Repost: V for Vendetta - V for Vengeance -> The 2005 Trial

  • 4 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ~Souza~

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Hoaxer
  • *****
  • Mrs. SEHF
  • Posts: 10146
    • Michael Jackson Death Hoax Investigators

  • THE 2005 TRIAL[/o][/shadow]
With twenty-two hundred media people present, this trial has probably been the biggest media circus in history. The media had convicted Mike beforehand and the news coverage was one-sided. Even if he would be acquitted, the media had already put him behind bars. Just like in the 1993 case, his image would be ruined and a lot of people would always think he did it and got away with it.

Luckily one of the reporters that biased him saw the light and decided to have a better look at the case. While investigating the case, she came to the conclusion that Mike was the victim in this case, instead of Gavin Arvizo, the boy that claimed to be molested by Mike. Her name is Aphrodite Jones and she wrote a book about the trial “Michael Jackson Conspiracy”. If you have not read it yet, please take our advice and order it, she presents very accurate info about what happened IN the courtroom.

Aphrodite’s book was a big help to us. Follow her blog and make sure you watch the promo for True Crime with Aphrodite Jones here.


We both never followed the case, other than that we heard he was accused, he would go to trial and that he was acquitted. The book has many “jaw-on-floor” moments and after reading it, even the biggest racist or Michael Jackson hater should acknowledge that he is innocent.

Two thumbs up for Tom Mesereau, who handled the case brilliantly! He would often start his cross examination with:

“My name is Thomas Mesereau and I speak for Mr. Jackson. Okay.

I’m on his side. All right.

Not the government. I’m on Mr. Jackson’s side. Okay.

This is a timeline of the events from January 2003 until June 13, 2005, the day Mike was found not guilty on all 10 counts. Even though we will try to keep it as short as possible, it will be another long read.

Arvizo family allegations: Introduction and overview

The events prior to the trial

The Evidence

This is a brief summary of the evidence that has been presented.

The Molestation Charges

Jackson is accused of molesting Gavin Arvizo at his Neverland Ranch on several occasions in March 2003


  • Testimony of Gavin Arvizo, the alleged victim.
  • Testimony of Star Arvizo, who claims to have witnessed the alleged abuse on several occasions.

Defense Evidence:

  • Gavin Arvizo initially told authorities that the alleged molestation occurred before he and his family made videotaped statements in Jackson’s defense. This would also mean that the alleged abuse occurred before the boy defended Jackson to social workers in February. Gavin Arvizo now contends that the molestation took place after he repeatedly denied any wrongdoing on Jackson’s part. While it is understandable that the boy cannot remember the exact dates on which he was allegedly molested, his original assertion that the abuse took place before the videotape was made cannot be attributed to confusion on the boy’s part because he also told investigators that the videotape was made to cover-up the alleged molestation (see testimony of Sgt. Steve Robel).
  • Based on what District Attorney Tom Sneddon said in his opening statement, it’s possible that Michael Jackson was not even with the Arvizos at Neverland throughout the month of February. From pages 115-116 of Sneddon’s opening statement:

    “I believe that the records from the ranch logs and the testimony from individuals involved here will show that from basically March the 2nd to March the 5th, that the defendant and the Arvizos were on the ranch together. That again, from March 9th until March 12th, when the Arvizos left for the last time, that the Jackson — Michael Jackson, the defendant in this case, was present.”

    It suffices to say that if investigators did discover that Mr. Jackson was not with the Arvizos throughout the month of February (as Sneddon implied in his opening statement), they must have realized that Gavin Arvizo was lying when he claimed to have been molested sometime between February 7th and February 20th. Hence, the changing of the timeline from February 7th – March 10th (as stated in the original charges) to February 20th – March 12th (as stated in the current set of charges)
  • According to an investigator, the boy originally claimed that he was molested between five and seven times. Gavin Arvizo only testified to two incidences of alleged molestation.
  • Gavin Arvizo’s younger brother Star, who supposedly walked in on Jackson molesting his brother, said under cross-examination that there are seven locks on Jackson’s bedroom door and an alarm that goes off if anybody approaches. Yet somehow, Star Arvizo managed to walk into Jackson’s room unnoticed on two seperate occasions.
  • In his grand jury testimony and in past police interviews, Star Arvizo claimed to have witnessed Jackson rubbing his penis against Gavin Arvizo’s behind while the boy slept. While testifying at the trial, Star Arvizo denied ever having made such a statement.
  • When Jackson’s defense attorney pointed out that Star Arvizo’s description of the second incident of alleged molestation differed from an earlier description that he had given of the same incident, Mr. Arvizo suddenly claimed to have actually witnessed three incidences of alleged abuse.
  • Star Arvizo alleged that Jackson once appeared naked in front of him and his brother. During his testimony, Gavin Arvizo was asked whether or not he was aware of the fact that Jackson has a skin disorder called Vitiligo that eats away at his pigment. Mr. Arvizo acknowledged that he was aware of Jackson’s skin disease. Jackson’s attorney then asked him whether or not he was aware of the fact that Jackson has brown patches on his body, to which Mr. Arvizo replied, “I didn’t know about patches. I thought he was just all white.” There are various pictures of Mr. Jackson on the Internet where one can clearly see that his body is not white all over, as Gavin Arvizo claimed.
  • In spring 2003, after the alleged abuse took place, Gavin Arvizo told his principal that Jackson had not sexually abused him. Mr. Arvizo claims that he said this because he didn’t want the kids at school to make fun of him.

The Alcohol Allegations

Jackson is accused of supplying Gavin Arvizo with liquor to seduce the boy


  • Testimony of Gavin Arvizo
  • Testimony of Star Arvizo
  • Testimony of Davellin Arvizo
  • Testimony of Kiki Fournier, Jackson’s former maid. During her twelve years working at Neverland, Fournier claimed to have seen several minors who “might” have been intoxicated.

Defense Evidence:

  • Ms. Fournier conceded that she had never witnessed Jackson serve alcohol to minors.
  • The defense claims that the Arvizo children broke into Jackson’s wine cellar and drank his alcohol when he was not at Neverland.
  • In his testimony, Star Arvizo claimed that he and his brother got drunk with Jackson from the time they arrived at Neverland from Miami (February 7th) to the time they left the ranch for the first time with house manager Jesus Salas (February 12th). As mentioned earlier, the District Attorney said that Jackson was not at Neverland with the Arvizos during this time frame.
  • Star Arvizo admitted that he knew the exact location of the key to Jackson’s wine cellar.
  • The accuser’s older sister Davellin Arvizo claims that she walked into the wine cellar and witnessed Jackson serving alcohol to her younger brothers. Under cross-examination, it was revealed that she never made such a statement in her earlier interviews with police.
  • Davellin Arvizo claims that Jackson served her alcohol in the wine cellar. Star Arvizo, however, testified that Jackson served Davellin Arvizo alcohol in the kitchen.
  • When confronted with a conflicting statement that he had made regarding the alcohol allegations, Star Arvizo blamed the court reporter, claiming that she had misquoted him.

The Pornography Allegations

Jackson is accused of showing pornography to Gavin and Star Arvizo.


  • Testimony of Gavin Arvizo
  • Testimony of Star Arvizo
  • The boys were able to tell investigators where Jackson kept his stash of pornography.
  • The accuser’s fingerprints were found on one of Jackson’s porn magazines.

Defense Evidence:

  • The porn magazine with the accuser’s fingerprints was not tested for prints until after the boy handled the magazine at a grand jury proceedings in April 2004.
  • The defense claims that the boys went into Jackson’s room when he was not there and looked at the magazines on their own. In support of this theory, Star Arvizo testified that he knew the code to get into Jackson’s bedroom.
  • Jackson’s defense attorney revealed that the magazine that Jackson had supposedly shown Star Arvizo and his brother, was actually released in August 2003 – five months after the Arvizos had left the ranch for the last time.
  • In his grand jury testimony in April 2004, Star Arvizo testified that he and his brother had once surfed porn sites. When confronted with a transcript of this testimony, Star Arvizo replied “that’s just a paragraph that somebody wrote.”

The Conspiracy Charge

Jackson is accused of holding Gavin Arvizo and his family hostage at Neverland and forcing them to participate in a videotaped rebuttal to the controversial Living with Michael Jackson documentary that aired in February 2003.


  • Testimony of Davellin Arvizo
  • Testimony of Star Arvizo
  • Testimony of Gavin Arvizo
  • Testimony of Ann Marie Kite, a former Jackson employee who confirmed that Living with Michael Jackson was a public relations disaster. Kite also testified that one of Jackson’s associates wanted to paint Janet Arvizo, the mother of Jackson’s accuser as a “crack whore,” in the media.
  • Testimony of Louise Palanker, a comedian who befriended the Arvizos. According to Palanker, she received a panicked call from Janet Arvizo who told her that Jackson’s associates were “evil.”

Defense Evidence:

  • Kite only worked for Jackson for six days and never met or even spoke to him or his accuser.
  • Louise Palanker told police that she thought that Janet Arvizo was “wacky” and “totally bipolar.”
  • Jackson’s maid Kiki Fournier, who worked at the ranch during the time of the alleged conpsiracy, testified that she did not believe the family were held against their will.
  • All of the Arvizo children conceded that they had never asked for anybody’s help even though they had numerous opportunities to do so.
    The prosecution contends that the Arvizos were forced to defend Jackson in February 2003. Gavin Arvizo, however, testified that he meant most of what he said in his videotaped defense of Jackson.
  • When the boy was still claiming that the alleged abuse happened before the rebuttal film was made, the prosecution claimed that the tape was made to cover up the alleged molestation. Now that the boy is claiming that the alleged abuse happened after the rebuttal film was made, the prosecution is claiming that the tape was actually made as part of a conspiracy to improve Jackson’s public image.

Past Accusations

Judge Rodney Melville ruled that past accusations of sexual misconduct on Jackson’s part will be heard by the jury.

The Ruling in the Michael Jackson Case Allowing Testimony About Past Molestation Allegations: Why It Was Wrong on the Law, and Unfair to the Defendant, Yet May End Up Hurting the Prosecution More

During an important hearing on March 28, 2005, District Attorney Tom Sneddon said that:

  • The son of Jackson’s former maid Blanca Francia will testify that Jackson touched him inappropriately on several occasions. The Francias received a $2 million settlement from Jackson in 1994.
  • Witnesses will testify that they saw a pair of Jackson’s underwear lying next to a pair of his original accuser Jordan Chandler’s underwear on the floor beside a bed that the two shared. Chandler, however, is not scheduled to testify.
  • Witnesses will testify that they saw Jackson act inappropriately with four teenage boys.
  • Two witnesses will testify that they heard Jackson encourage children to refer to him as “Daddy.”
  • Former Jackson employee Bob Jones claimed that he saw Jackson lick the head of a child.

In resonse, defense attorney Tom Mesereau argued that:

  • The other boys who have been named alleged victims by the prosecution all vehemently deny any wrongdoing on Jackson’s part. One of the alleged victims is former child star Macaulay Culkin, who has publicly defended Jackson and is still good friends with him today. The other alleged victims – Wade Robson, Brett Barnes and Jimmy Shafechuck – have also maintained that Jackson never did anything sexual to them.
  • The mother of the boy who will testify about inappropriate touching originally sold her story to the tabloids but later recanted her statements while under deposition by a Jackson attorney.
  • The former employees who claim to have witnessed inappropriate behaviour on Jackson’s part all sold their stories to tabloids. Five of the former employees also tried to sue Jackson for wrongful termination in 1995. Jackson denied the allegations and counter-sued, alleging that two of them stole belongings from his home and sold the items to tabloids. The jury sided with Jackson, awarding him $60,000 from the ex-employees who robbed him. The ex-employees filed for bankruptcy as a result.


Source: The Smoking Gun

In other develpoments, NBC’s Mike Taibbi reported that Bob Jones has recanted his allegation about having witnessed Jackson lick a child’s head.

Quotes from Mr. Mesereau regarding the admissability of the “prior bad acts.”

“Now, let’s look at what they’re trying to do. They have an alleged prior victim named Brett Barnes who tells us he never was touched improperly. They want to bring in four witnesses to talk about Brett Barnes. They don’t want to bring him in. Because the moment they bring him in, they’re done. So they want to bring in allegedly four honest witnesses – I guess they’re vouching for their credibility – to testify that Mr. Barnes was improperly touched. Who are their main witnesses? Their main witnesses sued Mr. Jackson in the mid ’90s… At numerous times during that six-month trial, the trial Judge made findings that the plaintiffs were lying, not being candid, changing their stories, even leaving the bench on a couple of occasions. And when the dust settled, the jury returned a verdict for Mr. Jackson, awarded Mr. Jackson damages, because the plaintiffs had stole from him. The Judge then awarded not only costs, but legal fees, and in the end Mr. Jackson obtained a judgment for over a million dollars against these lying plaintiffs. They want the Court to allow these lying plaintiffs to come in now again and try and testify to improper acts, when there is no alleged victim they intend to call. That’s just plain wrong. And if they suggest it wouldn’t be time-consuming to litigate that issue, all the Court has to do is look at the six-month trial and its length to know that’s not true, because they sold stories to tabloids, they were caught lying, and they had a big judgment against them.”

“First of all, Your Honor, I would note that in their motion, they mention someone named Bob Jones. And in very graphic — in a very graphic manner they told the Court that Mr. Jones had worked for Mr. Jackson for years, had traveled internationally with him, and would testify to all sorts of improprieties with children. We just were produced a police report by the prosecution where Mr. Jones flat out denies virtually everything they said in their motion. He has told the Santa Barbara Sheriffs, with counsel, that he never saw anything inappropriate happen when Mr. Jackson was in the company of any of these children.”

“Now, what happens if you allow third-party testimony about Mr. Chandler without allowing Mr. — forcing them, or ordering them, or requiring them to have Mr. Chandler, the alleged victim, testify? You then have people come in to say what they saw without any victim to confirm it. And what happened back in those days? In summary, this is what happened: Chandler’s parents had been divorced in 1986. The father had given up custody of the child. When these alleged events happened, the father jumped on the bandwagon and wanted to become a multimillionaire, and he fueled litigation. And all of a sudden, you had the parents suing Mr. Jackson, you had — the mother’s new husband then decided to sue Mr. Jackson for allegedly interfering with his business. He had an auto company, and he claimed that the publicity had interfered with his business. He wanted millions. After the settlement, the father then filed a new lawsuit against Mr. Jackson wanting 30 million more dollars. That was litigated and he lost. You have all sorts of collateral litigation, and eventually Mr. Chandler filed papers in Superior Court seeking legal emancipation from his parents. Where is the justice in this case of allowing parents to come in who collected lots of money because Mr. Jackson wanted to get this case behind him and pursue his music career? And indeed, all kinds of advisors were telling him to do that. You have parents playing each other off with the child and pursuing collateral litigation, all of that will obviously have to be explored, because the potential for financial interest, financial bias in a situation like that, is enormous, the motives for financial gain were enormous, and indeed, there was never any criminal prosecution despite Mr. Sneddon’s noble efforts to try and do one.”

