Trial Review: Accuser Arrogant, Testimony Unbelievable – MB#294

UPDATED JANUARY 2 2006

JANUARY 1 2006 — In its review of the Michael Jackson trial, MJEOL comes to the testimony of the accuser, Gavin Arvizo. Previous trial reviews have focused on the testimonies of the accuser’s brother (Star Arvizo) and sister (Davellin Arvizo), as well as stunning admissions from Ann Kite (Gabriel) and the 8th-circle-of-hell-bound Martin Bashir.

Not having to solely rely on media reports about the accuser’s testimony is one of the most important means of understanding just how absurd the allegations against Jackson were. The then 15 year old Arvizo was all over the place with his testimony under cross-examination.

Prosecutors tried to sell the notion that the accuser and his brother were innocent lambs who only became violent and outrageous hellions after they were contaminated by Jackson’s Neverland; “drinking” and getting “molested”.

Unlike how media pundits remember, Jackson did not go to the hospital the first day of the accuser’s testimony. His testimony began right after the testimony of his younger brother, Star Arvizo, on March 9 2005.

Just another example of the media remembering the way it WASN’T, instead of the way it was.

If prosecutors had bothered to investigate their “case” with some theory other than ‘Jackson is guilty’, they may not have looked as ridiculously inept, vicious, willfully stupid and unprepared as they did when defense attorneys laid waste to their “case”.

This family, particularly the accuser, was anything but innocent. The media needed an explanation to get around the fact that these kids were such trouble makers. Nutjob commentators came up with one nonsensical argument that troubled children are exactly the type of kids pedophiles go after. If it wasn’’t so sad, it would be laughable.

Not only is that an insult to every REAL victim of molestation, it also makes no sense. The accuser’s parents were still married when they first met Jackson. Moreover, that theory asks us to believe that every victim of molestation comes from a broken, abusive household.

That short-sighted generalization simply isn’’t true and wouldn’’t be accepted if they were talking about any other case. But somehow the Jackson “case” was different. Every lame-brained theory in the world was accepted as fact so long as it put Jackson in a negative light.

The media generally forgot to ask the tough questions and look for factual information because an accuser was in essence telling them what they wanted to hear. And, like prosecutors, most didn’t bother to question the validity of Gavin Arvizo’s claims. That is, until Thomas Mesereau began to ask the questions.

Under cross-examination, the ‘sweet innocent lamb’ morphed into an arrogant, smart-mouthed, short tempered loose cannon who would (and has) stood up to authority numerous times in the past long before Jackson had ever met him.

The smart-aleck was painted as cunning and manipulative by Chris Tucker, who knew the family before he or they met Jackson. Tucker said that Gavin A. would ask him for money and play off his sympathies to get things he wanted. Witnesses who testified after the accuser would describe him basically as a holy terror saying he and his brother’s behavior ranged anywhere from being a problem to being very disruptive and destructive.

Gavin A. claimed that at one point he was drinking red and white wine, bourbon, and vodka for nights on end at Neverland. Remember this is the same kid who had a kidney and a spleen removed due to cancer, and who was on medication at the time.

__History__
The history here is that the family met Jackson in 2000 because of Gavin Arvizo’s cancer. Through some channel – whether through the Make a Wish Foundation or not – he was brought to Jackson’s attention and was invited with his family to come to Neverland.

After sporadic visits to Neverland in 2000 – some with his biological father (David Arvizo) and with Chris Tucker when Jackson wasn’t there – the family no longer came to Neverland. He claimed he only stayed in Jackson’s personal living quarters (“bedroom”) once on his first night there in 2000, and stayed in the guest units during all of his other stays around that time.

During this time, Gavin A. was still going through chemotherapy and wasn’’t really at Neverland in 2001. Then they were either invited or came back to Neverland during the time Bashir was shooting what would become the ridiculous hatchet-job of a “documentary” in 2002.

__Alleged “molestation”__
Arvizo made the allegation that “maybe a week or two” before they left Neverland (or were booted) for good, that’s when alleged “inappropriate touching” began.

Mesereau clearly began his cross by establishing the fact that Gavin A. had met with two lawyers before claiming Jackson had ever touched him. One of those lawyers, Larry Feldman, was the attorney who secured a $15 million insurance settlement for the 1993 allegation.

So they have all met with attorneys, social workers, private investigators, and have been hounded by the media by the time the allegations were made. The golden opportunity was there. They needed to only take it.

Mesereau asked about allegations he made of Jackson. The accuser claimed that Jackson showed him adult magazines with pictures of naked women. He claimed he was shown adult websites by Frank Tyson with Jackson present. He claimed Jackson gave him alcohol as well. He at one point accused Jackson of pretending to have sex with a female mannequin. He even brought the mannequins into this ridiculousness! Excuse me while I scream like Florida Evans: Damn! Damn! Damn!

Seriously though, that was one of his allegations. It wasn’’t until later during Mesereau’’s questioning that jurors found out the mannequin Gavin A. claimed Jackson simulated a sex act with was a custom-made mannequin of one of Jackson’s cousins; a cute little African American girl with braids, wearing a blue jean jacket and a pink shirt. The custom-made mannequin of his cousin was defaced with a magic marker in the “vaginal portion” of the doll. Definitely sounded like something a bad-assed kid would have done.

Gavin Arvizo denied knowing anything about it. He denied that he or his brother Star Arvizo had anything to do with defacing the mannequin. But Mesereau, like so many observers trying to make sense of this “case”, asked point blank:

MESEREAU: Okay. And your testimony to the jury is that after Michael Jackson showed you women on websites, after he showed you Hustler and Playboy, which are girlie magazines, and after he pretended to have sex with a female mannequin, he then at some point masturbated you; is that correct? (p 1897 lines 25-28; p 1898 lines 1-2)

It didn’’t make sense when I first heard it and it still makes no sense. By the way, they all must have had little mini-heart attacks when they found Hustler and Playboy magazines — and no gay or child pornography — in Jackson’s house during the Nov 2003 invasion.

On the stand, the accuser claimed “molestation” didn’t start until after the Feb 20 2003 time period where the rebuttal interview and the investigation of the Los Angeles Department of Children & Family Services (DCFS) took place.

