he knew where it was or he didn’t. It can’t be both. More importantly, he just admitted to committing perjury on the stand. This was the type of testimony which caused jurors to question the validity of other claims he made against Jackson. This wouldn’t be the first or last time he would tell two different stories. __Inconsistencies, Inconsistencies, Inconsistencies__ The brother’s description of who was sitting where on the plane ride back from Miami in Feb 2003 varied both from a previous description he gave to the sheriff’s department and from his sister’s testimony:

MESEREAU: You said your sister was sitting at the end of the couch, right? STAR A: No, I said Marie Nicole was sitting at the end of the couch. MESEREAU: Well, did you tell the sheriffs, “There was like a couch, and my sister, she was sitting at the end of the couch, which was facing the side of Michael”? STAR A: At that time I didn’t know exactly where my sister was. MESEREAU: Well, how would you — STAR A: Because all I remember is that Aldo and Marie Nicole were sitting on the couch and I was sitting on the seat way in the back. (p 1382 lines 13-26)

There was yet another contradiction between his testimony and what he previously told sheriffs. He testified he saw Jackson give Gavin Arvizo a watch on that plane ride. However, he told sheriffs that he saw Jackson give the accuser the watch at Neverland. To get out of it, he said he “probably forgot”. From the transcript:

MESEREAU: But you told them you saw that transaction at Neverland, correct? STAR A: Well, I probably forgot where I saw it. I just remembered — right now, I just remember seeing my brother getting off the plane with a watch on his wrist. MESEREAU: But that wouldn’t have happened if you saw him give the watch at Neverland later on, right? STAR A: Well, I probably might have forgot. MESEREAU: So you’re not sure when Michael gave Gavin the watch, right? STAR A: No, it could have been at Miami or it could have been on the plane. (p 1384 lines 8-20)

“It could have been at Miami or it could have been on the plane?” Huh? The issue of the watch in and of itself isn’t gigantic. However, it led to questions about the validity of all accusations he made when coupled with a number of other significant inaccuracies. Other discrepancies had to do with their very first night at Neverland. According to the sister’s testimony, the very first night at dinner they discussed whether or not Gavin A. could sleep in Jackson’s bedroom. However, Star A. says there was no discussion about it at that first dinner. Take a look at the sister’s testimony:

MESEREAU: Now, you told the jury that the first night you and your family were at Neverland, you had dinner in the main dining room and discussed whether or not Gavin was going to sleep in Michael Jackson’s bedroom, right? DAVELLIN ARVIZO: Yes. MESEREAU: Now, that was the first day you’d ever met Michael Jackson, right? DAVELLIN A: Yes. (p 852 lines 12-20)

Now read what the brother, Star A. said:

MESEREAU: Well, you all had dinner in the main house that night, right? STAR A: Yes. MESEREAU: Was there a discussion at the dinner table about whether or not you and Gavin could sleep in Michael Jackson’s room? STAR A: No. (p 1413 lines 1-7)

Notice that he didn’t say only the accuser’s sleeping arrangements were discussed. He flat out denied it was discussed at all. On re-cross, and despite all of these discrepancies/lies, he still claimed his testimony was truthful. Later during the testimony of Kiki Fournier, she said Star A. once threatened her with a knife. Knowing Fournier would be a future witness, Mesereau asked Star A. about the incident. He completely denied it ever happened (p 1472). He also gave confusing testimony about whether or not he knew civil attorney Larry Feldman. At one point Mesereau asked a question to which he gave two different answers. From his testimony:

STAR A: Tom, Gordon and Ron. MESEREAU: Tom, Gordon and Ron. Have you ever discussed this case with Larry Feldman? STAR A: No, I don’t remember. MESEREAU: Do you know who Larry Feldman is? STAR A: I think so. … MESEREAU: Okay. You never heard the name “Larry Feldman” before? STAR A: No. (p 1213 lines 10-16, 19-21)

Then later on in his testimony, Mesereau asked him if he ever recalled meeting with Larry Feldman. More from the testimony:

MESEREAU: And you don’t recall ever meeting with Attorney Larry Feldman? STAR A: I do recall meeting with him, but I don’t know who sent us to him. MESEREAU: And how many times have you met with Attorney Larry Feldman? STAR A: Probably twice. (p 1214 lines 10-16)

He knows him, he doesn’t know him. He met him, he doesn’t remember meeting him. __J.C. Penney__ The accuser and brother shoplifted merchandise out of a J.C. Penney store in the 90s. They were stopped by guards in the parking lot. The family sued J.C. Penney alleging that guards beat them during that altercation. Over a year after making the initial allegation, the mother tacked on accusations of being sexually abused by the guards. Her kids also backed up her belated sex abuse accusation. As a result of the lawsuit, they all had to participate in depositions. There was more confusing testimony from Star A. about what he said in his J.C. Penney deposition. According to the deposition, Star A. told them he wasn’t stealing, but rather, modeling the unpaid-for clothes J.C. Penney guards caught them with. If that excuse would have worked, I just like to say I wish I could “model” a new BMW. But I digress. From Star A.’s March 8 2005 trial testimony:

MESEREAU: Have you ever modeled? STAR A: That was for our — our dance group that we used to be in. MESEREAU: Where did you model? STAR A: I don’t remember. MESEREAU: Well, you claim you have modeled at J.C. Penney’s, right? STAR A : I don’t remember the store. … MESEREAU: Does it refresh your recollection that you claim you were modeling at J.C. Penney? STAR A: Not really. MESEREAU: Were you modeling at J.C. Penney? STAR A: I think so. MESEREAU: Pardon me? STAR A: I think so. (p 1222 lines 8-15, 24-28; p 1223 lines 1-2)

First he claimed not to remember, then he claimed not to know the store J.C. Penney. Then he was confronted with transcripts of previous statements he made, none of which really refreshed his memory — only finally to remember he was modeling for the store. What?! I wonder what J.C. Penney had to say in response? He testified under oath at that deposition that he was modeling the day of the J.C. Penney incident, and later changed his story. He also revealed that the accuser took merchandise without paying for it. Just like with his sister, he claimed he didn’t remember details because it was a long time ago. This prompted Mesereau to ask point blank “Has anyone told you to say ‘I don’t remember’ when you respond to my questions?” (p 1224 lines 15-16). He said many things while under deposition at the J.C. Penney case. He alleged that Gavin A. would never steal because he wanted to be a “priest and a comedian”. Seriously. I’m not kidding. Mesereau quoted from his testimony. But of course he claimed not to remember saying it. Contrary to what the entire family would later declared, Star A. said during the J.C. Penney deposition that his parents never fought and his biological father never hit him. At the Jackson trial, he had to admit he lied under oath. But he claimed not to remember if someone told him specifically to lie about it. __Tick, tock__ Part of the family’s allegation is that they were all intentionally kept away from clocks, despite the fact that there are clocks all over Neverland. There is even a huge clock built into the landscape of the ranch. Check out the following exchange between the brother and Mesereau:

STAR A: They kept us away from the clocks. We didn’t know the exact time or the date or nothing. MESEREAU: Would you agree that overlooking Neverland is a huge clock? STAR A: Yes. It’s a flower clock. MESEREAU: Yes. And to the right of that big flower clock is another clock, correct? STAR A: Probably. MESEREAU: There are clocks all over Neverland, correct? STAR A: Yes. MESEREAU: And you and your brothers used to run all around Neverland, right? STAR A: Yes. MESEREAU: You wanted the sheriffs to think that you and your family were imprisoned and kept away from clocks? STAR A:. No. MESEREAU: That’s why you told them that lie, right? STAR A: No. MESEREAU: If there are clocks all over Neverland, if there’s a big flower clock on a hill overlooking Neverland, and if you and your brothers were running freely around Neverland, why did you tell the Santa Barbara Sheriffs “We were kept away from clocks and time”? STAR A: Because they were wrong and we were kept away from them. We weren’t able to know the time. (p 1295 lines 9-28, p 1296 lines 1-8)

