Category: News

No comments

As Accuser’s Story Falls Apart, More Excuses are Made – MiniBullet #14

As Accuser’s Story Falls Apart, More Excuses are Made – MiniBullet #14 MARCH 15 2005 — Day two of the cross-examination (cross) of Gavin Arvizo revealed so many substantial inconsistencies that pro-prosecution apologists couldn’t come up with enough excuses to explain them away. From the beginning of yesterday’s (March 14 2005) cross-examination, the accuser started off as argumentative, “petulant” and unresponsive on the witness stand. Those who were in the courtroom describe a very different accuser than the one prosecutors tried to show the jury under direct questioning. That Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde theory spoken about earlier certainly is at play under defense cross. According to published reports, more than 60 fans arrived early for court today. They undoubtedly would have also been cheering in the courtroom if that were permitted as well. Jackson attorney Tom Mesereau – with the obvious support of the defense team members Robert Sanger, Susan Yu, Brian Oxman and defense investigators – began to ask the hard questions that Sneddon had been able to hide the accuser from until now. But really, this “case” shouldn’t have ever materialized. The longer this nonsense drags on, the more disgusted one gets with writing about it because realistically, anyone else wouldn’t have been prosecuted. Maybe this is to Jackson’s advantage; a way to clear his name in the courts and in the court of public opinion. But in this specific “case”, there are TOO many things wrong with the accuser’s story, TOO many inconsistencies, TOO many contradictions, and TOO many convenient excuses for any of them to be sheer coincidence. Every crackpot — from wanna-be Jackson lawyers to commentators who simply want Jackson to be guilty no matter if the allegation is legitimate — are still acting as blind as can be about the facts coming out in court.

No comments

Accuser Transforms Under Cross-Examination – MJEOL Bullet #252

Accuser Transforms Under Cross-Examination – MJEOL Bullet #252 First short day of cross-examination of accuser shows combative accuser MARCH 14 2005 — What a difference a few questions make. Michael Jackson’s accuser, Gavin Arvizo, began cross-examination (cross) late Thursday, March 10 2005 by Michael Jackson attorney Tom Mesereau. Some observers claim that the accuser, under direct examination, came off as “engaging” and “well spoken” if not a little upset. But under cross, just in those approximate 30 minutes of defense questions, he suddenly transformed into an insincere, combative young adult with an undertone of vengefulness. Cross is scheduled to continue today in court as Mesereau will have his first full day to thoroughly ask the accuser questions that the prosecution has, up until now, been able to avoid. He has reportedly already contradicted earlier testimony from his sister and brother. For example, the accuser and his brother have different recollections of what they claim was the first time Jackson allegedly “abused” the accuser. The accuser and his sister have two different recollections of where and when she was allegedly given alcohol. He says vodka in the kitchen, she says wine in the wine cellar. Good lord. One shocking revelation that not too many people are aware of is the fact that two of the alleged “co-conspirators” took the family – evidently by their request – to meet with Jamie Masada and civil attorney Bill Dickerman at the Laugh Factory, a comedy club owned by Jamie Masada. Now, remember what the prosecution is alleging. They’re claiming that the family was kidnapped and held hostage during that timeline. They went to meet with these two after they had left the Calabasas Inn. From the transcript of the cross-examination:

1692 1 Q. And you’ve already left the Calabasas Inn 2 and gone by The Laugh Factory and met with an 3 attorney, right? 4 A. I believe so. 5 Q. So after you meet with an attorney, you 6 suddenly come up with a story that you were 7 masturbated by Michael Jackson, correct? 8 MR. SNEDDON: Object. Argumentative, Your 9 Honor. 10 THE WITNESS: No, because — 11 MR. SNEDDON: Excuse me. 12 THE COURT: Overruled. 13 You can go ahead and answer. 14 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Correct? 15 A. No, because I did not tell the attorney 16 anything about what Michael was doing. 17 Q. But you’re saying it started after — 18 A. Yes, I did not tell the attorney anything 19 about alcohol or anything like that.