The 3 social workers from DCFS interviewed the family at Maj. Jay Jackson’s residence, hours after they shot their rebuttal interview. By the way, their rebuttal interview was not included in the final version which aired on Fox television back in Feb 2003.

At one point, Gavin Arvizo actually claimed “molestation” allegedly happened BEFORE the rebuttal interview was shot and BEFORE they were interviewed by those 3 social workers from DCFS. Mesereau called him on it, showing him a transcript of a previous interview he had given to sheriffs about this “case”. From the courtroom transcripts:

MESEREAU: Do you remember telling Mr. Sneddon and the sheriffs on one occasion that you were molested before the video was done?
GAVIN A: No.
MESEREAU: Would it refresh your recollection if I show you a transcript of that interview?
GAVIN A: Yes. Please. …
MESEREAU: Does it refresh your recollection that Mr. Sneddon was interviewing you about when these acts of molestation allegedly occurred?
GAVIN A: Yes. But the thing was, I don’t — even to this day, I don’t remember exactly when everything happened exactly, so I mean —
MESEREAU: Well, do you remember being asked, “The acts of molestation, had they already begun by the time you did this video, do you know?” And you said, “I think so.” And then Mr. Sneddon said to you, “So, in your mind, one of the things that you’re thinking is, they’re doing this video that they want you guys to do so that if you ever told them the truth about being molested, nobody would believe you,” and you say, “Yeah,” right?
GAVIN A: Well, I —
MESEREAU: Do you remember saying that to Mr. Sneddon?
GAVIN A: That’s more of my opinion – you know what I mean? – right there. That last statement you just said on that transcript, it’s more of my opinion than a state of fact.
(p 1961 lines 18-24; p 1962 lines 2-23)

More of his opinion than a statement of fact? To this day he doesn’t remember what happened?? What?! How could it have been his opinion AT THE TIME that they got him on tape denying any abuse — for the express purpose of later abusing him — if he alleged nothing happened until AFTER the rebuttal video was shot? I’ll tell you why: it’s because the story changed.

Like his brother, he was trapped by previous statements be gave. Gavin A.’s changing story is probably the main reason why the prosecution’s charges changed as well. Mesereau zeroed in on this huge change to which the accuser used a phrase the jury was all too familiar with by now: “I don’t know”.

From the transcript:

MESEREAU: Q. Then why does your story change?
GAVIN A: I don’t know. It happened after. I mean —
MESEREAU: Well, at some point did you go to Mr. Sneddon and say, “I’m changing my story about when this inappropriate touching happened”?
GAVIN A: No.
MESEREAU: At some point did you go to the sheriffs and say, “I’m changing my story about when this inappropriate touching happened”?
GAVIN A: No.
MESEREAU: You just suddenly got on the stand and changed it?
MR. SNEDDON: Object as argumentative, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. (p 1963 lines 10-24)

Mesereau had a point. If no one told him to change the allegation, that means he did suddenly change it himself. There was no way around it. He gave two different stories at two different times. And just to make it crystal clear, Mesereau asked him:

MESEREAU: So are you saying that at different times you gave Mr. Sneddon different accounts of when the molestation supposedly happened? (p 1964 lines 10-12)

Mesereau knew the answer to this question before he asked it. And it served to put an exclamation point onto the fact that he told two different stories. Another issue which made no sense is that the accuser said Jackson would give him advice about how to talk to girls (p 1968 lines 1-5).

Now, explain to me why a same-sex pedophile would give his alleged victim advice about how to talk to girls?? While you’re at it, give me a plausible explanation why the same person would have Playboy, Hustler, and Pimp’s Up Ho’s Down video among other things?

Apparently prosecutors thought we were all brainless cattle who would soak up every lame-brained accusation out of their mouths whether it made sense or not. Putting the timeline of this false abuse allegation into perspective, the defense attorney asked the pointed question:

MESEREAU: But what you’re telling the jury is that after this investigation starts and after you and your family are questioned, Mr. Jackson supposedly starts touching you inappropriately, right?
GAVIN A: Yes. (p 1946 lines 7-11)

Indeed the timeline presented a major problem for the prosecution; one of many problems actually. The timeline changed according to the original Dec 18 2003 filing of charges against Jackson by Sneddon.

Out of the grand jury emerged damn near an entirely different case: different timeline, different number of counts and different charges.

Long after they shot their rebuttal interview segment on Feb 19-20, which never aired, the accuser was sending Jackson letters and cards. Remember, he claimed that after the rebuttal was shot, Jackson started “molesting” him (p 1955 lines 15-19).

This alleged “victim” was caught joking about this “case”. At the grand jury, he actually joked about giving a press conference after Sneddon advised him not to talk about the case. I kid you not. From the trial transcript:

MESEREAU: Okay. Do you remember when you were in front of the Santa Barbara Grand Jury, Mr. Sneddon told you there was an order that you not talk to the media, and your response was, “Oh, man, I was going to have a press conference”? Do you remember that?
GAVIN A: That was probably a joke.
MESEREAU: That was a joke?
GAVIN A: Yeah.
MESEREAU: So you’re in front of the Santa Barbara Grand Jury talking about this case and you’re telling a joke?
GAVIN A: Yes. (p 2023 lines 22-28; p 2024 lines 1-6)

What?! He was supposedly testifying about being “molested”. But he’s cracking jokes….ON THE STAND….in front of grand jury members. If they knew then what they may know now, they probably wouldn’’t have handed down an indictment.

 

__Was Jackson at Neverland during the time the accuser claimed he was getting molested?__
A more pointed question is could it have been physically possible for Jackson to have allegedly “molested” the accuser? In a previous MJEOL Bullet (#268), the testimony of Chris Tucker’s then-girlfriend, Azja Pryor, was discussed. With her testimony, not only did the defense put an exclamation point on the dead conspiracy allegation, but they also addressed Gavin A’’s molestation allegation.

Pryor has never met Jackson, but has gone to Neverland numerous times with Tucker. That’’s just how wide open the ranch used to be. Pryor testified that Janet Arvizo complained to her in early March 2003 that the family was being kept away from Jackson by his associates.

This gigantic bombshell directly contradicted the accuser’s testimony. He claimed he was in Jackson’’s bed with him during that time and the brother claimed he was allegedly witnessing “molestation”.