The allegation is absurd on so many levels. If they were kept away from the clocks, how in hell could he see them to know if they were set wrong or not? Further, how in hell would he have known they were set to the wrong time if he had no concept of time? And further still, he alleged that every clock at Neverland was wrong….every clock they were kept away from. Give me a break! As Mesereau said, it defied logic. And instead of coming clean…[pagebreak] …Star A. tried to lie his way out of it. He alleged one clock would say 5:00, while another would say 9:00. The question still remains how did he know what each clock said if he was being kept away from them? He never offered a plausible excuse for any of this. He got an attitude with Mesereau when cornered about whether or not he could see various clocks from a telescope located on a hill at Neverland. Mesereau asked him if he had ever seen any clocks — particularly the huge clock built into the landscape — by using that telescope. Star A. claimed he couldn’t see it because trees were blocking the view. Obviously knowing the layout of Neverland, Mesereau asked him bluntly:

MESEREAU: You’re making up that trees block your view through the telescope, aren’t you — STAR A: I’m just saying — MESEREAU: — Star? STAR A: — I never really expected to look for a clock. I just looked through it. I remember trees and probably — yeah. I remember trees, but I never really — the telescope was up there, so me and my brother tried to look through it. MESEREAU: Why did you just tell the jury that trees prevent you from seeing clocks through the telescope on the hill that overlooks Neverland? STAR A: What does it matter? I mean, even when you’re down there, you can see the clock. When you’re driving the car. I don’t know what you’re trying to get at. (p 1328 lines 20-28, p 1329 lines 1-7)

What Mesereau was trying to get at was the truth. And apparently when he couldn’t lie his way out of this one, he got frustrated; a frustration which also contradicted the allegation that he was kept away from clocks at Neverland. I wouldn’t have been surprised if he claimed that the trees “conspired” to block his view of the outside clocks at Neverland. Good grief. __Computer connections__ More confusing and ridiculous testimony came when he was cornered concerning what he knew about the internet. He claimed not to really know anything about computers or the internet. Yet during a previous interview with sheriffs, he made a statement about AOL. He said he was shown pornographic images on a computer by Jackson and Frank Tyson on a “site like AOL.” Check out this exchange:

MESEREAU: Q. You told them it was a site like AOL, right? STAR A: Yes. MESEREAU: You knew what AOL was when you mentioned that, didn’t you? STAR A: Yes. MESEREAU: Why did you just tell the jury you didn’t know? STAR A: I knew it after my brother was — was, I don’t know, I don’t know, was connected or — I don’t know the word, but when he was — because when Michael gave him the laptop, he had someone call him and set up an AOL account for my brother for his laptop. (p 1291 lines 11-23)

He clearly knew more about this than he was telling. He was asked about allegations he told sheriffs concerning specific websites he claimed Jackson showed him. The names of these sites were vulgar. Oddly enough, on the stand, Star A. said he never told sheriffs about those websites cited in the sheriff’s report. “I never said that. That’s just a paragraph somebody wrote”, said Star A. (p 1293 lines 6-7). But two seconds later, he said, “I might have, but I don’t remember saying it” (p 1293 lines 10-11). Were sheriff’s making this up? Or did he simply not remember the lies he’d told previously? Star A. was asked if he and his brother were ever caught at Neverland looking at adult websites when Jackson wasn’t there. To which, he replied that there were “no computers at Neverland” (p 1293 line 18). That isn’t true as evidenced by the sheriff’s department list of seized property. There were many computers at Neverland, some of which where reportedly accessible to anyone at the ranch. If that weren’t bad enough, after telling the jury there were no computers, he later described a computer located in Jackson’s personal living quarters (“bedroom”). He claimed he had never used it, but later claimed it had no internet access (p 1372). He didn’t say Jackson told him about the computer so the obvious question is how the hell would he know it didn’t have internet access – or phone line plugged into it – if he never used it or wasn’t snooping around Jackson’s “bedroom”? Whew! Getting through this testimony without rolling my eyes numerous times was a complete impossibility. The accusations fell apart when tough questions were asked. Prosecutors seemingly didn’t question his allegations, like an unbiased entity normally would, because he was telling them what they wanted to hear. They accepted the words of the younger Arvizo and ran into a brick wall once the defense started to deconstruct their “case”. Stay tuned. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply

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