“Then we come to Macaulay Culkin, who has repeatedly made statements that he’s a friend of Mr. Jackson and has never been molested. But they want to bring in evidence that he was molested. And they want to bring in witnesses who also were part of the gang that sued Mr. Jackson, and lost, with findings that they had lied and with enormous damages awarded against them.”

“Now, the fourth alleged victim is Jason Francia. Jason Francia and his mother were interviewed by the sheriffs and a deposition of the mother was taken. Money was paid to settle that case, again because Mr. Jackson didn’t want the press, didn’t want his family going through it, and wanted to pursue his music career. There never was a criminal prosecution, even though the alleged victim was interviewed by the Los Angeles District Attorney and the Santa Barbara District Attorney together. And after their interview with Jason Francia – which was so wishy-washy about what happened, they never decided to pursue a criminal case, because there wasn’t one. We have that taped interview – the mother, in a civil deposition in the Chandler litigation, began by saying she saw something and ended by saying she saw nothing. And indeed, stories were sold to tabloids, and money was paid to settle. He appears to be the only alleged victim they want to bring in. Five, Wade Robeson, who tells us nothing ever happened to him. And they don’t propose to bring him in as an alleged victim. They want to bring in the gang that basically has tried to accuse Mr. Jackson and get money from him for years, generally unsuccessfully, with the exception of Miss — Mr. Francia’s mother, and I’ve just talked about the problems in her sworn statement in discovery. The deposition is clear, she begins by saying, ‘I think I saw something.’ She ends by saying, ‘I didn’t see anything.’

“Six, Jimmy Safechuck, who we are informed says nothing happened. They don’t propose to call him as an alleged victim either, but they’ve got the same old gang again coming in to try and capitalize on the case, people who have been adjudged to be liars, and they are. People who asked for money from tabloids, who’ve asked for money from Mr. Jackson, et cetera.”

“Seven, Jonathan Spence, who we are informed says nothing happened and doesn’t intend to come in to support them at all. What do they want to do? Bring in the same crew again. Third-party witnesses with an axe to grind, all of whom have wanted money in the past, none of whom can substantiate that anything happened because the alleged victim says nothing happened.”

“The testimony that the prosecutor wants to introduce concerns seven alleged victims with only one scheduled to testify. This testimony has been presented to two criminal grand juries in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara, neither of which ever returned an Indictment, and it’s been rejected by one civil jury in the longest civil trial in the history of this courthouse.”


The Trial Timeline

February 28 (Day 1 of the trial) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Jermaine. District attorney Thomas Sneddon Jr gives his opening statement followed by Thomas Mesereau’s.

March 1 (Day 2) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Jackie. Mesereau completes his opening statement. The prosecution opens his case by showing the Martin Batshit documentary to the Jury before calling Batshit as the first witness. His testimony is followed by the one of Ann Gabriel.

March 2 (Day 3) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Jackie. Ann Gabriel is cross examined by the defense.

March 3 (Day 4) Michael goes the court with Jackie & Katherine. The prosecution shows a video of the Neverland search to the Jury. Deputy Sheriff Albert Lafferty testifies followed by Davellin Arvizo.


March 4 (Day 5) Michael goes to court with Katherine, LaToya & Jermaine. The prosecution shows the rebuttal interview of the Arvizo family made by Michael’s team. Davellin Arvizo Is cross examined by Mesereau.

March 7 (Day 6) Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe & Jermaine. Mesereau finishes Davellin Arvizo’s cross examination. The prosecution presents the audio interview of the Arvizo family to the Jury before calling it’s next witness : Star Arvizo.

March 8 (Day 7) Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe & Jermaine. Mesereau cross examines Star.

March 9 (Day 8 )  Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe, Jermaine & Tito. Mesereau completes the cross examination. The next witness is Gavin Arvizo.

March 10 (Day 9)  Michael arrives 1 hour late and dressed with pajamas with Katherine, Joe, Jermaine & Tito because a terrible back-ache took him to the emergency room of the hospital. Gavin’s testimony resumes.

March 11 (Day 10)  Michael does not attend today’s hearing which is dedicated to motions.

March 14 (Day 11)  Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe, Jackie & Tito. Mesereau cross-examines Gavin.

March 15 (Day 12) Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe, Jackie & Tito. Mesereau completes Gavin’s cross examinations. The following prosecution witnesses are Steve Robel & Jeff Klapakis.

March 16 (Day 13) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. The prosection shows to the Jury the erotic material found during the Neverland search.

March 17 (Day 14) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Testimonies of Kiki Fournier & Fritz Coleman.

March 18 (Day 15) Special motions hearing without Michael & the Jury.

March 21 (Day 16)  Michael is once again taken to the hospital because of back pain. He then goes to court with Katherine, Joe & Jackie where a doctor explains the health state of Michael to the judge who agrees to let him go home. Testimonies of detective Conn Abel, flight attendent Lauren Wallace & child molestation specialist Anthony Urquiza.

March 22 (Day 17) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Testimony of Louise Palanker.

March 23 (Day 18 )  Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Testimonies of Robert Cooley, Craig Bonner & Dr Antonio Cantu.

March 24 (Day 19) Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe, Jackie & Marlon. Testimonies of Dr Antonio Cantu & Lisa Hermann.

March 25 (Day 20)  Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Testimonies about Michael & Gavin’s DNA found on the same porno magazine.

March 27 Michael gives a radio interview to Reverend Jesse Jackson.

March 28 (Day 21) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Testimony of George Lopez.

March 29 (Day 22) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Testimonies of Jaimie Massada & Cynthia Ann Bell.

March 30 (Day 23)  Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Cynthia Ann Bell is cross examined.

The next prosecution witnesses are Stanley Katz & William Dickerman

April 1 (Day 24) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Testimonies of Jeff Klapackis, Jack Green, Larry Feldman & Jesus Salas.

April 3 Michael celebrates his daughter Paris 7th birthday at Neverland

April 4 Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Jesus Salas is cross examined. The next witness is Jason Francia. Back at Neverland, Michael Is welcomed by many fans who led by Karen Faye have decorated the ranch gates with rose petals. To thank them, he invites them to his home where they meet Prince, Paris & Blanket + get each a signed box set of Michael’s Ultimate Collection!

April 5 (Day 26)  Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Jason Francia is cross examined. Then his lawyer Chriss Kallman & his mother Blanca Francia testify.

April 6 Michael attends the funerals of his old criminal lawyer Johnnie Cochran.

April 7 (Day 27) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Tito. Testimonies of Ralph Chacon & Adrian Mc Manus.

April 8 (Day 28 )  Michael goes to court with Katherine & Tito. Adrian Mc Manus is cross examined. Testimony of Phillip Lemaeque.

April 11 (Day 29) Michael goes to court with Katherine, Tito & Jackie. Testimonies of Bob Jones & Stacy Brown (who are writting a book on Michael) followed by Duane Swingler & June Chandler (Jordie’s mother!)

April 12 (Day 30) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Jackie. Testimony of Jay Jackson (Gavin’s stepfather)

April 13 (Day 31)  Michael goes to court with Katherine. Jay Jackson is cross examined. He is followed by his wife Janet Arvizo Jackson who pleads the 5th amendment to avoid questions about her welfare fraud.

April 14 (Day 32)  Michael goes to court with Katherine. Janet Arvizo Jackson’s testimony goes on.

April 15 (Day 33) Michael goes to court with Katherine. The prosecution shows the Jury surveillance videos of the Arvizo family by Brad Miller. Mesereau then begins the cross examination of Janet Arvizo Jackson.

April 16 (Day 34) Michael goes to court with Katherine. Mesereau finishes Janet’s cross examination. The next witnesses are her mother Maria Ventura, Michael Davy & Janet Williams.

April 20 (Day 35)  Michael goes to court with Katherine Testimony of Brian Barron.

April 21 (Day 37)  Michael goes to court with Katherine Cross examination of Brian Barron then Judge Melville hears several motions without Michael & the Jury.

April 25 (Day 38 ) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Testimony of Kaseem Abdul. Brian OXMAN is fired by Mesereau.

April 26 (Day 39) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Testimonies of Cynthia Montgomery & Hamid Moslehi.

April 27 (Day 40)  Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe & Jackie. Testimony of Debbie Rowe Jackson.

April 28 (Day 41)  Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe & Jackie. Cross examination of Debbie & then testimony of her lawyer Iris Finsilver.

April 29 (Day 42)  Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe & Jackie. Testimony of Ian Drew. The prosecution shows the Jury a book on children found at Neverland…in 1993!

May 2 (Day 43)  Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Testimonies of detective Craig Bonner & Beverly Wagner.

May 3 (Day 44)  Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Testimonies of Steve Robel, John Duross & Rudy Provencio.

May 4 (Day 45) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. The prosecution rests its case after Rudy Provencio’s cross examination.

May 5 (Day 46) Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe & Jermaine. The defense opens his case with the testimonies of Wade Robson & Brett Barnes (who stay at Neverland with their families)

May 6 (Day 47)  Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Testimonies of Joy & Chantal Robson + Marie & Karlee Barnes.

May 9 (Day 48 )  Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe & Jermaine. Testimonies of Francine Contreras, Gayle Goforth, Violet Silva, Ramon Velasco & Joe Marcus.

May 10 (Day 49)  Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Cross Examination of Joe Marcus.

May 11 (Day 50)  Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Testimony of Macauley Culkin. The defense then shows the Jury the outtakes of the Batshit interviews.

May 12 (Day 51)  Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Testimonies of Carlos Velasco & David LeGrand.

May 13 (Day 52) Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe & Randy. Testimony of Mark Geragos.

May 16 (Day 53) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Randy. Testimonies of Dr Jean Seamount, Tiffany Haynes, Carole Mc Coy, Kathryn Bernard, Maria Gomez, Shane Meredith, Brian Salce, Russ Birchim & Angel VIvanco.

May 17 (Day 54)  Michael goes to court with Katherine & Randy. Cross examination of Angel Vivanco followed by the testimonies of Irene Peters, Karen Walker & Simone Jackson (Michael’s cousin)

May 18 (Day 55) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Randy. Cross examination of Simone Jackson followed by the testimonies of her brother Rijo , their mother Michelle Jackson (Michael’s aunt), Christian Robinson & Vernee Watson-Johnson.

May 19 (Day 56)  Michael goes to court with Katherine. The judge refuses to allow the testimonies of Larry King & Michael Viner because they are “hearsay”. The next witness is Chris Tucker’ girldriend Azja Pyor. The defense then proceed by showing to the Jury a video presentation of Neverland.

May 20 (Day 57) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Randy. Mark Geragos completes his testimony.

May 23 (Day 58 )  Michael goes to court with Katherine. Testimonies of Mercy Manriquez, Michael Radakovitch, Marion Arvizo & Connie Keenan.

May 24 (Day 59)  Michael goes to court with Katherine. Testimonies of Jay Leno, Sulli McCullough, Monica de los Santos, Mary Holzer, Anthony Ranieri, Karen Brando, Prudence Brando, Dr Philip Esplin, Julio Avila, Leslie Wraggs, Arlene Kennedy & Chris Tucker.

May 25 (Day 60) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. The defense rests its case after Chris Tucker’s cross examination. The prosecution then opens it’s rebuttal with the testimonies of Timothy Rooney & Jesus Salas.

May 26 (Day 61) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Testimonies of Christine Klausner, Gearge Erwin & William Dickerman.

May 27 (Day 62) Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe & Randy. Testimonies of Steve Robel & Craig Bonner. The prosecution rests it’s rebuttal by showin the Jury a video of Gavin police deposition in July 2003. The defense declines to make a rebuttal so Judge Melville declares the testimonies over.

May 31 (Day 63) Special hearing where the Judge & the lawyers determine the rules of Jury deliberations. Neither Michael, nor the Jury attend court.

June 1 (Day 64) Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe & Randy where Judge Melville gives the Jury the rules of Jury Deliberations.

June 2 (Day 66)  Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe, Randy, Jermaine & Tito. Ron Zonen gives his closing staement followed by Tom Mesereau who doesn’t have time to finish.

Frank Tyson speaks for the first time to defend Michael in an interview to Prime Time Live on ABC.

June 3 (Day 67) Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe, Janet and LaToya. Tom Mesereau completes his closing arguments.

June 3-13 While Jury deliberations take place, the whole Jackson family waits for the verdict at Neverland.

June 13 The Jury reaches a verdict. Michael and the Jackson family goes to court where he is acquitted on all counts! They go back to Neverland. The trial is over.

For those interested we also uploaded the court transcripts.

Some court transcript summaries

Martin Batshit

Court transcript cross-examination Martin Batshit (partially):

Q. by Tom Mesereau – A. by Martin Batshit
Q. Mr. Batshit, in the show you prepared, which we’ve just seen, Mr. Jackson made statements to the effect that nothing sexual was going on in his bed, correct.

A. Correct.

Q. To obtain the interview you had with Mr. Jackson when he made that statement, you told him that he was underappreciated, true.

MR. BOUTROUS: Objection, Your Honor, on the shield law grounds and First Amendment grounds, unpublished information, and the tape that the jury has seen speaks for itself.

THE COURT: All right. The objection is overruled. Do you wish to answer that question.

THE WITNESS: I’m standing on the broadest privilege and the shield law, Your Honor.

MR. MESEREAU: Objection noted, Your Honor.


MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.

Q. Mr. Batshit, in the show about Michael Jackson, Mr. Jackson says that nothing sexual went on in his bedroom. To obtain that statement, you told Mr. Jackson that your romantic development was partially shaped by his records, true.

MR. BOUTROUS: Objection, Your Honor. Same grounds. First Amendment; shield law.

THE COURT: Do you wish to answer that question.