The obvious conclusion is how in hell could the accuser be around Jackson and getting “molested” if the family was being kept away from him by his associates? And apparently they had to be kept away from Jackson in an obvious way; enough to cause the mother to complain to Pryor about it.

An AP article dated May 19 2005 titled “Jackson Witness testifies on Inaccuracies” talked about Pryor’s testimony.

From the article:

Azja Pryor, a Hollywood casting assistant and the girlfriend of movie star Chris Tucker, said the mother complained to her in early March 2003 that two German associates of Jackson had stepped in to keep her family away.
“I asked, ‘Does Michael know anything about this?’ She said, ‘They won’t let us around him because they know the children tug at his heart strings,'” Pryor testified. The time period she cited is critical because prosecutors allege Jackson molested the then-13-year-old accuser between Feb. 20 and March 12, 2003. (see Jackson Witness Testifies on Inaccuracies)

Gavin A. had already testified that “molestation” started “a week or two” before they finally left Neverland. If they left Neverland around March 12 2003, this would set the start of the alleged “molestation” time period between Feb 26 and March 5.

So in early March 2003, the mother complained to Pryor that the family was being kept from Jackson. This wipes out the early March time period.

As for the late Feb 2003 time period, Jackson may not have even been in California for a number of dates. Jackson was in Florida in late Feb 2003. How do we know? We know because Palm Beach Daily News reporter Stephanie Murphy (then-Daily News Business and Real Estate Writer) wrote a report about Jackson being spotted the week of Feb 26 2003 in Palm Beach, Florida. Oops!

For example, Monday Feb 24 2003, Jackson “made a spontaneous appearance” at “Sprinkles Ice Cream & Sandwich Shop” according to the Palm Beach Daily News. A report dated Feb 26 2003 titled “Popping in: Michael Jackson thrills, chills at Sprinkles” gives details about Jackson’s movements during that time:

Wednesday, Feb. 26, 2003 —

Sightings of Michael Jackson in Palm Beach this week stirred sidewalk chatter about yogurt and serious communiques about real estate — including an island property he toured in December and three other sites that are on the pop star’s radar screen.

Jackson made a spontaneous appearance Monday afternoon at Sprinkles Ice Cream & Sandwich Shop, 279 Royal Poinciana Way, where he arrived with a regular customer and bought fat-free vanilla yogurt from owner Donna Marks.
Because the pair walked past neighboring Justin & Co. hair salon to get to Sprinkles, owner Justin Lynch suddenly had salon interns clamoring to go next door. … “Monday is like a training day, with students here, and we saw him walk by.
He had that umbrella, so it was pretty obvious. The girls were so excited, wanting to go over for a picture, and I was in the middle of doing Katelynn’s hair — that’s why one side is straight in the picture and one is curly,” Lynch said.
From Royal Poinciana Way, Jackson made his way to Worth Avenue. He stopped at Napoleon’s, a men’s fashion store, where he signed several autographs.
By Tuesday afternoon, real estate agents were focused on the few properties that fit a wish-list provided by Jackson’s broker, James Meiskin, head of Plymouth Partners Ltd. in New York…Most agents said they could not disclose details because they were asked to sign confidentiality agreements. (see Popping in: Michael Jackson thrills, chills at Sprinkles)

So the question remains whether or not Jackson was at Neverland during the dates the accuser alleged he was getting “molested”. If Jackson would have taken the stand, it is almost a surety that Mesereau would have gotten into his schedule.

 

__Dean Alpert spills the beans__
Gavin Arvizo said that over the weekend encompassing the days of his testimony, Tom Sneddon talked to him about his testimony.

This prompted a series of questions from Mesereau about what Sneddon discussed with him. That same weekend (Saturday), the defense and prosecutors took the deposition of a Mr. Alpert who had come forward with information about the accuser. Alpert was Dean at John Burroughs school where Gavin A attended.

From the testimony:

MESEREAU: Did Mr. Sneddon tell you he had been in an interview with a Mr. Alpert on Saturday?
GAVIN A: Yes. Well, I don’t know if — no, he said if I was — if Mr. — the dean, Alpert, interviewed me or talked to me.
(p 1811 lines 27-28; p 1812 lines 1-3)

Dean Alpert came forward to reveal the fact the accuser confessed that Jackson didn’t do anything to him at all. Oops! Gavin A. admitted he TWICE denied the allegation to Alpert.

From the transcript:

MESEREAU: In fact, Mr. Arvizo, he asked you whether you had been interviewed by Dean Alpert and whether you had confessed to him that Mr. Jackson never did anything to you of a sexual nature, right?
GAVIN A: Yeah.
MESEREAU: Why didn’t you say that at the beginning?
GAVIN A: I told Mr. Alpert that he didn’t do anything to me.
MESEREAU: You told Dean Alpert that twice, correct?
GAVIN A: I don’t know how many times I told him. (p 1812 lines 8-17)

Reportedly, he had a talk with the Dean after he had left Neverland for the final time. Noting all of the publicity around this “case”, the conversation with Alpert materialized.

More from his testimony:

MESEREAU: Okay. But sometime in that conversation, Dean Alpert looked you in the eye and said, “Are these allegations that Mr. Jackson sexually abused you true,” right?
GAVIN A: Uh-huh.
MESEREAU: And you said they were not true, right?
GAVIN A: Yeah. I told him that Michael didn’t do anything to me.
MESEREAU: Okay. Mr. Alpert asked you twice whether or not Michael Jackson had ever done anything of a sexual nature to you, correct?
GAVIN A: I don’t know if he asked me twice.
MESEREAU: Well, the first time he asked you, you shook your head “No,” right?
GAVIN: I don’t know.
MESEREAU: And the second time he asked you, you said to him, “No, he did not touch me in any sexually inappropriate way,” correct?
GAVIN: I don’t know.
MESEREAU: You don’t know?
GAVIN A: I’m pretty sure I told him that.

So on top of the denials to the DCFS on Feb 20 2003, the denial to Bradley Miller on Feb 16 2003, the denials caught on video for the rebuttal interview, there was a denial reportedly after the prosecutions timeline.

All of the psychobabble in the world can’t explain this away when other facts are added into the equation. The denial to Alpert was stacked on top of numerous inconsistencies, implausible peripheral accusations, and changes in the story. As mentioned previously, Alpert was questioned in a supposedly secret meeting by prosecutors and defense attorneys on March 12 2005.

