Category: MJEOL BULLET

Arvizo Combative, Evasive, Possibly Perjuring Herself on the Stand – MB #258 Update #1 APRIL 16 2005 — Unbelievable testimony yesterday in the Michael Jackson “case” with the accuser’s mother, Janet Arvizo, being cross-examined by Tom Mesereau. Reportedly, she was evasive, combative, shown to be lying on the stand, and was anything but a fragile “victim” who couldn’t stand up to people. In the interest of time, I’m simply going to list some of the information that came out in court yesterday under cross-examination according to reports from Mike Taibbi (NBC), Trace Gallagher (FOX), Savannah Guthrie (Court TV) as well as comments from a number of legal experts who have appeared on various shows on various networks, and data gathered from different articles: Major Points General Points -It was very contentious. The mother was combative, argumentative, and snide. -Trace Gallagher reported on Dayside (Fox) that Janet Arvizo is being very evasive; skirting the questions —Says she was asked questions 3 and 4 separate times and still unable to give a simple yes or no answer Explosive Bombshell Documents? -According to listeners of 790AM KABC, a Los Angeles Radio Station, Mesereau presented the court with documents with Janet Arvizo’s signature on them where she tells the sheriff’s department that she actually previously launched an investigation into Jackson —She reportedly admitted she started her own “investigation” into Jackson even BEFORE she had actually met him. —Listeners reported that the KABC reporter says Mesereau had the documents officially entered into evidence today. —–Still waiting on confirmation of this information Lying under oath -Under cross, Mesereau got Arvizo to admit that she lied under oath during a deposition for the J.C. Penney lawsuit. —She used “bruises” apparently on her body claiming that they were given to her in her alleged beating by JC Penney guards —Now she’s claiming the bruises were given to her by her ex-husband, David Arvizo in domestic violence dispute —This is important because she’s seemingly falsifying evidence to get over $150,000 in that lawsuit …continue

Graphic Testimony Turns into a Pile of Garbage on Cross-examination- MJEOL Bullet #257 Part 1 | Part 2 What other way to give a full view of the witness’s allegation than to have them cross-examined about those allegations? April 7 was an unbelievable day in which jurors heard graphic allegations; allegations thrown into doubt by the actions of the people alleging them. Ralph Chacon and Adrian McManus both testified to either actually witnessing molestation or witnessing “inappropriate behavior” involving Michael Jackson and children. Neither one of these witnesses tried to stop what they claim they witnessed, didn’t call the cops at that time, didn’t quit their jobs and only made these allegations after the 1993 lawsuit was filed against Jackson. That suit was reportedly funded by Jackson’s insurance company, devoid of any admission of guilt whatsoever. The prosecution was obviously hoping to shock the jury so that they would overlook the 1.5 million tons of baggage all of these witnesses so far carry with them. Much has been made by media pundits about the “cumulative effect” of all of these witnesses. Pro-prosecution pundits scream ‘they can’t all be lying!’ Well, yeah, they can all be lying. It’s already happened before. Many of these eye-witnesses-come-lately have been found by independent entities – like another Santa Maria jury – to have defrauded Jackson, stolen from him, and lied under oath in previous depositions.

MJEOL Bullet Preview — Witness Testimony turns into a Pile of Garbage on Cross-examination What other way to give a

Spotty Memory of Prosecution Witness Undermines Credibility? – MJEOL Bullet #256 Pundit-touted Jason Francia turns from alleged “powerful witness” to the king of forgetfulness under cross-examination APRIL 6 2005 — It’s always nice to be able to read the court transcripts instead of only relying on reports from cable news shows about what happens in court. The testimony of Jason Francia is a perfect example of how pundits can create “powerful” testimony and ignore serious problems revealed under cross-examination. Tuesday (April 5 2005), you could have cast the role of “Chicken Little” with Dan Abrams over at MSNBC. His repeated cries of “powerful testimony” and wide-eyed claims of the witness “holding up under cross examination” was enough to make some observers watching to comment: “He should calm down a little. This is a trial, not a football game”. The ridiculousness going on over at Court TV goes without saying. No surprise there. The heralding of his testimony is made all the more questionable once one actually reads the transcript of what ‘Mr. I Don’t Know’ had to say when being questioned by the defense. And later, under cross-examination of his mother, the defense brought out that Jackson was on a World tour from 1987-1989 – frequently out of the country — during the time when J. Francia has claimed some of his alleged “molestation” occurred in Los Angeles. Oops! But regardless of what one wants to say concerning the testimony of Jason Francia, it was fraught with a number of stunning things that the defense delved into under cross-examination. And what came off as evasiveness didn’t help the prosecution. Indeed, every witness has two faces. Yesterday (April 5), the media was abuzz with this so-called “credible” testimony from this 24 year old witness, who claimed Jackson fondled him in 1987, 1988 and 1990; with some pundits wondering how Mesereau was going to challenge his story. One of the first things to be hit upon by Mesereau was the fact that J. Francia denied any molestation occurred. Some observers didn’t realize that until it was brought out in open court.