THE WITNESS: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. The objection is noted.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Batshit, on the show we just saw in this courtroom, Mr. Jackson says that nothing sexual goes on in his bedroom. To obtain that statement from Mr. Jackson, you told him that when you looked at his relationship with children, it almost made you weep, correct.

MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor. California shield law and the First Amendment. And I object to that question as being ambiguous as well, the first phrase, “to obtain that statement.” Object to that.

THE COURT: The objection is overruled. Do you wish to answer that.

THE WITNESS: I don’t, Your Honor.

MR. MESEREAU: Objection noted, Your Honor.


Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Batshit, on your show, Mr. Jackson says that nothing sexual ever went on in his bedroom. To obtain that statement from him, you told him that you believe in his vision of an international children’s holiday, correct.

MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor. The shield law and the First Amendment.

THE COURT: Overruled. Do you wish to answer that question.

THE WITNESS: I don’t, Your Honor.

MR. MESEREAU: Objection noted, Your Honor.


Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Batshit, in this interview you did of Michael Jackson, he says that nothing sexual went on in his bedroom. To obtain that statement, you told him, “Neverland is an extraordinary, a breathtaking, a stupendous, an exhilarating and amazing place. I can’t put together words to describe Neverland.” True.

MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor. First Amendment and the California shield law.

THE COURT: Do you wish to answer that question.

THE WITNESS: I don’t, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Noted; objection noted.

MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.

And this goes on and on. The objections of Batshit’s attorney Theodore Boutrous, were sustained on the grounds that Batshit was protected by the California Shield Law, which states that reporters can not be forced to testify about things they learn while working on a story.

Batshit didn’t want to answer any questions regarding the promises he made to Mike in order to get him cooperate with the documentary without pay.

Anne Gabriel (true name Ann Marie Kite)

This woman, the ex-girlfriend of one of Mike’s attorneys David LeGrand, was brought in by the prosecution to support the DA’s charge that Michael Jackson and his associates had conspired to keep the Arvizos under tight control at Neverland, alleging that the Arvizos were being held captive by Mike and his “people” (Marc Shaffel, Ron Konitzer and Deiter Weisner. Kite was hired on February 9, 2003 to “resusicate” Mike’s career after the airing of the Batshit tapes. She had been terminated from het job within 6 days. She had never even spoken with Mike.

Court transcript cross-examination Anne Gabriel (true name Ann Marie Kite) (partially):

Q. by Tom Mesereau – A. by Ann Marie Kite
Q. When you had your interview with Santa Barbara sheriffs, you were asked by detective Zelis, if you knew if Michael Jackson was aware of what his team was doing. Do you remember that?

A. Yes, sir, I do.

Q. And you told detective Zalis, you had no idea wheter Michael Jackson knew what his team was doing, is that correct?

A. That’s correct. Because I never spoke with Mr. Jackson.

Davellin Arvizo

Davellin talked about The Laugh Factory and Jamie Masada. She told the jury that they met Jamie Masada in the summer of 1999 when she and her brothers were in a comedy camp. Davellin testifies about her brother, Gavin being diagnosed with cancer. She tells about Gavin’s wishes to meet Chris Tucker, Adam Sandler, and Michael Jackson, and that he had met two of them, Mike and Chris Tucker, who both reached out to him.

She then is asked by Sneddon about the first visit to Neverland and then something interesting comes up, the abusive father:

Q. by Tom Sneddon – A. by Davellin Arvizo
Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: What happened.

A. My parents were arguing back and forth, and my dad threw a soda can at my mom.

Q. And what happened after he threw the can at her.

A. He ran, like walked — stormed out of the room.

Q. And what was your mother’s reaction.

A. She just started crying.

MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled. The answer is, “She started crying.”

Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Now, during the time that you were living with your father and your mother and your brothers at the Soto Street residence, did you ever see your father strike your mother.

A. Yes.

Q. On how many occasions.

A. Too many to count. So many.

Q. Did he ever strike you.

A. Yes.

Q. How about your brothers. 600

A. Yes.

Q. On how many occasions.

A. Lots.

She also talked about a benefit for Gavin, to pay for medical expenses. Later on we will learn that all the expenses were covered by the medical insurance of Gavin’s father.

Something else that rang a bell is when Sneddon showed her pictures of her parents. Just like Mike doesn’t say “dad” to Joe and had to call him Joseph, Davellin refers to her father as David, while Janet is referred to as “mommy”.

Q. And I want to direct your attention to the exhibit marked as 31 in evidence. No, not that one. I’m sorry, my fault. There. 31. Do you recognize that person.

A. Yes.

Q. Who is that.

A. That’s my mommy.

Q. It’s your who.

A. Mommy.

Q. You say she doesn’t look like that now, because her hair — what’s different.

A. Her hair is darker and shorter.

Q. Other than that, it looks like your mom.

A. Yes.

Q. All right. The next one, let’s go to 35. All right. Who’s that.

A. That’s David.

Q. David who.

A. My father.

It is only after they are brought to Miami by Chris Tucker to meet Mike, that she talkes about a conspiracy. She states that they felt ‘captive’ in Mike’s hotelroom in Florida while Mike would take Gavin seperate in the bedroom a few times to talk and that they were prevented from watching the U.S. airing of the Batshit tapes.. Also after they returned to Neverland, she said they felt ‘uncomfortable’ being around Mike’s associates, that were claiming that the Arvizo’s were the subject to death threats. Later on we will learn that they went off the property many times without complaining to anyone and that there were many ways to ‘escape’ if they thought it was necessary, because the fences around Neverland are that low that you can just jump over it. She also stated that she had never tasted alcohol until she was handed an alcoholic drink by Mike.

Cross examination Davellin Arvizo; what stands out: Davelin calls her father David, not dad.

Regarding the rebuttal video: Mesereau asks Davellin if she met with any member of the prosecution team, any member of the sheriff’s department or her attorney the night before she testified. The answer is No. Next she testified that she called Steve Robel, a Santa Barbara Sheriff, the night before she testified. Steve Robel brought her the CD the very same night.

A couple of days before she testified Steve Robel’s wife picked her up for a meeting with Sneddon:

Q. by Tom Mesereau – A. by Davellin Arvizo
Q. How long did that meeting with Mr. Sneddon take place.

A. Like 15 minutes.

Q. Only 15 minutes.

A. Yeah.

Q. Did you discuss what you were going to be asked in court.

A. No. He just — he just helped me refresh my memory.

Q. Now, how did he help you refresh your memory.

A. They just gave me what I said.

Q. Do you mean police reports.

A. No.

Q. Would it be transcripts.

A. Yes.

Q. Did he tell what you transcripts he was giving you to read.

A. Just of the grand jury, and that’s all I remember. That’s the only one.

The following occurs several times during cross examination. When Mesereau asks Davellin if she discussed her testimony with her family members, she answers as quoted below. The same type of answers she also gives when Mesereau asks her if she discussed the Batshit documentary, the rebuttal video, shows on television that talked about her mother, her mother’s testimony or the JC Penney case. We find it hard to believe that she would not talk to her family members about any of these issues at all.

Q. Have you discussed what you were going to say today with Jay Jackson.

A. No.

Q. At any time.

A. No.

Q. Have you ever discussed this case with Jay Jackson.

A. No.

Q. Ever discussed this case with your mother.

A. No.

Q. Ever discussed this case with Gavin.

A. No.

Q. Ever discussed this case with Star.

A. No.

Janet Arvizo remarried before the trial. After she divorced her abusive husband David, she married a United States Army officer. The CIA is known for recruiting people for their MK Ultra program in the army. Mind that Davellin called her father David, not Dad.

Q. Now, your mother and Jay Jackson are married now, right.

A. Yes, he’s my stepfather.

Q. He’s still in the United States Army, right.

A. Yes, he is.

Q. As a reserve.

A. No, he’s active now.

Q. He is active now.

A. Yes, he is. He’s been since my mom — since my mom and them have been dating, he’s been in active duty.

Q. He was in the reserve at one point, wasn’t he.

A. They turned him back in because of the war.

About abuse:

Q. Okay. You told Carol Lamir stories about your mother, didn’t you.

A. No.

Q. You told her your mother would awaken you at 2:00 in the morning, correct.

A. No.

Q. You told her your mother would beat your father, didn’t you.

A. No. I told her my — I tried telling her that my father would beat my mother.

Q. You told Carol Lamir that your mother was telling you to attack your father, when, in reality, your mother was beating your father, right.

A. No.

Q. You never said anything like that to Carol Lamir.

A. No.

Q. You constantly told Carol about Janet hitting you and your brothers, true.

A. No.


Q. Okay. Did you ever tell Carol Lamir that Janet would take her children places and intentionally not feed them or bring food.

A. No.

Q. Did you ever tell Carol Lamir that it was Janet’s intent that the children be fed by whoever they were visiting.

A. No.

Q. Never said anything like that.

A. No.

Q. Are you saying you never complained about your mother at all to Carol Lamir.

A. No. My mom’s a very, very, very good mother to me.

Q. And you never complained about her one bit.

A. No.

Q. Never complained about her to Carol.

A. No.


Q. Okay. You told the police that you were being abused five times a week — five times a week, right.

A. We were abused every day, more than once, by my father.


A. At that point, I still liked Mr. Jackson. And that was the point that David had left and — I don’t know, I was just latching onto something, because I don’t know what a description of a father is. I had 16 years of just abuse. I don’t know what it is. I just latched onto something.

The Arvizos had friends among the LAPD (see Janet Arvizo’s testimony also).

Q. Okay. Do you ever remember police officers in Los Angeles having a fund-raiser to raise money for Gavin’s medical bills.

A. They didn’t have a fund-raiser for us. What the Los Angeles Police Department did was, Officer Lassak brought his old Christmas tree for us. And that’s all I remember them doing.

Q. Do you know who spoke to them about Gavin’s health.

A. Officers.

Q. Yes.

A. Officer Lassak spoke to the police department about it.

Q. Who is Officer Lassak.

A. I met him through my LAPD Explorers.

Q. He was a friend of your mom, right.

A. He was a friend of the family, yes.

Q. Do you know if your mother was in contact with Andrew Lassak during 2003.

A. I know he would come and visit us once in a while, but I don’t know.

Q. Do you know about your mother approaching Andrew Lassak about raising money to pay for Gavin’s medical expenses.

A. She never approached him that way.

Q. Now, how do you know that.

A. Because that never happened.

Q. It never happened.

A. No.

Q. And you’re not aware of any LAPD police officers trying to raise, you know, funds to pay Gavin’s medical expenses.

A. No. Not that I remember. Not that I know of.


A. That was after. I didn’t join the LAPD Explorers until 2001, I think.

Admitting that she and family members lied:

Q. Are you saying that, after that, your mother never left her cottage.

A. My mom didn’t leave her cottage.

Q. Were her meals served at the cottage, to your knowledge.

A. Yes, they were brought to her.

Q. Three times a day.

A. I think it’s — I don’t know. I wasn’t watching.

Q. Do you remember, your mother told the three social workers from the Los Angeles Department of Children & Family Services that she’s always at the main residence.

A. Yeah.

Q. Remember, she told those workers that she’s there all times of day.

A. Yeah.

Q. Do you think your mother was lying.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you think your mother lied throughout that interview.

A. Somewhat. I don’t know. But I know those comments can’t be true.

Q. And that was the day you lied about bringing girlfriends to Neverland, right.

A. Yeah.

Q. And you’re telling this jury that you’ve never brought any girlfriend to Neverland.

A. No.

Q. But you told it to the Los Angeles Department of Children & Family Services.

A. Yes, I did.

Not only does Al Malnik know Brett Ratner (see later on in the blog), the Arvizos do as well:

Q. Okay. Do you know someone named Brett Ratner.

A. Yes.

Q. Who is Brett Ratner.

A. He was the director for Rush Hour 2.

Q. Where did you meet him.

A. On the set of Rush Hour 2.

Q. Did Chris Tucker introduce you to him.

A. Yes, he did.

Q. Did you get to know him pretty well.

A. Somewhat. Not really.

Q. Were you ever at his house.

A. No.

Q. Did you ever hang out with him anyplace.

A. No.

Q. Did you ever see him off the set of Rush Hour.

A. Well, Chris took us to like — like a restaurant they were at. And we just sat with them for like a couple minutes, and then I think we went back to our hotel room.

Q. When did you last see him.

A. I don’t remember.

Q. Did you ever see Gavin talking to Brett Ratner.

A. While they were on the set, yeah. They would play with each other and laugh and stuff.

Caught in lies:

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Do you remember, I asked you last week if you had ever discussed the J.C. Penney case with Gavin or your mom. Remember, I asked you that question.

A. Yes.

Q. You said you had not discussed it with either of them, right.

A. Yes.

Q. How could that be, if you attended those depositions.

A. I’m not talking to them about it.

Q. Before.

A. No. I haven’t talked to them about it at all. I’m just sitting there. I don’t know anything about the case. I was just sitting there to comfort my brother. He wanted me to be with him. I’m not even paying attention to what he’s saying. I’m just paying attention to how he’s looking. And that was during his chemo.

Q. So you had never discussed the J.C. Penney case with him before you attended his deposition.

A. No.

Q. And you never discussed the J.C. Penney case with any of your family members before you attended Star’s deposition.

A. Never.

Q. You never discussed the J.C. Penney case with Gavin or your mom or Star after Gavin’s deposition.

A. Never.

Q. And you never discussed the J.C. Penney case with Star, your mom or Gavin after Star’s deposition.

A. Never.

Q. You just kind of got there, silently listened, left, and never talked to anybody about it, right.

A. No.


Q. Your brothers had codes, didn’t they.

A. Yes.

Q. They had codes to the wine cellar, didn’t they.

A. I don’t remember that.

Q. They had codes to Mr. Jackson’s room, didn’t they.

A. I didn’t know they had that one.

Q. And they went up to the room without Mr. Jackson present, correct.

A. Anytime Mr. Jackson wasn’t on the ranch, they were with me.

Q. That’s not what you said last week, is it. Last week you said that when your brothers were on the ranch, they always left you alone, correct.

A. No. When Mr. Jackson wasn’t on the ranch, they were with me.

Q. Well, you had knowledge that your brothers were going into the main house when Mr. Jackson wasn’t even there, correct.

A. When Mr. Jackson wasn’t there, they were with me. There was no reason for us to be apart if Mr. Jackson wasn’t there.

Q. Well, you — correct me if I’m wrong, didn’t you tell the jury last week, “When I would visit Neverland, my brothers would go off and, for the most part, leave me alone”. Did you say that.