The media found out about this witness and reported about Gavin A’s testimony on the subject. The Associated Press (AP), reported the following in March 14 2005 article titled “Accuser told educator Jackson did nothing:”

Mesereau, during his cross-examination, quoted Alpert as telling the youngster: “Look at me, look at me. … I can’t help you unless you tell me the truth — did any of this happen?” When asked when the conversation occurred, the boy said: “I believe it was after I came back from Neverland.” (see Accuser told educator Jackson did nothing)

The attorney for Alpert reportedly said Alpert came forward after realizing that the “case” was actually going to trial. Alpert also probably realized that the accuser was on the stand saying things completely different than what he was told.

 

__Lose my number__
The accuser testified that he felt Jackson had abandoned him after his cancer was in remission. Why oh why do some people act like Jackson is supposed to be their best friend for the rest of their lives? Many commentators even admitted that one of the only times he showed emotion was when talking about how he thought Jackson moved on after initially helping him.

From Mesereau’s cross-examination:

MESEREAU: Okay. Now, you complained to the Santa Barbara Sheriffs that, “After I was done with my cancer stuff,” you never saw Michael again, right?
GAVIN A: No, not until the Martin Bashir thing.
MESEREAU: Okay. And you wanted to see him after you were in remission, correct?
GAVIN A: Yes.
MESEREAU: You wanted to visit Neverland after you were in remission, right?
GAVIN A: Yes.
MESEREAU: And you felt in some way that Michael had cut off the friendship, right?
GAVIN A: Yes.
MESEREAU: You felt he had abandoned you, right?
GAVIN A: Yes.
MESEREAU: And you felt he had abandoned your family, right?
GAVIN A: Yes. (p 1903 lines 10-27)

Why would someone who felt “abandoned” by Jackson later agree to come to Neverland during the taping of an interview with a sleaze like Martin Bashir?

But more importantly, would this sense of “abandonment” cause him to act out against Jackson by furthering a meritless allegation at the behest of his mother? Could those accusations have been a way to get back at Jackson? Bring Jackson down to his level?

The accuser testified “I felt as if I was his family” (p 1974 line 25). He made statements like “I felt as if he was my guider, my – a teacher to me in life” (p 1994 lines 23-25). And he would slip up and talk about Jackson in the present tense instead of being the angry “victim” prosecutors wanted to sell.

For example, one time he slipped and said “”Yes. He’’s a nice man”,” when asked if his mother thought Jackson was honest (p 2000 line 27).

He didn’’t say Jackson was a nice man or he thought Jackson was a nice man. He used the present tense, which was odd to some trial observers who read his testimony. The accuser also confessed that he thought of Prince and Paris, Jackson’s two older children, like they were his brother and sister (p 1975).

Would someone who at one point felt like a son to Jackson, be furious when he no longer had access to him? Enough to get even? Getting even is not an unprecedented event in the world of Michael Jackson.

Many ex-“friends”, ex-employees, ex-associates, ex-whatevers often turn on Jackson for their own financial gain when they no longer had access to him. Just to name a few: Bob Jones, Marc Schaffel, Stuart Backerman, Dieter Wiesner, Marcel Avram, Schumley Boteach, Uri Geller (to some extent), etc.

And these are adults who, supposedly, have lives of their own. Interesting that as long as they have access to him (and his money) he’s an angel. But as soon as they’re cut off, he suddenly transforms into the devil. Or so they want the public to believe. And they exploit their access to precious airtime by spouting ridiculous pseudo-psychoanalyses of who they say Jackson is.

Mesereau hit upon the accuser’s sense of “abandonment” during cross-examination by flat out asking the accuser “”You wanted to be part of his family, and when you found out you weren’t going to be, you got angry, true?”” (p 1987 lines 3-5).

He admitted, more than once, he thought of Jackson like a father. He also complained that Jackson’s phone numbers were changed, making it impossible to reach him without calling Jackson assistant Evvy Tavasci. Mesereau asked him when was the first time he was “upset” over not being able to contact Jackson:

MESEREAU: When did you first get upset about your phone numbers for Michael Jackson not working?
GAVIN A: Maybe around the third or fourth chemotherapy round I called his numbers and it would be, like, “This phone number is no longer in service.” Or sometimes it would just ring and it wouldn’t never — no one would ever pick up or something like that. …
MESEREAU: Okay. Before that, could you easily call him?
GAVIN A: Yes.
MESEREAU: And before that, did you often call him?
GAVIN A: Yes. And he would call me and stuff. We would talk — we talked a lot more before then.
(p 1907 lines 16-23; p 1908 lines 14-19)

A picture became much clearer than initial media reports about this family. This is not a family Jackson latched onto like so many gum-flapping, know-nothing commentators. Later in his testimony, he went on a short rant about feeling “abandoned” by his “best friend”. From the transcript:

GAVIN A: … Because Michael, at the time when he was calling me and talking to me and stuff, I felt like he was my best friend. But, I mean, when he — when I would call his phone numbers and a little operating lady would say, “This phone is no longer in service.” I mean, I never called Chris and his phone was never in service. I never called George and his phone wasn’t in service. (p 1954 lines 5-12)

He never accused Chris or George of molestation either. Is that a correlation? Before any of this, the accuser admitted that between 2000 and 2002, he missed Jackson and wanted to know why he wasn’t calling anymore:

MESEREAU: Long before you did the rebuttal video, you had written numerous cards and letters to Michael Jackson referring to him as your father, true? GAVIN A: Yes. Because I missed him. I mean, I wanted to know what happened, why he wasn’t calling anymore. And that’s the only real way I had connection with him was through mail, because I had Evvy’s — I knew where Evvy was, so I could send it to her. (p 1955 lines 20-28)

A more important question is did this kid latch onto Jackson and see him as a way out of a bad situation? A way away out of an increasingly unstable atmosphere? Or maybe he wanted to bring Jackson down to his level? Interesting.

 

__Sleeping in Jackson’s “bedroom”__

As mentioned earlier, the accuser testified that even when he stayed in Jackson’s personal living quarters (“bedroom”) when he first went to Neverland, both Jackson and Frank Tyson slept on the floor while he and his brother slept in the bed.