Even Francia Testimony Problematic for the Prosecution – MiniBullet #17
Reported previous admission by Jason Francia throws into doubt his entire allegation

APRIL 5 2005  — You could have cast the role of "Chicken Little" with Dan Abrams over at MSNBC today. His repeated cries of "powerful testimony" and claims of the witness "holding up under cross examination" was enough to make some observers watching to comment: "He should calm down a little. This is a trial, not a football game".

The ridiculousness going on over at Court TV goes without saying. No surprise there. But regardless of what one wants to say about the testimony of Jason Francia, it was fraught with a number of stunning things that the defense delved into under cross-examination.

Indeed, every witness has two faces.  Yesterday, the media was abuzz with this so-called “credible” testimony from this 24 year old witness, with some prosecutors wondering how Mesereau was going to challenge his story. J. Francia admitted that he at first denied any molestation, which some people didn’t realize until it was brought out in court.

Well, Mesereau, under the scope of cross-examination – the full details may come out during the defense’s case – really got some interesting admissions from both Jason Francia and his mother, Blanca Francia. As soon as we get the transcripts, we’ll know more about what was brought out.

It is tantamount to pulling teeth to get a full breakdown from the media about what was said under cross-examination of Francia’s mother, Blanca Francia.  But a few details, by way of MSNBC’s Mike Taibbi made it’s way out of the courtroom and onto the air.

Anyway, also appearing on that Abrams show today was MSNBC Analyst Ron Richards to put some of this alleged "powerful testimony" into context.

The first point made by Ron Richards was that people, like Abrams — in his "big trouble for the defense" declarations — act as if Jackson’s attorneys was suppose to decimate the accuser on the stand and force him into a Perry Mason-moment where he admits he lied. 

Pt 4: 1993 Investigation Not a Problem for Defense? – MJEOL Bullet #254 Tabloid reporter Diane Dimond’s “suspicious” involvement with current and past allegations has drawn the attention of many people Part 4 | Part 3 | Part 2| Part 1 APRIL 4 2005 – Part 3 of this special MJEOL Bullet discussed a number of issues including the prosecution’s relentless search for phantom “victims” of Michael Jackson. Not one to let a tabloid story go unchecked, the prosecution seems absolutely beyond desperate to bring in every piece of unconfirmed and un-cross-examined garbage they can find; attempting to kick up enough dust wishing that the jury can’t see through it. Never mind that the therapist who talked to this accuser, Stan Katz, was also involved in the notorious McMartin Preschool case that quickly became a witch-hunt (see article). Never mind that the prosecution’s witnesses-come-lately have almost no credibility even before the defense has asked them one question. Never mind the cozy relationships between William Dickerman, Larry Feldman and Stan Katz. Throughout all of nonsense, there remains at least one person of the media, allegedly on the outside looking in, who appears to be too close for comfort. This person was a fixture in the media around the first allegation back in 1993, and emerged from obscurity riding the tabloid-Jackson gravy train. And to obscurity she may return when all is said and done. When tabloid reporter Diane Dimond isn’t lying in wait for her next “scoop” from her “highly placed sources”, she seems to be actually going out to actively help the prosecution shore up their “case” against Jackson. Some say her meddling is certainly not a lofty journalistic act in service of the greater good, but rather, her trying to protect future book earnings. She, and the other ‘sentinels’ (think Matrix Revolutions) stand to make more money if they can get – or help the prosecution get – a conviction against Jackson; truth be damned. I guess someone should have told them that Jackson’s innocence does not rest with one-sided presentations, or unfounded tabloid stories, or proven liars, or bitter ex-employees who had to file for bankruptcy after they sued (and were sued by) Jackson and lost.

DA Got Conned with LeMarque ‘Witness’ Story? — MiniBullet #17 MARCH 31 2005 — Did the District Attorney get conned

Every so often, I like to post information about what we’re working on to let you know some of the

MARCH 29 2005 — Contrary to some pro-prosecution pundits and tabloid reporters’ assessment, it was Michael Jackson’s defense team that