A. If Mr. Jackson was there, yes, I said that last week.

Q. So you’re — now you’re saying whenever Mr. Jackson wasn’t there, all three of you hung around together; is that right.

A. Yes.

Star Arvizo

In regards to the alarms at Neverland, Star tells Sneddon that Mike had given him the code of the alarm of the door that gives access to his bedroom. Besides this code, there was another code, the master code to all the doors. Star also knew that code:

Q. by Tom Sneddon – A. by Star Arvizo
Q. Now. Were there another set of numbers.

A. Yes, it was another code that was 1849 that got you in every door.

Q. And where did you get that code from.

A. I got it from the security guard.

Q. Do you remember the security guard’s name.

A. No.

Q. Do you remember what he looks like.

A. He was — he was white, but I don’t exactly remember his face.

Q. I couldn’t hear what you said.

A. I don’t remember his face.

Q. Okay. And do you remember when it was that you got that code from the security — let me ask it this way: At some point in time you went to Miami, correct.

A. Yes.

Q. And then after Miami, you came back to the ranch.

A. Yes.

Q. Now, with regard to the code number that Mr. Jackson gave you – all right. –

A. Yeah.

Q. When did you get that code number from him. Before or after you went to Miami.

A. After.

Q. And with regard to the code number that you got from the security guard, was it before or after you went to Miami.

A. After.

Q. I’m sorry.

A. After.

Q. So on the first occasion that you went to Mr. Jackson’s room, you did not have a code number.

A. No.

The Arvizo kids were involved with military programs:

Q. What was going on at the time that you were introduced by Mr. Bashir. Who introduced you.

A. Michael.

Q. Now, did you have an understanding — did you personally have an understanding that you were going to appear on film that day.

A. No.

Q. Did you eventually appear on film that day.

A. Yes.

Q. And what were you doing on film.

A. We were showing Michael one of our military cadences that we learned from a program, military program.

Q. What military program.

A. At that time we were in the NLCC. Stood for Naval League Cadet Corps. That’s what it — it was a Navy program.

Q. And do you remember when you joined that program.

A. I was 11.

Q. Before the Bashir — I mean in relation to the Bashir –

A. It was before.

Q. Are you still in that program.

A. No.

Q. Are you in another program. 1058

A. Yes.

Q. What’s that.

A. It’s Infantry Explorers.

Q. And what service is that connected with.

A. Army.

Q. And how long have you been in that program.

A. It’s going on four months. We barely joined.

Q. I’m sorry.

A. We barely joined four months ago.

Q. Were you ever in a Navy program.

A. Yes.

Q. What was that.

A. That was the Naval Sea Cadets. It was an older program. It’s for older kids. It’s from 13 to 17.

Q. And how long were you in that.

A. About a year.

The following occurs several times during cross examination. The exact same things happened when Star’s sister Davellin was cross examined. We find it hard to believe that Star would not talk to any of his family members about anything regarding the trial and the J.C. Penney case.

Q. by Tom Mesereau – A. by Star Arvizo
Q. Did you discuss yesterday’s testimony with anyone last night.

A. No.

Q. Talk to your mom about it.

A. No.

Q. Talk to your dad about it.

A. No.

Q. Talk to your sister about it.

A. No.

Q. Talk to Gavin about it.

A. No.

Q. Talk to the D.A. about it.

A. No.


Q. Okay. Before you testified yesterday, had you ever discussed what you were going to say with your mom.

A. No.

Q. Before you testified yesterday, had you ever discussed with Gavin what you were going to say.

A. No.

Q. Before you testified yesterday, had you ever discussed with your sister Davellin what you were going to say.

A. No.

Q. Have you ever discussed this case with your mom?

A. No.

Q. Ever discussed this case with Gavin.

A. No.

Q. Have you ever discussed this case with Davellin.

A. No.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2011, 05:58:29 PM by ~Souza~ »

Offline ~Souza~

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Hoaxer
  • *****
  • Mrs. SEHF
  • Posts: 10146
    • Michael Jackson Death Hoax Investigators
    The following stood out to us. During cross examination Star refers to DA Sneddon as “Tom”, DA Auchincloss as “Gorden” and DA Zonen as “Ron”. It’s our opinion that it’s highly unusual and impolite for a 14 year old boy to call the DA’s by their first names, unless they knew each other quite well.

Q. Have you ever discussed this case with an attorney?

A. Yes.

Q. Who.

A. Tom, Gordon and Ron.

Q. Excuse me.

A. Tom, Gordon and Ron.

Q. I’m sorry, we’re having trouble hearing the name.

A. Tom, Gordon and Ron.

Q. Tom, Gordon and Ron.

About the diagram about the inside of the plane:

Q. And what prosecutor did you go over that diagram with before you testified.

A. Um, let me remember. It was Tom.

Q. Is that Tom Sneddon.

A. Yes.


A. No. I knew it was a diagram. I was the one that drew it up for Tom.

Q. So you drew the whole diagram up for Prosecutor Sneddon.

A. No, I just drew a picture and I gave it to Tom.


Q. Did you then discuss that transcript with anybody.

A. No.

Q. Never.

A. No. Tom told us not to.


Q. Did someone tell you to read them.

A. Yes.

Q. Who.

A. Tom.

Q. Prosecutor Sneddon.

A. Yes.

Caught in lies:

Q. Well, when you met with Psychologist Stanley Katz, you also describe what you claim happened in Michael Jackson’s bedroom, right.

A. Yes.

Q. And would you agree that you’ve given different descriptions almost every time that you have described it.

A. I don’t remember exactly what I said.

Q. Well, you’ve given different descriptions about what Michael Jackson was wearing, right.

A. I don’t remember exactly what I said.

Q. You’ve given different descriptions of what Gavin was supposed to be wearing, right.

A. I don’t remember exactly what I said.

Q. You’ve given different descriptions about what you claim Michael Jackson did in the bedroom, right.

A. No.

Q. Well, there were times you said that Michael Jackson put his hand on top of your brother’s underwear, right.

A. I don’t remember saying that.

Q. And there are other times you said he put his hand inside his underwear, right.

A. Yes.

Q. And there are times you’ve said your brother was wearing pajamas, right.

A. Yes.

Q. There are times you said he was wearing underwear, right.

A. I don’t remember.

Q. And there are times you said that Michael Jackson touched his butt and not his crotch, right.

A. When was this.

Q. When you did some interviews, right.

A. About what.

Q. About what Michael Jackson, you claim, was doing in his bedroom, right.

A. I never said he touched his butt.

Q. Did you ever tell anyone that when you saw Michael Jackson in bed with your brother, he was rubbing his butt.

A. No.

Q. Never said that at any time to anybody.

A. No.

Q. Never said it to Mr. Katz, right.

A. No.

Q. Never said it to the sheriffs, right.

A. No.

Q. And never said it to a grand jury, right.

A. No.


Q. When you stated under oath in the J.C. Penney deposition in the year 2000 that your mom and dad never fight, were you telling the truth.

A. No.

Q. Did someone tell you to lie in that deposition.

A. I don’t remember.

Q. You don’t remember at all.

A. No. It happened a long time ago.

Q. You also said in that deposition under oath that your dad never hit you; do you remember that.

A. Not really.

Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show you that page.

A. Sure.

MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor.



Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to look at that page of your deposition.

A. Yes.

Q. And does it refresh your recollection about what you said that day.

A. Yes.

Q. You were asked if your dad had ever hit you, and you said, “Never,” right.

A. Yes.

Q. Was that the truth?

A. No.

Q. Did someone ever tell you to lie about that under oath in your deposition in the J.C. Penney case.

A. I really don’t remember.

Q. Don’t remember at all.

A. No. I don’t remember nothing from there.


Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have your — excuse me. Has — did your father ever coach you about what to say in the J.C. Penney deposition.

A. No.

Q. Did your mother ever coach you about what to say in the J.C. Penney deposition.

A. No.

Q. Please tell the jury why you lied under oath.

A. I don’t remember. It was, like, five years ago. I don’t remember nothing.

Gavin Arvizo

Unfortunately the first part of Gavin’s testimony is missing. We have searched the net for two days, but ended up empty handed…

We’re really curious as to why Gavin gave a 75k watch to Larry Feldman:

A. This is the watch that Michael gave me right before the plane took off.

MR. SNEDDON: Move that it be admitted into evidence, Your Honor.

MR. MESEREAU: No objection.

THE COURT: It’s admitted.

Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Yeah, why don’t you –

A. Give it to you.

Q. No, just stand up and show it to them. Okay. Now I’m going to ask you a question about the watch. With regard to that particular watch, did Mr. Jackson make any statements to you about the value of the watch when he gave it to you.

A. He told me that it was $75,000.

Q. Now, did you keep that watch.

A. Yes.

Q. At some point, did you give that watch to somebody.

A. Yeah. I think I gave it to Tom.

Q. To me.

A. I mean — no, Larry.

Q. Larry.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know who Larry is.

A. Larry Feldman, I think.

Q. And do you remember when that was. Had you left Neverland for the last time.

A. Yes.

Q. And that’s — and after that, you gave the watch to him.

A. Yes.

Like Star and Davellin, Gavin also said when he was cross examined that he didn’t talk about the J.C. Penney case with his mother, and he can’t remember when he talked to his mother for the last time about the Batshit documentary. We find it hard to believe.

Q. by Tom Mesereau – A. by Gavin Arvizo
Q. Did you and your mom talk about the facts of that case before your deposition was taken.

A. No, I don’t think we were allowed to.

Q. So you never discussed it with your mom before the deposition was taken.

A. No.

Q. Have you ever talked about the facts of this case with your mother.

A. No. I don’t think we’re allowed to either.

Q. So you’ve never discussed the facts of this case with your mother.

A. Um, no.

Q. Have you ever discussed the Bashir documentary with your mother.

A. Yeah.

Q. When.

A. We had talked about it with her sometimes, like how I felt about what I said on there.

Q. And when did you last discuss the Bashir documentary with your mother.

A. I do not remember.

Q. Pardon me.

A. I don’t remember.


The same thing that stood out to us in Star’s testimony occurs in Gavin’s testimony. During cross examination Gavin refers to DA Sneddon as “Tom”, DA Auchincloss as “Gorden” and DA Zonen as “Ron”. Again, it’s our opinion that it’s highly unusual and impolite for a 14 years old boy to call the DA’s by their first names, unless they knew each other quite well.

Q. Did you engage in a conversation with Mr. Sneddon over the weekend.

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Where did that conversation take place.

A. In a house.

Q. Okay. Did Mr. Sneddon come to see you.

A. No.

Q. Did you go to see Mr. Sneddon.

A. Yes.

Q. Where did you go to see Mr. Sneddon.

A. In a house.

Q. In his house.

A. In a house.

Q. Okay. Who was with you, if anybody.

A. Detective Robel. Mr. — Ron, Gordon and Mr. Sneddon, and I believe Mr. Mag was there.

Q. Okay. Let me just get it straight. Mr. Robel was there from the Santa Barbara Sheriffs, right.

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Sneddon was there, right.

A. The attorneys were there.

Q. Prosecutors. Prosecutor Zonen was there, right.

A. All of the district — all of the attorneys were there.

Q. Prosecutor Auchincloss was there, right.

A. Auchincloss.

Q. Yes. The fellow seated right to my left.

A. Oh, Gordon, yeah.

Q. Anyone else there besides those four.

A. Mag.

Q. Who.

A. Mag. I don’t know his full name.

Q. Okay. Is this another sheriff.

A. No, this is an attorney.

Q. Another prosecutor.

A. He’s another attorney.

Q. So you met with four prosecutors and a Santa Barbara Sheriff over the weekend, right.


Q. Okay. Was anyone else present.

A. They were there, but they were in another room.

Q. Okay. Who was there but in another room.

A. Ron, Mr. Zonen, Gordon and Mag.


A. No. They told me that Tom was going to have to talk to me about some things.

Q. Okay. And Mr. Sneddon did talk to you about some things, correct.


Q. by Tom Sneddon – A. by Gavin Arvizo
Q. Morning, Gavin.

A. Hey, Tom.

The Arvizos had friends among the LAPD (see Davellin Arvizo’s testimony also)

Q. Okay. Do you know someone named Andrew Lassak.

A. No.

Q. Okay. Now, you mentioned –

A. Lassak. Police officer.

Q. Yes. Do you know him.

A. Yes.

Q. How did you meet him.

A. He was an LAPD officer that — I forgot, really, how we met him. I think he was — I don’t know. My mom met him or something, and then he visited us a lot.

Q. Do you know approximately when you first met this LAPD officer, Mr. Lassak.

A. After my father left. A few months after my father left, after I finished chemotherapy.

Q. And he was a friend of your family, correct.

A. Yes.

Q. He used to visit your house, correct.

A. Yes.

Q. You spoke to him, right. 2027

A. Yes.

Q. You saw your brother and sister speak to him, didn’t you.

A. Yes.

Q. And you saw your mother speak to him, right.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall anyone ever complaining to Los Angeles Police Officer Andrew Lassak that anyone was being held against their will.

MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to object to the question as vague as to time frame.

MR. MESEREAU: I’ll rephrase it, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: During the period you claim you escaped from Neverland three times, do you recall anyone in your family ever complaining to LAPD Officer Andrew Lassak that anyone was being mistreated or held against their will.

A. His name is Lassak, and I don’t remember anything happening like that.

We’re having a hard time believing the following:

Q. Okay. Now, you’re aware, are you not, that you have until the age of 18 to file a lawsuit against Mr. Jackson if you choose to, correct.

A. No.

Q. You’ve never discussed that with your mother.

A. No.

Q. Never discussed that with Larry Feldman, the attorney.

A. No.

Q. And never discussed it with Bill Dickerman, the attorney.

A. No.

Q. Okay. You’re also aware that if Mr. Jackson is convicted, you could automatically win that civil suit, right.

A. No.

Q. No one’s ever discussed that with you.

A. No. We said things like, oh, we don’t want his money, and stuff like that.

Q. Never discussed that issue with any attorney, right.

A. No.

Q. First time you’ve heard about it.

A. About that I can — you just told me now that I can sue him till I’m 18 or something like that. I didn’t even know about that stuff.