From his testimony:

MESEREAU: And when you say you stayed there the first night, is that the night you described where Michael Jackson and Frank slept on the floor, and you and your brother slept on the bed? Is that what you’re talking about?
 A. Yes, I believe so. …
GAVIN A: I think it was like we only stood there that one night, and then after that, we stood in our units or something. Because I think that’s the only night I slept in his room, the first night.
MESEREAU: Okay. You said after that, you had stayed in the guest units?
GAVIN A: Yes. (p 1915 22-27; p 1917 lines 5-11)

Frank Tyson confirmed that he did sleep there as well during an interview he gave to the media after the trial. He also denied the accuser’s allegations.

Gavin Arvizo was in the Bashir “documentary”. Ironically, for all the feigned outrage the media and some in the public professed to have over Jackson “sleeping in bed” with children, Gavin A. said IN THE FREAKIN’ INTERVIEW that he never slept in the same bed with Jackson. But I suppose little details like that somehow escape the attention of those who want to believe what they want to believe.

If the jury didn’t get it the first time, Mesereau asked him again about the sleeping arrangements. More from the testimony:

MESEREAU: And approximately how many of those trips to Neverland do you think you and your brother stayed in the guest units?
GAVIN A: After that first night we would stay in there every night we would go there, every time, or sometimes we would go to the train house and sleep up there. (p 1917 lines 21-27)

He would later claim that he stayed in Jackson’s room every night when Jackson was there after they got back from Miami in Feb 2003. This would later be contradicted by two Neverland housekeepers who were in charge of cleaning the guest units to which the accuser and his brother were assigned, and by Azja Pryor. More about her testimony in an upcoming MJEOL Trial Review.

 

__Pour me a drink…__

The accuser claimed he and his brother drank alcohol every time Jackson was at Neverland after they came back from Miami. Mesereau asked him if he and his brother were ever caught drinking when Jackson wasn’t there. Like his brother, he completely denied it.

From the transcript:

MESEREAU: Well, you and your brother were caught by employees at Neverland drinking when Michael wasn’t there, weren’t you?
GAVIN A: No.
MESEREAU: Never happened?
GAVIN A: No.
MESEREAU: No one ever walked in the wine cellar at Neverland and caught you and your brother drinking when Michael wasn’t there?
GAVIN A: No. (p 1928 lines 12-21)

This testimony would later be contradicted by the security guard who caught the two in the wine cellar and threw them out. His testimony about the key to the wine cellar contradicted his brother’s testimony.

The accuser, Gavin Arvizo, was asked if his brother, Star Arvizo, knew where the key to the wine cellar was. Check out the testimony from the brother:

MESEREAU: You told the Santa Barbara Grand Jury you knew where the key was to the wine cellar, true? STAR A: Yes. 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. (p 1348 line 28; p 1349 lines 1-13)

So he knew where the key was and how to get in. Now, check out what the accuser testified to about this issue:

MESEREAU: Did you know where the key was to the wine cellar?
GAVIN A: No.
MESEREAU: To your knowledge, did your brother know where the key was to the wine cellar?
GAVIN A: I don’t think he ever knew. He was always with me everywhere we went.
MESEREAU: Did you ever learn where the key was to the wine cellar?
GAVIN A: No.
MESEREAU: To this day, you don’t know?
GAVIN A: To this day, I don’t know. (p 1928 lines 22-28; p 1929 lines 1-5)

Ok, if they were “always” together, then how could their testimonies vary so differently? Was the brother lying or was the accuser lying?

Also on the subject of drinking, Mesereau asked Gavin A. about previous statements he made concerning alcohol. At first the accuser told sheriffs “”We didn’t drink a lot”” only later to claim ““We drank every night.””

This compelled Mesereau to make the point that as time went on, the accuser’s story got worse and more elaborate. Mesereau asked: “Isn’t it true that every time you were interviewed, your stories of drinking got bigger and bigger and bigger” (p 1939 lines 23-25).

 

__Escaped….three times__

The accuser testified that he was never threatened by anyone associated with Jackson. Oops! This directly contradicted some of the testimony from other members of the family like the “unstable” Janet Arvizo.

Putting the final nail into the ridiculous conspiracy allegation, Mesereau asked Gavin Arvizo if anyone tried to contact the police or call for help during the time the family was all over the place: shopping, eating out, going to the movies, going to a doctor’s appointment, being put up in posh hotels, etc.

Gavin A. says he never saw his mother, sister or brother call the police or scream for help at anytime. When they left, or as they put it, “escaped” from Neverland for the first time, no one called the police afterwards. They came back.

Then Gavin A. claimed there was a second great escape from Neverland where they were probably driven off the property by one of Jackson’s staff. They came back. After the third great escape from Neverland, no one called the police that time either.

Check out this exchange between Mesereau and the accuser:

MESEREAU: After you say you escaped from Neverland the first time, you went to your grandparents’, correct?
GAVIN A: Yes.
MESEREAU: And how did you get there?
GAVIN A: Jesus Salas drove us there.
MESEREAU: Do you recall anyone ever calling the police and saying, “We’ve just been held against our will”?
GAVIN A: No. Because like I — my mom was —
MESEREAU: Let me just ask you the questions. Okay? Nobody did, right?
GAVIN A: No.
MESEREAU: A few days later, you went back to Neverland, right?
GAVIN A: I believe — yes.
MESEREAU: And then you say you escaped a second time, correct?
GAVIN A: Yes.
MESEREAU: And when you escaped the second time, how did you get out of Neverland?
GAVIN A: I don’t know.
MESEREAU: Someone drove you somewhere, right?
GAVIN A: Yeah, probably.
MESEREAU: Did you go to your grandparents’ again?
GAVIN A: Probably.
MESEREAU: Nobody called the police from your grandparents’ when you say you escaped the second time, right?
GAVIN A: No.
MESEREAU: And then you claim you returned, right?
GAVIN A: Yes.
MESEREAU: And you say you finally escaped for good, right?
GAVIN A: Yes.
MESEREAU: And when you got back after finally escaping for good to your grandparents’, nobody called the police, correct?
GAVIN A: No. (p 1941 lines 26-28; p 1942 1-28; p 1943 line 1-6)

Ouch. It’s implausible that someone can escape three times and not once – even after leaving for the last time – did any of them ever call the police or the DA’s office for that matter to allege they were kidnapped. And in between one of these escapes and returns he claims the “molestation” began; specifically between the time Jesus Salas drove them off the ranch for “escape” #1, and their final “escape”.

False reporting in the media was rampant during the trial. The media in general suffered from a group-think syndrome. One of those points of “group-think” concerned the mother’s allegation.

Unlike what they have reported, the mother was NOT the only family member alleging a conspiracy. For example, Gavin Arvizo backed up his mother’s ludicrous allegation that they were told what to say. He testified that Dieter Wiesner told them what to say for answers during the family’’s rebuttal interview (p 2002).

Probably the most ludicrous aspect is that the mother claims to have been held hostage at a time when she and the accuser met with civil attorney William Dickerman. They had a meeting with both Dickerman and Jamie Masada at Masada’s comedy club on Feb 21 2003…after the interview with Bradley Miller on Feb 16… after the DCFS interview on Feb 20 and after shooting the rebuttal video.

They also went on a shopping spree “around Feb 26” 2003. Gavin A. testified that he went to Anchor Blue, Banana Republic, and Wilson’s Luggage. And on Feb 28 2003, he went to Hsong’s Barber Shop and got a hair cut. It didn’t stop there. March 1 2003, they went to see the movie Old School and made another trip to Anchor Blue. They also ate at Johnny Rocket’s Burgers around March 2 2003. Okay. First, Michael Jackson must be the greatest kidnapper ever! I’ve never heard of a situation where someone would be held hostage and taken out to shop, eat, watch a movie and get a hair cut. It’s ridiculous. Second, at none of these places do they call for help or scream that they were being kidnapped.

 

__Conflicting Testimonies & Inconsistencies__

More inconsistent statements about important details were revealed in Gavin A’s testimony. If you remember, the brother (Star A.) testified that they had been in Jackson’s room even when he wasn’t there. He told the jury that Jackson opened up his personal living quarters so they could sleep there when Jackson was away. But the accuser claimed he never was so much as in Jackson’s “bedroom” when he wasn’t there. This is what the brother told the jury:

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)

Now check out what the accuser told the jury:

MESEREAU: How many times do you think you entered Michael Jackson’s bedroom when Mr. Jackson wasn’t there? GAVIN A: I never went inside his room when he wasn’t there. MESEREAU: To your knowledge, did your brother ever go into his room when he wasn’t there? GAVIN A: I don’t think my brother went into his room when he wasn’t there. MESEREAU: Okay. So you have no knowledge of him doing that, correct? GAVIN A: No. (p 1894 lines 18-28; p 1895 line 1)

Someone is definitely lying. Either they were in there or they weren’t. The accuser’s brother’s version of events may prove to be most accurate (if you can believe it) because they were all over the ranch; even when Jackson wasn’t there. The more questions he was asked, the more contradictions were revealed. One of those inconsistencies had to do with who told the accuser about masturbation. Gavin A. told sheriffs in early interviews that his grandmother is the one who told him about masturbation, making the statement that if a man doesn’t masturbate, he could go crazy and rape a girl. However, on the stand, he directly attributed that statement to Jackson and said that Jackson was the one who told him to do it. When asked by Mesereau in front of the trial jury about it, he came up with some cockamamie story that both his grandmother AND Jackson expressed the same sentiment about masturbation. From the transcript:

MESEREAU: Okay. And they pretty much said the identical thing, is that what you’re telling me? GAVIN A: Not exactly. MESEREAU: Not exactly? GAVIN A: No. MESEREAU: Well, the quotes are almost identical, aren’t they? GAVIN A: You see, Michael was trying to tell me that I have to masturbate. My mom — my grandmother was actually telling me — giving me the talk. Michael was just talking about masturbation. MESEREAU: But your grandmother said to you, “If men don’t do it, men might get to a point where they might go ahead and rape a woman,” correct? GAVIN A: Michael also told me that. MESEREAU: Well — so you’re saying they basically said the same thing? GAVIN A: My grandmother said it’s okay to do it, because sometimes, some men, they can’t control themselves and might do that. MESEREAU: But in that police interview, you never mentioned that Michael Jackson had said that to you, did you? GAVIN A: I’m sure in one of the other transcript I mentioned about Michael. MESEREAU: Not in that interview, correct? GAVIN A: But I’m sure in another one I did. (p 1802 lines 3-28; p 1803 line 1)

It was ridiculous. And instead of simply saying he made a mistake or he was inaccurate, he dug that whole deeper and deeper trying to lie his way out of it. Yet more inconsistencies arose. Gavin Arvizo was asked about Jackson’s 12 year old cousin, Rijo Jackson. The younger Jackson family member would testify that he was assigned to the same guest suite as the Arvizos. Rijo told the jury of one disgusting experience he had with the Arvizo brothers. He said… [pagebreak] …he caught the brothers under the covers masturbating while watching something pornographic on the TV in the guest suit they were assigned to. He said at one point, one of the brothers asked him to join in. Totally freaked out, he said he ran to his sister’s guest unit and she told him to go and tell Jackson about it. The adorable 12 year old said Jackson really didn’t believe him because Jackson, at that point, still thought the Arvizo brothers were “good guys”. But while Gavin A was on the stand, he was asked if he ever shared a guest suite with Rijo. From the transcript:

MESEREAU: Did you stay in a guesthouse with Rio? GAVIN A: No. MESEREAU: Never did? GAVIN A: No. Well, I might have hung out with him for a while. No, I hung out with his sister, you know. And she was telling me about some girls that thought I was cute from the Martin Bashir thing, and then that was it. MESEREAU: This is Rio’s sister? GAVIN A: Yes. MESEREAU: Was there a television in the guest room at Neverland? GAVIN A: There’s a television in every guest room. MESEREAU: Did you ever use that television? GAVIN A: We were always playing. We never watched T.V. (p 2011 lines 26-28; p 2012 lines 1-13)