Q. Didn’t even know about that, right. And never heard your mother mention it.

A. No.

Janet Arvizo

Janet’s testimony started April 13 and ended April 19. Her testimony was devastating for the prosecution. A weird part is where Mesereau asks her about investigating Mike from January 2000, while she didn’t even met him until August 2000. An article about Janet’s LAPD friends can be found here.

Q. by Tom Mesereau – A. by Janet Arvizo
Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When did you meet Michael Jackson?

A. I think it was, my best estimate, August of 2000.

Q. Do you remember signing a document prepared by the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department on December 18th, 2003?

A. Okay, I think — is it the paper you just showed me?

Q. Yes. But I have a –

A. I can’t answer unless you tell me exactly. You know, there was a lot of paperwork.

Q. Would you like to see it?

A. Well, I’m asking you, please, is it the same one that you just came up here and showed me?

Q. It is.

A. Okay. Then, yes. I’ve signed many paperworks of theirs.

Q. Let me ask you the question again.

A. Okay.

Q. Do you recall signing a document prepared by the Sheriff’s Department of Santa Barbara County on December 18th, 2003?

A. I think so.

Q. Would it refresh your recollection just to look at the date and your signature?

A. No. That’s — is that the one that you just showed me?

Q. It is.

A. Then — then, yes.

Q. You did sign that document –

A. Yes.

Q. — on December 18th –

A. Yes.

Q. — 2003?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Now, do you remember signing a document prepared by the sheriff’s department that said the following: “From time to time, between January 1st, 2000, and the present date, I consulted one or more of those lawyers concerning Michael Jackson’s interaction with me and my children at Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara County and elsewhere, in this and other states, and concerning the return of some furniture stored by or in the name of Brad Miller at Dino’s Storage in North Hollywood, Los Angeles County.” Do you remember signing a document that had those words?

A. Do you want me to have the document, like — we’ve had this discussion over since August.

MR. MESEREAU: Object, Your Honor.

THE WITNESS: Since August, the same thing –

THE COURT: Just a moment. I want you to answer the question. The question is, do you remember signing that document?


Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And the document said that you had started investigating Michael Jackson sometime between January 1st, 2000, and the date you signed the document, which is December 18th, 2003, right?

A. Yes. If that’s — those words are on there.

Q. Why would you start investigating Michael Jackson around January 1st, 2000, if you didn’t meet him till August 2000?

A. Okay. Let me explain something to you. And this has already been discussed, and he knows the answers. This was discussed at the end of September.

MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object to this part of the answer as nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Sustained.

THE WITNESS: This — when the sheriffs were doing their investigation, they wanted to know every single detail about me. George Owen Feldman is — I think he’s associated in the same law firm of Rothstein. So the — the police department did an extensive, extensive search on me as a person, and so they want — they put everything in a general form so they can have access to everything about me and my past, because they wanted to verify and make sure that what they were going to do towards this goliath was going to be accurate and truthful. And that’s why this — this paper was made in such a general way.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Are you now telling the jury that George Owen Feldman did represent you?

A. No, he didn’t represent me.

Q. At any time?

A. No, he didn’t represent me. He is one of the people inside the civil law firm. But my understanding — my understanding was that it was only the Rothstein — Rothstein and another attorney named Adler, another attorney named Ramieri. That was my understanding, and it still is today.

Q. Let me try and ask the question again – okay? – in a clearer form, because perhaps I was not clear. And I apologize if I wasn’t. You signed a document that said from time to time between January 1st, 2000, and the date you signed the document, you were investigating Michael Jackson through various lawyers, correct?

A. Okay. There’s more information on that paperwork which he purposely has taken out of context. It’s — certain events are attached to specific attorneys. Certain situations are attached to certain attorneys. Like I said, the police wanted to do an extensive, thorough investigation on me prior to doing it on him. So they wanted everything about me. So they made it in a general form. But he keeps taking it out of context.

MR. MESEREAU: I don’t want to offend the Court, Your Honor. I don’t think I actually got an answer to that, but I will leave it to the Court’s discretion.

On we found a great summary that shows the madness of this woman:

What’s My Age Again?

In a recent defense motion, attorney Brian Oxman pointed out that the mother of Michael Jackson’s accuser “testified before the Grand Jury without the benefit of medications.” After reading through hundreds of pages of her testimony, I am inclinded to agree.

Janet Arvizo – who currently goes by the name Janet Jackson – made several bizarre claims throughout the grand jury proceeding. Most notably, she insists that Michael Jackson kidnapped her and her children and, in a cunning ploy to manipulate them into saying nice things about him on camera, convinced the Arvizos that killers were after them.

I wish I was making this up.

If you want to view the transcripts for yourself, click here, although I should warn you that you’re in for a major headache if you attempt to read them all, namely because Mrs. Arvizo (or is it Mrs. Jackson now?) doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. As one observer bluntly put it, reading Mrs. Arvizo’s testimony is like “walking into a wall of dumb.” Indeed. Within minutes of being sworn in, Mrs. Arvizo already comes across as somewhat confused when she tells the court that she has no idea how old she is:

Initially, I assumed that Mrs. Arvizo had misspoken. Perhaps she meant that she didn’t know how old she was when her sons were born. But then, there it is again on page 4, Janet Arvizo’s startling admission that she does not know her own age:

Of course, this doesn’t necessarily mean that Michael Jackson didn’t kidnap her family and molest her son but this isn’t an essay about Jackson’s guilt or innocence, it’s an essay about the merits of taking your medication. So let’s continue.

Read more

Debbie Rowe

Debbie testified on behalf of the prosecution. Although she was helpful to the defense, this must have hurt Mike.

About her reason to cooperate with the making of the rebuttal tape:

Q. by Ron Zonen – A. by Deborah Rowe
Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. What is it that you were intending to represent in this interview?

A. Michael as a wonderful person and as a great father and generous and caring.

Q. All right. Did you have information as to Michael Jackson as a wonderful father?

A. As I’ve known him?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

About her cooperating with the sheriff by recording phonecalls she had with Mike’s team:

Q. Okay. And at some point you were in contact with the Santa Barbara sheriffs about this case, correct?

A. They had called me, yes. And I did not return the first call.

Q. And eventually, you developed somewhat of a dialogue with Santa Barbara sheriffs about this case, right?

A. When they caught me on my cell phone on my way home from Palm Springs, yes, the number they got from Marc Schaffel.

Q. And you agreed to make what you called some pretext phone calls for the sheriffs, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And a pretext phone call means basically you agreed to work with the sheriffs, telephone people and talk to them while the sheriffs were recording those calls; is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And the idea was that the people you would call would not know they were being recorded, right?

A. Correct.

Q. Only you and the sheriffs would know there were recordings, right?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, how many of these pretext phone calls do you think you made with or for the sheriffs?

A. I think there were a total of four to six. I’m not sure.

Q. And who were those pretext phone calls with?

A. Marc Schaffel. Ian Drew. And I think I may have tried to do one with Dieter.

Q. Were you able to do that one?

A. I don’t remember.

Q. Okay. So the only people you recall actually speaking with when they didn’t know the call was being recorded are Schaffel and Drew; is that right?

A. And Dieter, if I did one with him, he wouldn’t have known.

About Mike’s team; Konitzer, Schaffel & Weisner:

Q. by Tom Mesereau – A. by Deborah Rowe
Q. During the period of the interview — I say “during the period.” That’s a little bit vague. Let me withdraw that. Around the time of the interview, did you talk to Konitzer at all?

A. I spoke with him when I spoke with Mr. Jackson to arrange it. And he and Dieter and Marc had been on the phone. They had been on the phone to tell me about problems that were going on, yes.

Q. And you’ve also made statements to the sheriffs that you thought Dieter and Konitzer were manipulating Michael Jackson, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You thought Dieter and Konitzer were taking advantage of Michael Jackson, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And you thought they were trying to manipulate Michael Jackson to make a lot of money, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Was it your perception, based upon what you observed of Schaffel, Dieter and Konitzer, that those three were working together?

A. Oh, yeah.

Q. You definitely got that impression?

A. Oh, yeah.

Q. Okay. And was it your impression that those three were working together to find ways to use Michael Jackson’s name so they could profit?

A. Yes.

Q. And at one point you told the sheriffs that you thought Michael Jackson was, in some ways, very removed from what those guys were doing, right?

A. In my past knowledge, he’s removed from the handlers, the people who are taking care of business, and they make all the decisions. There’s a number of times they don’t consult him.

Q. And you thought these three guys, Schaffel, Dieter and Konitzer, were doing just that, didn’t you?

A. Very strongly.


Q. Did Schaffel, in your mind, ever ask you to help him in his business dealings with Mr. Jackson?

A. No. He just bragged about either how he took advantage of an opportunity that I’m sure he knew nothing about or how he was going to do this, that or the other thing to make sure that Michael’s career was saved, and things of that nature.

Q. Did Schaffel tell you that he was involved in business matters with Dieter?

A. Yes.

Q. Did Schaffel tell you he was involved in business matters with Konitzer?

A. Yes. In Europe.

Q. Okay. And did you ever get the impression he was not giving Michael Jackson all the information about what he was up to?

A. He was like everybody else around Mr. Jackson. Yeah, he wasn’t telling him everything.

Q. Why did you think Schaffel was calling you?

A. To placate me. To say that, “Oh, no, I’m working on it. You’ll be seeing the kids. Michael’s very excited about it. Everything’s going to be great. They’re still in Florida.” You know, “As soon as they get home you guys will be together.”

Q. And you didn’t think he was being truthful, right?

A. Obviously he’s full of shit. Sorry. I’m sorry, Your Honor.

Q. You consider Marc Schaffel a liar, don’t you?

A. Yes.

Q. You consider Dieter a liar, don’t you?

A. Yes.

Q. You consider Konitzer to be a liar, don’t you?

A. Yes.


Q. He told you he wanted over a million dollars from Michael Jackson, true?

A. He said Michael owed him a million dollars.

Q. And approximately when did Marc Schaffel tell you he was going to sue Michael Jackson?

A. Six months ago maybe. It may have been longer than that, but I’m not really good with — if you could give me something to refer to at a time, I could say yes, it happened then. But I think it was about six months ago. And then he told me, about three months ago, that he and his lawyer were filing papers.

Q. And did you ever learn at some point that he had actually sued Michael Jackson?

A. He told me that they’d filed the papers.


Q. And correct me if I’m wrong, I think what you’re saying is that many hours of your interview don’t appear in that DVD, right?

A. I don’t see how I could have sat there for seven hours and only had three hours on tape. I don’t remember any breaks except for when the cameras were — the film was being changed. I interrupted the interview to tell them the film was — the camera was blinking, the light. I didn’t want to be in the middle of the statement and have to start over again, to tell them that the lights were blinking, to change the film. I saw cuts in that film, in that tape, that were — had nothing with me saying, “It’s blinking, take it off,” so there’s — there is stuff missing from that video.

Q. When Schaffel told you he’d made seven and a half million dollars off your interview, did he ever tell you who he made the money from?

A. I think he said it was FOX Network. And someone in Europe. But I don’t remember who it was in Europe.

Q. And was it your understanding that he kept all the footage of your interview?

A. Yes. It was all taken upstairs to a bedroom where they did the editing that night.

Q. Okay. How did you know they did the editing that night?

A. I was there for about an hour when they were doing it.

Q. Were you upstairs in the bedroom while they were doing it?

A. Yes.


Q. Now, Mr. Jackson wasn’t there for any of that interview, was he?

A. No.

Debbie obviously didn’t trust the three men. The more you read up on the trial, the more you will get the feeling that Mike had no idea what these men were doing. This is what we found on Wiesner:

Jacko Loses Logo; Manager Owns Sex Clubs

By Roger Friedman


“Michael Jackson’s got some big problems. And that’s besides being arrested for child molestation. Jackson has no idea that his current manager, Dieter Wiesner, the man who helped hire attorney Mark Geragos and is now calling the shots in the Jackson camp, is known for operating sex clubs and brothels at home in Germany.”

Malicious Prosecution?

The unfair treatment Mike has received since authorities raided Neverland:

  • During the raid of Neverland, police went into areas that they were not permitted to go into and took items that were not on the search warrant.
  • According to a motion filed by the defense, Sneddon conducted an illegal search of the office of Bradley Miller. Because Miller worked for Jackson’s former defense attorney Mark Geragos, anything taken from his office falls under the category of attorney/client privilege. Sneddon tried to justify his search by claiming he did not know that Miller worked for Geragos. In court, however, it was revealed that Sneddon was caught on tape admitting to having known about Miller and Geragos’ working relationship at the time of the raid. Sneddon claimed he was tired when he made this taped statement and did not mean what he said.
  • Sneddon waited until November 18th- the day Jackson’s Number Ones album was released- to raid Neverland. He claimed that he knew about the allegations since June but didn’t take action until November because of Halloween. (Yes, we wouldn’t want to upset anyone’s trick-or-treating experience, so let’s let an alleged pedophile run around for five months and finally raid his house on the day that his new CD comes out.)
  • During the press conference announcing the accusations against Michael Jackson, Tom Sneddon laughed and made several jokes at Jackson’s expense.
    Sneddon acknowledged that Jackson was investigated for suspected child abuse in February but said “don’t assume it’s the same family.” He knew it was the same family, why did he make this statement?
  • At the press conference, Sneddon invited more victims to come forward.
  • Sneddon said that California law was changed so that child victims in a molestation case could be forced to testify. This was a lie; the law was changed so that if a civil suit was filed, it would remain inactive until the criminal trial was resolved.
  • Sneddon swore that the family was after justice and not money even though it is a widely known fact that they went to a civil lawyer first.
  • Jackson’s bail amount was set at $3 million; this amount is excessive compared to the amount that other Defendants in child molestation cases have to pay. Jackson’s lawyers recently filed a motion challenging the bail amount but their request was denied by Judge Rodney Melville. Melville sided with the prosecution, stating that because Jackson is rich, his bail should be higher than that of other Defendants. He did not use any laws to support his decision. (The court of appeals later questioned Melville’s ruling and asked him to provide a better justification for his decision)
  • Sneddon gave an interview to tabloid journalist Diane Dimond where he referred to Michael Jackson as “Jacko Wacko.”
  • Dimond admitted to knowing about the allegations months in advance. Why was the DA leaking information to a tabloid journalist?
  • Sneddon delayed filing charges until December so that the Santa Barbara Police Department could set up a website exclusively for members of the press.
  • Sneddon enlisted the help of a PR firm to deal with the media. Tellem, the PR firm working for Sneddon, also works for Dave Schwartz, the stepfather of Jackson’s first accuser.
  • Sneddon dismissed the Department of Children and Family Services investigation as an “interview” and accused the DCFS of being incompetent. It turns out that his own department also investigated Michael Jackson in February and came back with the same “unfounded” ruling as the DCFS.
  • In December, Jackson told Sixty Minutes that he was roughly handled by police officers when he was arrested; he showed photographic evidence to substantiate his claims. The SBPD responded to Jackson’s allegations by releasing audio clips of Jackson whistling in the car before he was booked. Jackson, however, did not claim that he was abused on his way to the station. The only mistreatment he alleged before the booking was when the handcuffs were put on but you can hear him on the audiotape complaining about the handcuffs being too tight.
    The actual abuse was not alleged to have occurred until Jackson was brought into the booking station. The SBPD did not show any footage of Jackson in the booking station, claiming that they did not film Jackson’s booking because they didn’t anticipate that there would be any problems. This contradicts their explanation as to why they recorded Jackson on his way to the station; they said they taped Jackson because it was a high-profile arrest and they wanted to ensure that everything was handled appropriately. In that case, why didn’t they tape Jackson in the booking station?
  • Sheriff Jim Anderson said that if Michael Jackson’s claims of police abuse turned out to be false, he would charge Jackson with making a false complaint. Since Jackson never actually made a formal complaint, Anderson’s statement is not in accordance with the law.
  • Attorney General Bill Lockyer was asked by Anderson to investigate Jackson’s claims in December; almost seven months later, he still has not issued any statement regarding his findings.
  • Jackson also alleged during the interview that he still had not received a list of what was taken from Neverland.
  • The alleged victim’s parents are currently in the midst of a custody battle. Sneddon wrote a letter to the judge in the custody proceedings requesting that the boy be kept from seeing his father. Why would the District Attorney care if the boy saw his father? What does this have to do with the molestation case? Perhaps Sneddon does not want the boy to change his story once he’s no longer under the influence of his mother.
  • To date, Sneddon has obtained 69 search warrants, including warrants to search Jackson’s bank statements, financial records and security boxes. Please tell me what evidence of child molestation does Sneddon hope to find in Jackson’s financial records?
  • Eight months after arresting Michael Jackson, Sneddon has still failed to hand over all of his evidence to the defense. How are Jackson’s attorneys supposed to prepare for the trial?
  • Court documents filed by the prosecution indicate that Sneddon sends his investigators to read fan discussion boards like MJJForum.
  • Sneddon took his case to a grand jury in order to avoid a public preliminary hearing. This is unfair to the Defendant.
  • The charges from the criminal complaint are completely different from the charges in the indictment. After the inconsistencies in Sneddon’s case were brought to the attention of the public, the timeline of alleged abuse changed, the number of times the abuse allegedly occurred changed and allegations of kidnapping have suddenly materialized. Why is this?
  • Jackson’s defense team recently filed a 126-page motion asking for the indictment to be thrown out. The document states that during the grand jury proceedings, Sneddon bullied witnesses, failed to properly present exculpatory evidence, refused to let the jurors question the prosecution witnesses and provided the jurors with a false legal definition of the term “conspiracy” (for which Jackson was indicted). The motion says: “There is simply no evidence that Mr. Jackson had the specific intent to agree or conspire with anyone about anything.”
  • The grand jury transcripts reveal that Sneddon allowed the accuser’s mother to refer to Jackson as “the devil” when she testified.
  • Although she has never even met Michael Jackson, a woman who worked for him for 10 days was the prosecution’s key witness to the alleged conspiracy. When she testified in front of the grand jury, she answered questions with: “I’m not sure,” “I guess,” “I assume,” “I don’t know exactly,” and “I think.” Sneddon allowed her to proceed even though she clearly had no knowledge of any alleged conspiracy.
  • A defense motion reveals that Sneddon used Jackson’s preference for a clean household as evidence that he was the mastermind of a criminal conspiracy. Seriously. The motion reads: “It is simply not reasonable to infer that Mr. Jackson’s preference for a well run household demonstrates the specific intent to commit crimes. Evidence that Mr. Jackson would complain to his staff when household chores were not done properly is not evidence that he was directing a criminal conspiracy.”
  • While at a District Attorney’s convention in Canada, Sneddon broke the gag order in the case and inadvertently revealed prosecutorial misconduct on his part. He told his fellow DAs that: “We sent letters to some people saying we intended to call them as witnesses in order to keep them off TV.” As it turns out, a journalist from the Globe and Mail was at the conference and printed his comments in a newspaper. Sneddon’s behaviour drew criticism from many legal experts who felt this was an abuse of power on Sneddon’s part. Jackson’s lawyers also brought Sneddon’s comments to the attention of Judge Melville, asking him to clarify whether or not Sneddon had violated the gag order.
  • According to a motion filed by the defense, the amount of search warrants that have been given to them by the prosecution does not match the amount of search warrants that have actually been issued by the prosecution. Six search warrants are missing, 10 affidavits used to support the search warrants have been heavily redacted and 49 affidavits used to support the search warrants have not been given to the defense at all. What is Sneddon hiding?
  • Sneddon has been ordered to testify about his illegal raid of Bradley Miller’s office. The accuser’s mother, her former civil lawyer Bill Dickerman and the therapist who reported the allegations to the police have also been subpoenaed to testify. Sneddon tried to quash their subpoenas so that they would not have to appear in court; the judge denied his request.
  • According to the defense team: “There is no case in the history of the state of California that has condoned anything like the abuse of power demonstrated in this grand jury proceeding.”

The Mirage

Again The Mirage pops up. Earlier in the blog you have read about the lost 30 minutes at The Mirage, after which the sleepovers began. Mike also was at The Mirage during the Neverland Raid and again when he was arrested, as you can read here.

“These photos show Jackson in a bathroom at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Lake Las Vegas, Nev. They were taken at least eight days after the arrest. Jackson had returned to the Mirage Hotel in Las Vegas, moved to a nearby resort before finally ending up at the Ritz Carlton.”

So he was at The Mirage when he was arrested, returned there but decided to leave The Mirage. There was not much we could find on The Mirage, other than this:

“The Mirage was built by developer Steve Wynn and designed by Joel Bergman. Wynn was born Steven Alan Weinberg in New Haven, Connecticut. His father, Michael, changed the family’s last name from “Weinberg” to “Wynn” when Steve was six months old “to avoid anti-Jewish discrimination” according to several sources.”

The Mirage hotel is one big mirror and after reading all the stuff about the mirror rooms and Mind Control, this just gives us a weird feeling, but we can’t put our finger on it.

  • WHO IS BEHIND THIS?[/o][/shadow]
Was this all part of a bigger plan? Was Chandler paid? Were the Arvizos paid? And by who? Who would gain $$$ by getting Mike behind bars? Lets have a closer look at Santa Barbara County, Sony & Motolla, Sneddon and everyone else involved to see if we can build a theory about this.

Let’s start with the one the most at the surface, Tom Sneddon. He might be infamous for his vendetta against Mike, but that is not all the dirt we found on him.

Tom Sneddon

After having spent millions of dollars on the Michael Jackson investigation in 1993, District Attorney Tom Sneddon did not find enough evidence to bring charges against the pop star.

Over the next few years, Sneddon and several of his employees made numerous statements to the press where they implied that there was indeed evidence to corroborate Jordan Chandler’s story. They failed to explain, however, why two grand juries did not indict Michael Jackson if such evidence actually existed.

According to reporter Geraldo Rivera, members of the Santa Barbara Police Department were shown footage of the strip search of Jackson’s genitalia. “I’ve got a videotape that was shown to every cop in Santa Barbara of Michael Jackson’s penis,” Rivera said.

In 1995, Jackson wrote a song about Tom Sneddon that appeared on his album HIStory: Past, Present and Future Book I. In the song (D.S.), Jackson claims that he was over-targetted by the DA’s office and accuses Sneddon of being obsessed with attaining political fame.

Many legal experts dismissed the idea that Sneddon would prosecute Jackson solely for his own self-aggrandizement but perhaps there are other motives involved. According to Thambiah Sundaram, a dentist who filed and won a lawsuit against Santa Barbara prosecutors in 1996, the commercial prospects of Neverland might be one factor influencing authorities’ relentless pursuit of Jackson.

In 1994, Sundaram attended a private fundraising event where he allegedly heard Sneddon discuss a plan to run Jackson out of Santa Barbara and turn Neverland into a winery. According to Sundaram, Sneddon planned to do this by finding another child to accuse Jackson of sexual abuse. While Sundaram’s allegations are difficult to prove or disprove at this point, it is a widely known fact that winemaking is the leading agricultural industry in Santa Barbara, accounting for about $360 million of the county’s annual economy. The Santa Ynez Valley, where Jackson owns almost 3,000 acres of land, is particularly well suited for growing grapes because of its ideal climate and soil conditions. Numerous wineries located in the Santa Ynez Valley are looking to expand but there isn’t enough available land in the area to do so.

Whether or not Sundaram’s allegations have any merit remains to be seen, but there are other facts that point to Sneddon having a vendetta against Michael Jackson. Sneddon said in a press conference that after 1993, he changed certain California laws pertaining to child molestation specifically because of the Michael Jackson case.

In 1995, Sneddon told Vanity Fair magazine:

“The state of the investigation [of Jackson] is in suspension until somebody comes forward.”

Upon viewing the Living with Michael Jackson documentary that aired in February 2003, Sneddon saw an opportunity to re-open the case. In a press statement released on February 6, 2003, Sneddon said:

“After conversations with Sheriff Jim Anderson, it was agreed that the BBC broadcast would be taped by the Sheriff’s Department. It is anticipated that it will be reviewed.”

Regarding Jackson’s comments that there is nothing wrong with sharing a bedroom with a child, Sneddon replied by saying it was, “unusual at best. For this reason, all local departments having responsibility in this are taking the matter seriously.” He then urged any victims to come forward.

Shortly after this statement was released, Sneddon gave an interview to tabloid reporter Diane Dimond where he discussed the 1993 case.

Coincidentally, the boy who appeared in Living with Michael Jackson – the documentary that Sneddon taped and watched – is the same boy who ended up becoming Jackson’s second accuser. Did Sneddon have something to do with this boy coming forward?

During his testimony at a pre-trial hearing, Sneddon admitted to having met with the second accuser’s mother in an empty parking lot to give her papers that would qualify her for a state victim’s fund. He also personally investigated the second set of allegations against Michael Jackson, a job that is supposed to be carried out by investigators.

Linda Fairstein, a leading sex crimes prosecutor, said of Sneddon’s actions:

“It’s way too personal. It’s way out of line. If he does any substantive parts of an investigation, he may become a witness in the case.”

She continued:

“It lets these very talented defense attorneys take him apart before the jury and explain that it’s not his place to do that. He creates trouble in and out of the courtroom for himself by taking on that role.”

Although the accusing family’s story had numerous holes in it, Sneddon went forward with the case and pressed charges.


  • Some of Sneddon’s friends wanted Jackson’s property to convert it into a thriving vineyard. Consistent with Sundaram’s claims, wine-making is the leading agricultural industry in Santa Barbara where Jackson owns 2,700 acres of prime real estate.
  • Authorities laughed and bragged about passing around pictures of Jackson’s genitalia, pictures that were taken during the 1993-94 investigation. This was done to embarrass Jackson. (These pictures were supposed to be sealed but are not. Even Geraldo Rivera admits that he has seen them)
  • Nicola lamented that they had done everything they could to get “that nigger” out of town but had failed. Apparently, authorities did not like the fact that Jackson was the richest resident in Santa Barbara, that he had married a white woman (Lisa Marie Presley) and that he owned all of that property. They promised they would not fail to get rid of him the next time around.
  • Sneddon allegedly stated that his goal was to get “some dirt to get him to leave” and that he wanted to “run him out of town.”

These tidbits of information have been challenged by Sneddon supporters and Jackson haters alike as unsubstantiated gossip. However, if this information has any kernel of truth to it (and we believe it does), then it makes the events of November 2003 a mere fulfillment of an alleged obsession with Jackson on Sneddon’s part.[/li][/list][/i]

Read more

Sneddon’s prosecutorial misconduct in the Michael Jackson case is not an isolated incident; in fact, several other people have accused him of malicious prosecution.

What’s Going On In Santa Barbara?

Interesting is the link Sneddon has with David Schwartz, who was Jordie Chandler’s stepfather during the 1993 allegations. Normally that could be a coincidence, but the fact that during his testimony at a pre-trial hearing Sneddon admitted to having met with the Janet Arvizo before the second accusations makes us think this was all planned. But what would Sneddon gain from all this? Did he hate Mike? And why? Justice was not a motive, because both cases were doomed to be lost by him, because he had NOTHING. Fame could be a motive, but who wants to be known for nailing the most famous and loved person in the world? That seems a little strange. So it must be money. Since we don’t believe that Sneddon’s paycheck was that big, he must have been paid by other parties. But by who? Who would gain enough by getting rid of Mike?

Ron Zonen

Sr. Deputy District Attorney during the 2005 trial. We found a little dirt on him as well. The source link doesn’t work anymore, that is why we are glad we save everything.

Ron Zonen Breaks the Law in ‘Hollywood’ Case ? – SBNP

Hollywood prosecutor admits to misdemeanor

9/21/05 By SCOTT HADLY


Prosecutor says he shouldn’t be disqualified The prosecutor in the Jesse James Hollywood murder and kidnapping trial may have committed a misdemeanor when he gave certain information to the makers of a new film, but that shouldn’t disqualify him from handling the case, according to court documents. Senior Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen may have inadvertently given the makers of the yet-to-be released movie, “Alpha Dog,” rap sheets and information about witnesses, and while that might be “evidence of carelessness,” it doesn’t amount to bias, according to a district attorney’s motion submitted for a hearing Tuesday. After his March capture in Brazil, Mr. Hollywood, 25, pleaded not guilty to orchestrating the August 2000 kidnapping and killing of 15-year-old Nicholas Markowitz.

Prosecutors allege Nicholas’ death was the culmination of an escalating feud between Mr.