So Gavin A is denying ever watching TV in the guest suites period. The young Jackson cousin was also present when the Arvizo brothers intercepted a bottle of wine meant for Jackson. Of course, Gavin A. denied it happened. This wasn’t the only conflicting testimony, however. Chris Tucker later testified during the defense’s case that Arvizo called him up complaining about the media hounding their family. The family asked Tucker to fly them to Miami because they had found out Jackson was in Miami. Tucker flew the family with them on a private plane he chartered. But when asked about the culmination of that Miami flight, Gavin A. claimed he didn’t remember calling Tucker and asking him to take the family to Miami. Another deviation from the story concerned who gave he and his younger brother codes to Neverland. Unlike the brother’s testimony, Gavin A. alleged that Jackson gave him the keypad code to secured doors at Neverland. However, during the brother’s testimony, he claimed they never asked Jackson for the security codes and that a security guard gave them various codes which were to unlock secured doors at Neverland. Take a look at the brother’s testimony to the trial jury about the codes:

MESEREAU: Do you know why the security guard gave it to you and not Michael? STAR A: We never really asked Michael for that. He just showed us one day. MESEREAU: The security guard did? STAR A: Yes. MESEREAU: And you remember the codes to this day, right? STAR A: Yes. (p 1267 lines 23-28; p 1268 lines 1-3)

Now read what Gavin A. told the trial jury:

MESEREAU: Had you ever been — excuse me. Had you ever learned any code number at Neverland before you got back from Miami? GAVIN A: Yes. They — when I was visiting the first time, they told me the code to the main house. MESEREAU: Who is “they”? GAVIN A: It was either Michael or the maids. MESEREAU: Did you ever ask anybody for the code at Neverland? GAVIN A: Yeah, I would ask Michael. MESEREAU: And did you ever ask anybody else? GAVIN A: Well, not really. I mean, I would ask the maids sometimes when I would forget the code and they would remind me. But when I would ask – like when I didn’t know the code at all, and I would first ask, I would usually ask Michael. MESEREAU: Did you ever ask any security person any code number? GAVIN A: No. MESEREAU: Did you ever see your brother or sister ask any security person for any code number? GAVIN A: No. (p 1877 lines 2-23)

So who exactly gave them the codes? The accuser said he asked Jackson or the maids. But the brother said they never asked Jackson, and got them from a security guard. Who’s telling the truth? Another inconsistency concerned whether or not the younger brother would cook in the kitchen at Neverland. The brother testified that he cooked in the Neverland kitchen four or five times. However, the accuser claimed his brother never tried to cook in the kitchen. Remember, he had already said that he was “always” with his brother when they were at Neverland. Check out the accuser’s testimony:

MESEREAU: Now, you and your brother often would cook for yourselves, correct? GAVIN A: We wouldn’t really cook. We might grab an apple or some ice cream, but we wouldn’t cook. MESEREAU: Ever see your brother Star cook in that kitchen? GAVIN A: No. (p 2031 lines 6-12)

Okay, now read what the younger brother testified to in court about cooking:

MESEREAU: When did you go through the kitchen drawers? STAR A: When I was trying to cook. … GAVIN A: Did you cook in the kitchen? STAR A: Yes. MESEREAU: How often did you cook in the kitchen? STAR A: Four times. Four to five times. MESEREAU: Did you cook in the kitchen when Michael wasn’t around? STAR A: Yes. (p 1360 lines 27-28; p 1361 lines 3-9)

Total contradiction right there. One Neverland employee would later sort of corroborate the brother’s version while giving damaging testimony against him as well. She told jurors that the younger Arvizo, Star A., once put a knife to her back after she stopped him from cooking in the kitchen. She said she assumed he was kidding, however felt freaked out enough about it to remember and relate the story. Although cooking in the kitchen was not terribly important, it was yet another inconsistency illustration that the accuser had no qualms about lying under oath. Another contradiction concerned the accuser and Chris Tucker. Tucker would testify during the defense case that Gavin A. told him no money was raised for him during a fund raiser held at Masada’s comedy club. Partly because of it, Tucker gave money to the Arvizos. However, during his testimony, Gavin A. alleged he never told Tucker no money was raised at that fundraiser. Mesereau probably asked the question knowing Tucker would be an upcoming witness. Tucker would later say Gavin A. specifically asked him for money. But Gavin A. completely denied it. From his testimony:

MESEREAU: Yes. So you never told Chris Tucker, “We didn’t make any money from the fund-raiser”? GAVIN A: Why would I say that when we did? No, I never said that. MESEREAU: Okay. Do you recall yourself asking Chris Tucker for money? GAVIN A: No. (p 2031 lines 19-25)

Notice he didn’t say ‘I don’t remember’. He just flat out denied it. The question is what would he have to lose by admitting he had received money from Tucker? The accuser also backed up the mother’s ludicrous allegation that Jackson called and asked them to come to Miami, culminating in that trip in Feb 2003. However, the jury found out from Tucker’s testimony that he is the one who arranged for the family to fly to Miami after they reached out to him, asking him for help finding Jackson. They flew to Miami on a plane chartered by Tucker. Tucker’s testimony was corroborated with irrefutable evidence. The defense produced phone records showing the family – staying with Maj. Jay Jackson at the time – called Tucker before any phone call was placed from Jackson to them. This is from Tucker’s testimony:

TUCKER: Well, that was part of the — they — Gavin called, and they wanted to — to — they couldn’t get around. The media was following them around. And they wanted to — to find Michael. They wanted to go out of town to find Michael. And I said, “Okay.” I was trying to help them so they can get around and to get out of town so they can, you know, be left alone. MESEREAU: And Gavin told you they wanted to be with Michael? TUCKER: Yeah. They was looking for Michael and they wanted to find him and they wanted to go — and they found out he was in Miami some kind of way and they wanted to go to Miami. (p 11962 lines 3-12)

__Them some bad-ass kids!__ Gavin Arvizo had numerous disciplinary problems at school. Contrary to what the sister (Davellin) said, Gavin Arvizo got into numerous fights at school and was a disciplinary problem long before he ever met Jackson. He talked back to teachers and would get sent out of class. One incident involving Richard Geralt was discussed. Geralt was the supervising teacher over a detention class Gavin A. was assigned to. First, he was in detention which indicated he already has some form of trouble with someone. Second, he was asked if he’d ever confronted Geralt and made extremely derogatory statements to him. From the transcript:

MESEREAU: Well, you got up in class and accused Teacher Geralt of having his balls in his mouth, right? GAVIN A: His balls in his mouth? MESEREAU: Yes. GAVIN A: No, because I was never in one of his classes. MESEREAU: Do you deny doing that? GAVIN A: I don’t even remember ever doing that. (p 1822 lines 14-22)

Mesereau didn’t pull that out of the sky. Apparently the defense talked to this teacher about his experiences with the accuser. Geralt accused Gavin Arvizo of being on drugs, he testified. To hear Gavin A. tell it, Geralt just accused him out of the blue and unprovoked. He says Geralt did it trying to make fun of him, but the other children in the room were cheering him on:

GAVIN A: Actually, all of the students in there were kind of cheering me on because they all knew how Mr. Geralt is, and no one’s ever stood up to him before. MESEREAU: But you stood up to the teacher, right? GAVIN A: I was already standing up, so — MESEREAU: Excuse me? I’m sorry, I didn’t hear what you said. GAVIN A: I guess so. MESEREAU: You did stand up to Teacher Geralt, right? GAVIN A: Yes. (p 1824 lines 7-17)

He admits to standing up to authority. As reported from numerous sources, Gavin A. isn’t easily anyone’s “victim”. This led some to think that if he could stand up to a teacher with a bad reputation – a teacher publicly embarrassing him in front of the other students – he could certainly have “stood up” to Jackson if the allegation was true, right? This story added another level of incredibility to the allegation, especially after what he said next. Continued from the testimony:

MESEREAU: You confronted him, right? GAVIN A: Yes, after he had brought himself down to my level by doing those things. By not — see, because I believe teachers are higher than me because I’m just a student. When a teacher does something like that and makes fun of me and tries to say I’m on drugs, he’s no longer the level of a teacher, he’s come down to my level. MESEREAU: And you were angry about that, right? GAVIN A: Um, I felt as if he was — didn’t deserve respect as a teacher. MESEREAU: Didn’t deserve respect as a teacher? GAVIN A: No. MESEREAU: Okay. So you did not respect him because you didn’t think he deserved it, right? GAVIN A: I didn’t respect him as a person. (p 1824 18-28; p 1825 lines 1-5)

Here is where even some pro-prosecution pundits reported they started to begin to have a few doubts about the prosecution’s portrayal of the accuser as the “innocent little victim.” Not only does he speak up and talk back to a teacher who confronts him, he also processed whether or not the teacher deserved to be respected! And this is all before he meets Jackson. He very arrogantly told the trial jury that when a teacher does something like that to him, the teacher is no longer on a higher level. The teacher is now down to his level and therefore he can treat that teacher any way he wants to. I suppose the teacher only deserves respect when he wants to give it to them? All the more reason causing many to doubt the allegation that he would sit idly by and allow Jackson to molest him, more than once. And afterwards, would continue to defend Jackson’s innocence. It doesn’t jibe with his personality or his past behavior with authority. The defense dug up a lot of information concerning other teachers he had discipline problems with as well, long before he’d even met Jackson. One teacher by the name of Mr. Murphy said the accuser was disruptive and uncooperative in class. Gavin A. said he went to the counselor and had the counselor change the class for him. And his reason for wanting out of Murphy’s class? According to Gavin A: “I didn’t like how he conducted his classroom” (p 1826 lines 14-15). Ha! All kids should be so lucky as to get out of a class when they didn’t like the way a teacher taught it! He had enough hutzpah to request removal, but again, prosecutors wanted to sell the ‘naïve little victim’ theory with a straight face to the jurors. Another one of his teachers was a Ms. Slaughter with whom Gavin A. argued because, according to him, he simply asked to go to the bathroom. He had problems with yet another teacher, a Mr. Finklestein. That mouth coupled with his arrogance was apparently a problem to a number of people. At school, he was accused of “screaming words that other students were jumping around like retarded people”. He also painted himself as some sort of conquering hero to his classmates. From the testimony:

GAVIN A: I don’t really remember what I said. It probably happened, because a lot of times there was — I would stand up to the teacher. A lot of the kids would kind of congratulate me, and then — MESEREAU: You were kind of a hero for standing up to teachers? GAVIN A: Sometimes. (p 1830 lines 11-17)

He got snotty with Mesereau on the stand as well during testimony about Mr. Finklestein. Check out this exchange:

GAVIN A: I think everyone in his class had a problem with him. MESEREAU: Let me just ask about you. Did you have problems in Mr. Finklestein’s class? GAVIN A: I was “everyone.” MESEREAU: Pardon me? GAVIN A: I was one of the “everyone.” MESEREAU: You’re saying everybody had a problem? GAVIN A: If everyone had a problem, then I would be one of them, right? (p 1830 lines 25-28; p 1831 lines 1-6)

That mouth of his got him into trouble at school and showed jurors his true colors. That type of behavior continued, spilling over into a Dr. Seamont’s (a dentist) office when they went to get their braces taken off. More about this testimony in an upcoming MJEOL Trial Review. __The specter of Jay Leno__ The obnoxious, glorified comedian Jay Leno became a part of this “case” because of the accuser. The defense found out the family contacted Leno…for whatever reason. Leno became suspicious and relayed those suspicions to the sheriff’s department after Gavin A. appeared overly fawning towards him. Reportedly, he told the sheriffs he remembered Arvizo’s name. Though he disgustingly made a joke out of this serious matter, he furthered the ball by contradicting the testimony of Gavin A. From the transcript:

MESEREAU: And did you ever actually get Mr. Leno on the phone? GAVIN A: No. MESEREAU: So you deny you’ve ever spoken to him on the phone, right? GAVIN A: I’ve never spoken to Jay Leno. (p 1891 lines 19-24)

When asked by Mesereau if he had ever spoken to Leno on the phone, he completely denied it, saying “No, I never spoke with Jay Leno” (p 1890 line 22). Leno testified differently. The only thing he would admit to was trying to contact Leno. But the issue remains why he would deny speaking to Leno? Further, if he were to claim he didn’t remember, is it really plausible that he wouldn’t remember talking to someone whom he claimed was his “favorite” comedian? How would one forget that…assuming he wasn’t simply lying about it to begin with? Many other people had so much to say about their experiences with the accuser and his family. Everyone from Vernee Watson Johnson, to Neverland employees, to a local Fox TV reporter all had experiences with this family. Whether they were peripheral witnesses or not, many have extremely damaging things to say about what they accuser and family were up to. Stay tuned. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply

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