Hollywood and the teenager’s older half-brother over a $1,200 drug debt. After the teen’s body was found off West Camino Cielo, Mr. Hollywood disappeared. He and four others were indicted for the killing by a Santa Barbara County grand jury. While Mr. Hollywood was on the run, three of the co-defendants were tried and convicted and another pleaded guilty. All are now serving time and one, the alleged triggerman, Ryan Hoyt, is now on death row. “Alpha Dog,” which is set to be released early next year, stars Sharon Stone, Bruce Willis and Justin Timberlake. It has been shown once to preview audiences. Mr. Hollywood’s attorney, James Blatt, who saw the movie, said it is hewn directly from the prosecution’s version of events and depicts his client as “extremely manipulative, vicious, selfish and without any redeeming character traits whatsoever.” In a motion filed last week, Mr. Blatt called the cooperation between Mr. Zonen and the filmmaker, Nick Cassavetes, “unprecedented misconduct.”

Mr. Blatt said Mr. Zonen told Mr. Cassavetes’ researcher that the case against Mr. Hollywood and his four co-defendants would be his “legacy” and that he planned to write a book. But in the response written by Senior Deputy District Attorney Gerald Franklin for Tuesday’s hearing, Mr. Franklin points out that talking about writing a book and actually writing one are two different things. “There probably is a book in every prosecutor who has made a career of prosecuting serious felonies,” Mr. Franklin said. To show some sort of conflict, Mr. Blatt has to show that Mr. Zonen has a personal interest or financial benefit in the outcome of the trial and there is none, according to Mr. Franklin. “There is nothing in (Mr. Blatt’s) screed that remotely suggests that (Deputy District Attorney) Zonen has a personal interest in securing the conviction of Defendant Hollywood distinct from a professional interest in bringing all Santa Barbara murderers to book, apart from the sharpened focus that necessarily attends being assigned a particular case to prosecute and having to prepare it for trial (in this case five times over),” Mr. Franklin said in the motion.

“There is nothing to suggest that (Deputy District Attorney) Zonen is under the influence of a private party with a personal interest in securing Hollywood’s conviction.” … Mr. Blatt said Tuesday that he intends to respond to the district attorney by the end of this week. And he hopes to get a sworn declaration from Mr. Cassavetes, the movie’s writer and director. In court he told Judge Brian Hill that Michael Mehas, an attorney who helped Mr. Cassavetes research the case and write the script, had stopped cooperating with the defense. Mr. Blatt indicated that he might have to haul Mr. Mehas into court to ask him about what other kinds of information were given to him during his research. The next hearing is scheduled for November 1.


Sheriff Jim Thomas

Sheriff Jim Thomas conducted the investigation into molestation charges in 1993 and sent investigators all over the country and as far as the Philippines to investigate other reports of sexual molestation. Tom Sneddon, who was also the district attorney in the 1993 case, presented evidence from that investigation to a Santa Barbara grand jury at the time. But ultimately no formal charges were filed against Mike.

Thomas was elected sheriff in 1990, and ran unopposed for three terms before retiring, so he was the Santa Barbara County sheriff while Brooks Firestone represented the 35th District in the California State Assembly for two terms (1994-1998). Thomas has kept busy since he retired as sheriff in 2002 after 30 years with the department, but he didn’t loose his interest for Mike.

In December 2003, over a year after his retirement, Jim Thomas hit the spotlight again and told CNN there was a second child who claimed in 1993 that Michael Jackson molested him. Thomas told CNN the second accuser in 1993, a boy aged 9 or 10 at the time, decided he was too “ashamed” to testify against Jackson, and didn’t want his friends to know. The parents also did not want the boy or themselves subjected to a “take no prisoners” defense, Thomas said. “The child did not want to testify, and we can’t force a child to testify, so that never went forward,” he said. Thomas said he believed the second child would have gone forward with the allegations had other alleged victims come forward. He said the case was “strong,” but “it would have been up to a jury to decide, and it never got that far.”

On March 12, 2004, Jim Thomas appeared on MSNBC’s ‘The Abrams Report’ and blew the prosecution’s claims. This show was about a two month investigation done by the Santa Barbara Sheriffs department that ultimately cleared Jackson of these allegations, finding “no criminal activity” occurred. The investigation began Feb 18 2003 and ended April 16 2003, according to reports.

The public was told nothing about this investigation during any of Sneddon’s interviews with Diane Dimond and Art Harris. Sneddon didn’t volunteer this information during any of his joking and insulting press conferences. Neither was the information published on the prosecution’s media website. Nor was it released in a statement though it’s PR firm Tellum Worldwide.

Jim Thomas appeared on the ‘The Abrams Report’ trying unsuccessfully to put out this fire of doubt currently building in many media pundits who previously were absolutely sure-disgustingly so-that Jackson was guilty of a crime. Some are rethinking their preconceptions about this case and are actually asking questions about the situation instead of just accepting whatever nonsense prosecution sympathizers throw out.

Thomas said on the show:

“They opened the case but at that point you had no victim. The child had not confided in anyone until June. So the mother didn’t know. The siblings didn’t know and the case was started only because of suspicions based upon Bashir’s [documentary]. Nobody had ever come forward at that point and specifically said that Michael Jackson had molested that child. Certainly, that child had not said that and did not say that until June. So in essence you really had no victim until June.”


Thomas worked as a television analyst for MSNBC during the Michael Jackson child-molestation trial.

Sheriff Jim Anderson

On November 19 2003, Sneddon held a press conference where his behaviour led many to believe that he had a grudge against Michael Jackson stemming from the 1993 case. Despite the serious nature of the allegations, Sneddon and Sheriff Jim Anderson created a jovial atmosphere by making several jokes at Jackson’s expense. It appears that this video was removed from the internet on Sneddon’s request, but you can read it here.

Then we have the issue of how Mike was treated by the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department personnel:


Following that footage Sheriff Jim Anderson asked the state attorney general to investigate the allegations Mike levelled:

JEFF WILSON, Associated Press Writer

AP Worldstream


Dateline: SANTA BARBARA, California

The sheriff of Santa Barbara County has strongly denied Michael Jackson was roughed up by jailers during his arrest, and threatened to press charges against the pop star for making a false accusation against an officer.

Sheriff Jim Anderson said he asked the state attorney general to investigate the allegations Jackson leveled during a television interview on Sunday.

Jackson was treated “with the utmost respect and courtesy” during his arrest and booking Nov. 20 on suspicion of child molestation and was “in no way manhandled or abused,” Anderson said at a news conference on Wednesday.


According to Thomas Mesereau Mike never made a formal complaint about his treatment or requested an investigation, although he had bruises and received medical treatment after his arrest. Yet 163 witnesses were interviewed and 2,500 investigative hours were spent (who paid for that?) and the California Bureau of Investigation determined that Mike was not injured at the hands of Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department personnel.

« Last Edit: August 10, 2011, 05:06:58 PM by ~Souza~ »

Offline ~Souza~

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Hoaxer
  • *****
  • Mrs. SEHF
  • Posts: 10146
    • Michael Jackson Death Hoax Investigators
Jamie Masada

The owner of the Laugh Factory, who introduced Gavin to Mike and other celebs.

In 1985, Masada marched down Pennsylvania Avenue with Bob Hope, Phyllis Diller, Red Foxx, amongst many others in The Laugh Factory’s campaign to send the first comedian into space. The campaign drew so much attention that President Reagan asked Bob Hope to arrange a meeting with Masada.

Bob Hope was the alleged owner/handler of Brice Taylor:

Following the advice of her friend Jamie Massada, Janet consults a lawyer named William Dickerman. Dickerman sends the family to Feldman before any accusations have been made.

Uri Geller

Here is some information about Uri Geller.

Born in Tel Aviv, Israel, to Hungarian Jewish parents, Geller was the only child of Itzhaak Geller, a retired Army sergeant major, and Manzy Freud (Freud Manci). It is claimed that Geller is a distant relative of Sigmund Freud on his mother’s side, also has a twin called Adrian. He was brought to the United States for scientific investigation by Andrija Puharich.

Andrija Puharich, MD, also known as Henry K. Puharich, (February 19, 1918 – January 3, 1995), was a medical and parapsychological researcher, medical inventor and author, who is perhaps best known as the person who brought Uri Geller and Peter Hurkos to the United States for scientific investigation. His research included studying the influence of extremely low frequency ELF electromagnetic wave emissions on the mind, and he invented several devices allegedly blocking or converting ELF waves to prevent harm.

Extremely low frequency (ELF) is used to control behavior and mood patterns.


Recent research has revealed Puharich to have a distinctly sinister side. As an Army doctor in the 1950s, he was deeply involved with the CIA’s notorious MKULTRA mind control project. He – together with the infamous Dr Sidney Gottlieb – experimented with a variety of techniques to change or induce actual thought processes even to creating the impression of voices in the head. These techniques included the use of drugs, hypnosis and beaming radio signals directly into the subject’s brain. And, significantly, he was engaged in this work at exactly the same time that The Nine made their first appearance at the Round Table Foundation. The Foundation itself is now known to have been largely funded by the Pentagon as a front for its medical and parapsychological research. Puharich was still working for the CIA in the early 1970s, when he brought Uri Geller out of Israel.

Longtime friend Michael Jackson was best man when Geller renewed his wedding vows in 2001. Geller also claimed on a BBC Radio 5 Live interview with Nicky Campbell on the morning after Michael Jackson’s death (26 June 2009) that Jackson had agreed to let Geller hypnotise him to help him with a problem. Geller said that he did something “highly unethical” by asking him whether he had ever “touched a child in an inappropriate way.” Geller says that Jackson immediately denied it under hypnosis. Geller also negotiated the famous TV interview between Jackson with the journalist Martin Batshit: Living with Michael Jackson. He is also very well known inside the Pentagon.

Among conspiracy theorists there’s always been talk that Uri Geller was not just a psychic – that he was working for U.S. military intelligence. The work Puthoff and Targ were conducting – as well as other research into psychic powers, ESP, ELF and such was heavily funded by the U.S. military.

The belief is that the U.S. was locked in a covert sort of psychic arms race with the Soviets, both sides conducting research in how to use this stuff for spying, for mind control, and for weapons. Moreover, it is believed that Geller himself had put his psychic powers at the service of the Israeli intelligence agency, the Mossad.

You might think “What is so interesting about this?” But Uri Geller is the one that introduced Batshit to Mike and we all know what happened after Batshit came to visit. He claims to be his friend, but we all noticed Uri likes to promote Uri. Is he Mike’s friend? Maybe, but we think he is not. If you look at his background and connections, it is way more likely that Geller introduced Batshit to Mike for a reason, and not to make Mike look better.

Martin Batshit

he way Batshit works is devilish. He promises he will help you spread a message, make something clear in your interview, he makes you trust him and then he will air something complete different than agreed, making you look bad. We know he did that to Mike, but Mike was not his own victim. In 1992 he did the same to a victim of satanic rituals, read her story here.

Batshit was in our eyes of good use: hungry for fame and without any morals.

Malnik, Lansky, Mottola & Ratner

After Mike’s “death” his former friend Al Malnik hit the news several times, saying that he’s godfather to Blanket, and that, last Malnik knew, he was executor of Mike’s estate. His wife Nancy published photos showing Malnik and his family with Mike in 2003.

Quote Daily Mail:

“In pictures taken from the same party, Jackson and his children are allegedly pictured with the children of close friends Al and Nancy Malnik.The 76-year-old American millionaire has triplets Jarod, Spencer and Nathan, who are now 11. Mr Malnik had been friends with the singer for more than ten years and the singer stayed with him at the height of the child abuse scandals. Jackson is godfather to Spencer, who is understood to be featured in the pictures sitting on the steps of Mr Malnik’s Miami mansion with Paris.”

According to Gordon Novel, known for several controversial investigations, allegations connected with intelligence agencies and currently for his commitments to fight the alleged conspiracy of free energy suppression, the friendship between Mike and Al Malnik ended in 2003. The two men had a falling out after Mike began to believe that Malnik, who has known Mafia ties and was once a close associate of Meyer Lansky, was trying to wrangle Mike’s rights to half the Beatles catalog of songs from him, rights that are worth an estimated half billion dollars.

According to Novel, Mike said he was lured to Malnik’s house in Miami Beach by film director Brett Ratner to see a house so beautiful it would make him catatonic. He said that once he was there, however, Malnik, who according to Mike had Mafia ties, wanted to put his fingers in his business. Mike also said he received a call from Tommy Mottola while he was there, which aroused his suspicion.

Al Malnik and Brett Ratner indeed know each other:

(from left to right): Shareef Malnick, Al Malnick, Serena Williams, Michael Jackson, Chris Tucker, and Brett Ratner (front).

(from left to right): Brett Ratner, Michael Jackson, Al Malnik (standing), Chris Tucker.

Al Malnik

A little search on Malnik results in the following information about Mafia connections:

A lawyer, real estate developer and proprietor of the supertrendy Miami Beach hot spot The Forge, Malnik is also owner of Title Loans of America, a national chain that lends money legally at annual percentage rates reaching 264% – higher than most loansharks’ vig.

The feds opened their first dossier on Malnik in 1963. It was two years after he graduated, first in his class, from Miami Law School. He had helped set up the Bank of World Commerce in Nassau, the Bahamas, an alleged loot laundry that investigators said involved “some of the nation’s top gangsters.”

Acquitted on tax fraud charges in 1964, Malnik was heard discussing Lansky two years later on bugs placed by cops probing whether casino profits were invested overseas on the mobster’s behalf.

In 1964, he made his first venture into showbiz, organizing a video jukebox company, Scopitone, that was touted as a music-industry revolution.

In 1966, the U.S. attorney in New York secretly indicted Malnik on charges of using the mail to defraud Scopitone investors.In 1971, prosecutors quietly dropped the case.

Meanwhile, after Malnik opened The Forge in 1969, it rose quickly to the top of Miami’s night scene, attracting celebrities such as Frank Sinatra, Judy Garland, Richard Burton and even Richard Nixon, who came with his shady financier pal, Bebe Rebozo.

Alvin Malnik, the man once regarded as the heir apparent to mobster Meyer Lansky, … described by federal authorities as a top associate of organized crime figures … Among his friends, Malnik counts Saudi royalty.

The sole owner of a Georgia company, Title Loans of America, Malnik runs a national chain of loan stores that make millions of dollars from the interest charged on quick cash offered to people in desperate need of money. … Attorney General Bob Butterworth [Florida] likens the business to ‘legalized loan sharking.’ … ‘It was a known fact among the criminal underworld that dealing with Al Malnik was the same as dealing with Meyer Lansky,’ [said] Vincent Teresa, ‘a convicted criminal and frequent government witness currently in the federal Witness Protection Program,’ …

When Lansky died in 1983 at age 81, Reader’s Digest named Malnik his ‘heir apparent.’ … ‘He is not welcome here,’ James Hurley, the chairman of the New Jersey Casino Control Commission … ‘He’s done nothing to overcome his reputation of being closely identified with Meyer Lansky and other organized crime figures.’ … In 1962, Malnik was listed as a director of the Bank of World Commerce, a Bahamas-based institution that involved ‘some of the nations’ top gangsters,’ … In 1978, a Bahamian company named Appolonia Investment Limited paid $3.35 million to buy the property just north of Malnik’s Ranch. … Malnik refuse to divulge Appolonia’s owners.


Meyer Lansky

(born Meyer Suchowljanski) (July 4, 1902 – January 15, 1983; known as the “Mob’s Accountant”) was a Jewish-American organized crime figure who, along with his associate Charles “Lucky” Luciano, was instrumental in the development of the “National Crime Syndicate” in the United States.

Lansky developed a gambling empire which stretched from Saratoga, New York to Miami to Council Bluffs Iowa and Las Vegas; it is also said that he oversaw gambling concessions in Cuba. Although a member of the Jewish Mafia, Lansky undoubtedly had strong influence with the Italian Mafia and played a large role in the consolidation of the criminal underworld (although the full extent of this role has been the subject of some debate).


According to Gordon Novel he was originally contacted by Jermaine and said that Mike and the family wanted Novel to gather proof of the Malnik/Mottola conspiracy and further find evidence that Mottola was behind the criminal child molestation charges.

Novel said he flew in March 2005, about a month into Mike’s trial, from his home in New Orleans to the Los Angeles home owned by Mike’s parents, where he stayed several days before Jackson finally had him over to Neverland Valley. He said the two of them met in a bungalow on the property before Mike drove him around the ranch in an old pickup truck.


“The whole thing centered on Tommy Mottola setting him up,” Novel told me. “Mottola and him were at odds, and Jackson’s information was that Mottola and Malnik got together to fuck him. He said he believed Malnik was representing the Mob.”

He said Jackson had special loathing for Malnik because he felt betrayed by him. When I told him that Malnik was saying that Jackson had made him executor of his estate, he was dubious.

“He had split up with Malnik,” said Novel. “He never said anything about Malnik being executor of his will. And based on how pissed off Jackson was at him at the time, I wouldn’t believe it on a bet.”

When asked what Jackson was like at the meeting, Novel didn’t hesitate: “He was afraid, very very afraid. He didn’t want to go to jail and didn’t think he would be treated very well there.”

Was he fearful that he would be killed in prison?

“Yeah, you can say that,” Novel said.

But he also said that Jackson’s mental state was “excellent” and that the pop star was lucid and extremely intelligent. He didn’t believe Jackson was on any drugs during the meeting.

I asked Novel if he believed Jackson’s theory about the conspiracy against him. He said that he thought Jackson was not guilty of the criminal charges and that he was probably set up, but he had no idea if Mottola was involved.

“He thought that Mottola was Mob-connected and that Malnik was representing the Mob, but I can’t vouch for any of that shit,” Novel said. “I don’t have anything against Tommy Mottola and don’t know if what he thought was true or not. I don’t want to get on Mottola’s bad side. My sources in New York say he’s a dangerous guy.”


Tommy Mottola

A search also results in articles which mention Tommy Mottola’s alleged mob ties.


“Do you know this guy has a Mafia background?” a senior Sony executive quotes the CBS man as saying. “What are you doing tainting this wonderful company you just bought from us with a guy who has a background that would make the F.B.I. cringe?”

Rattled, Sony contacted F.B.I. director William Sessions, requesting a quiet background check. The response was a qualified O.K. “The F.B.I. said, ‘No, this guy is not somebody who will start dealing with people we should worry about, but he has friends who do,’” says a former senior executive at Sony. “We said, ‘As long as he’s clean, we won’t worry.’ And that was the basis on which we didn’t.”



Opportunistic from the get-go, Mottola converted to Judaism as a young man in order to marry the daughter of tough ABC Records creator Sam Clark, yet has spent the rest of his life playing the mobster angle to whatever advantage he can. He named his first management company “Don Tommy”; as head of Warner Music, Michael Fuchs recalled to New York magazine that Mottola spoke of Morris Levy as a personal hero, and in fact Mottola was an investment partner of Levy’s up until Levy’s conviction. In the racketeering trial of Gambino family capo Greg De Palma, a former undercover FBI agent stated under oath that De Palma bragged of wining and dining with Mottola and his then-wife Mariah Carey.

Vanity Fair reported that Colombo family boss-turned-FBI-informant Michael Franzese told journalist Frederic Dannen (author of best-selling industry exposé Hit Men), “Tommy, we knew he was a friend of ours.” Mottola makes light of these connections, dismissing it all (in certain company, at least) as sensationalism and hearsay, yet as long as these associations continue to work for him more often than against him, he seems content to perpetuate them.


Brett Ratner

A little search on Ratner lead us to this information, showing a close, personal connection to Malnik:


“Had he been realistic and realized what the odds were that he would succeed to the extent that he has, he probably wouldn’t have tried at all,” says Shareef Malnik, owner of the landmark Miami Beach restaurant The Forge.

Shareef’s father Al Malnik was a friend of Ratner’s paternal grandfather, developer Lee Ratner. Brett was raised by his mother and maternal grandparents, who are Cuban and Jewish. They all lived in a house a block away from The Forge. The elder Malnik mentored Ratner while he was a going to Hebrew Academy and then Beach High.

“He grew up as my little brother,” Shareef says. He calls my dad Dad.


Flash frames show Malnik with a slew of the big names across the years-from world-famous attorney and mentor Jake Ehrlich to Rat Pack stars Dean Martin and Sammy Davis Jr., to his first son, Shareef, and his “11th son,” famed director Brett Ratner, to a bevy of beautiful women and a host of others-until, suddenly, the camera pauses, and Malnik finds the love of his life-Nancy.


The Firestone Family

Sneddon was allegedly overheard in 1994 discussing a plan to get Mike out of Santa Barbara and turn Neverland into a winery. Winemaking is the leading agricultural industry in Santa Barbara, and while searching for the wineries in Santa Barbara, we bumped into the Firestone Family.

Like mentioned above, Thambiah Sundaram attended a private fundraising dinner in 1994 where Tom Sneddon and other government officials allegedly discussed their plans to get rid of certain individuals in Santa Barbara who owned substantial amounts of land. Michael Jackson’s property was allegedly brought up during this meeting; Sundaram claimed that authorities wanted to acquire Neverland for vineyards.

Slick Gardner is a horse rancher who owns 2,000 acres of land in Santa Barbara. In 2003, Gardner was investigated for animal abuse after his neighbours reported that some of his horses looked unhealthy. Around the same time the allegations hit, Gardner ran for 3rd District Supervisor against John Buttny, Steve Pappas and Brooks Firestone. Firestone – who owns a successful winery in Santa Barbara and who also has political ties to Tom Sneddon and former Sheriff Jim Thomas – won the election by a landslide. As a result of the bad publicity from the animal abuse allegations, Gardner got the least amount of votes.

While investigating Gardner for animal abuse, Santa Barbara authorities also stumbled upon evidence of grand theft. Gardner was charged with 12 felony counts and hired defense attorney Steve Balash to represent him in the case. Balash later backed out of the case saying it was too complicated.

According to Gardner, Sneddon has had a grudge against him for 30 years and is only prosecuting him out of spite. “It just seems like it’s almost a vendetta deal. These guys are going so far out of their way to do things to me that normally wouldn’t be done,” Gardner said.

“The same thing that’s happening to Michael Jackson happened to me. One day Sneddon is going to wake up with a boot up his ass with a white glove in it, and it will be about time.”

Let’s have a closer look at the Firestones.

Harvey Firestone’s son Leonard was an attendee at Bohemian Grove. A staunch Republican, Leonard Firestone was delegate to Republican National Convention from California in 1944 (alternate), 1948 and 1952. In 1954 he was elected to the city council of Beverly Hills.

Leonard Firestone was chairman of the Nelson Rockefeller campaign in the California Presidential primary in 1964. Firestone was appointed U.S. ambassador to Belgium by President Richard Nixon in 1974, and was reappointed by President Gerald Ford, serving until 1976. He was later chairman of the Richard M. Nixon Foundation.


The Nixon/Illuminati connection

President Gerald Ford’s connections to MK Ultra are described in Cathy O’Brian’s book “Trance Formation of America”.


The Vice-President under Ford was Nelson Rockefeller.

Leonard Firestone’s first marriage produced three children, of which one is a son named Brooks Firestone. Brooks Firestone represented the 35th District in the California State Assembly for two terms (1994-1998), and is the former Santa Barbara County, California Third District Supervisor (2004-2008).


In the early 1970s, Harvey’s son Leonard, a former United States Ambassador to Belgium, established a family ranch in Santa Barbara County’s rugged Santa Ynez Valley. At the time, Santa Barbara County barely registered on California’s winegrowing radar, but Leonard saw immense potential in the region’s coastal climate and amenable soils. He decided to plant a vineyard, with the initial intent of selling the grapes to North Coast wineries.

Soon thereafter, Leonard was joined by his son Brooks and Brooks’ wife Kate, and together they decided to take their winegrowing adventure to the next level by establishing Santa Barbara County’s first estate winery.

In 1987, Los Angeles Times Magazine noted: “Brooks Firestone’s importance to the California wine industry is first of all historical: He was a pioneer, an inspirer, and expander of possibilities; he took a chance on an untried wine area, then stuck with it and made it pay…”


We are not saying anything with this, but the connections of the Firestones are interesting to say the least.


Sony turns out to be more interesting then we thought as well. The origin of the name SONY is not very clear, but many people seen to think it is an acronym of Standard Oil of New York. This is what Leroy Fletcher Prouty had to say about it.

It just happens that I was ordered to Tokyo during the early days of the Korean War period, and was assigned the job of “Military Manager of Tokyo International Airport” during the period of the U.S. military occupation of Japan. At that time it was the third busiest airport in the world, not only because of the Korean War activity; but because of just such business activity as Burnham describes on the part of Mr. Morita. Many other Japanese entrepreneurs were doing their best to revive from the losses and damage of WWII; but even more important was an another enormous business phenomenon.

I began to notice that day after day the few Japanese transport aircraft available, and countless large commercial aircraft from USA Charter Companies began to jam the parking ramp on Tokyo Airport. They were loaded with items from the States.

US money and manufactured material was flooding the place. Have you ever really thought why Mr. Morita, a fine Japanese businessman, would name his company SONY? That is not a Japanese word, nor is it a Japanese acronym.

The name SONY began to appear at the airport after the flood of post-war recovery money, and one of the meanings of those four letters is “STANDARD OIL OF NEW YORK”. That has always been SONY or SOCONY. (The Standard Oil Company of New York)

THE ROCKEFELLERS had arrived to re-finance Japan.

What this meant was that during those “MacArthur” days Rockefeller money was flooding Japan; and money such as that (Yes, I’m using the term MONEY) kind of “money” began the amazing job of rebuilding Japan.


Leroy Fletcher Prouty (January 24, 1917 – June 5, 2001) was an American colonel in the United States Air Force, author, banker, and critic of U.S. foreign policy, especially as regarded the activities of the CIA.

As a critic of the CIA, Prouty pointed out its influence in global matters, outside the realm of U.S. congressional and government oversight. His works detail the formation and development of the CIA, the origins of the Cold War, the U-2 incident, the Vietnam War, and the John F. Kennedy assassination. Prouty’s book JFK claims that these events are proof of a secret “global elite” at work.

He has subscribed to the theory that oil is not derived from fossils but from carbon deposits deep within the Earth (abiogenic petroleum origin theory).

The Col. L Fletcher Prouty Reference Site

So if this is true, SONY also has links to the Rockefellers (Illuminati), just like the Firestones. Click here for information about Standard Oil.

Besides that, Mike owned half of SONY ATV, that owns the rights to songs by Elvis Presley, Eminem, Akon, Bob Dylan, and Willie Nelson. The value of Sony/ATV Music Publishing has varied in reports. Industry experts have estimated the company to be worth as much as $1.5 billion.

So that means big bucks. Others say that the worth of SONY/ATV is even higher than that. Sony had been pushing to buy Mike’s entire share in their music catalog venture for years. Sony had something to gain from Mike’s career failing because if Mike’s career or financial situation were to deteriorate, he would have to sell his catalog.

Here is another interesting read about Sony, mentioning Mottola, Malnik, Rattner, and others.

Source: This is a thread from

  • OUR THOUGHTS[/o][/shadow]
Well, it is clear that he was framed…twice! But how and why? There are too many similarities between the Chandlers and the Arvizos. There is a link with David Schwarz and Tom Sneddon and Sneddon admitted he met with Janet Arvizo before the accusations. Makes us think that Sneddon planned this and that the Arvizos and the Chandlers are on the payroll?

But what’s in it for Sneddon? Fame? Not in a good way because putting Mike behind bars means he will gain millions of haters, some even mad enough to hunt him down and kill him.

Because he thought he was guilty and wanted the child molester behind bars? Doesn’t make sense either, because he was presented all the facts and evidence supporting Mike, he must have known he was innocent. If we can already see that by reading on the net, he must have seen that as well. So why hunt him down for so many years? Must have been for $$$$, we don’t see another reason. But who was paying Sneddon to get Mike?

We do have our thoughts on this, but after reading all the above, we think you can draw your own conclusion.

We heard that the support Mike got from his fans was ignored by the mainstream media, but there was a lot of support, all over the world:


If you still doubt his innocence, you must have missed the FBI files, you can download them here.

FBI Files Support Jackson’s Innocence; Media Reports Otherwise

By Charles Thomson

Links of interest

Offline Starchild

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 374
Very Enlightening, to say the least.  (Only read the most recent post, though; scrolling up, I see there's much more.)  Thanks again, Souza.
It's all for L.O.V.E.

Offline voiceforthesilent

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 5485
Note to read later. Thank you Souza!!!

I'm proud to be a child of God and a member of MJ's Army of L.O.V.E.
"Press coverage of my life is like [watching] a fictitious watching science fiction. It's not true." ~Michael Jackson (2005)

"You should not believe everything you read. You are missing the most important revelations". Craig Harvey 3-15-2012


SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal