April 19th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Janet Arvizo (Redirect & ReCross Examination), Victor Alvarez, Maria Ventura, William Caldwell, Rod Forney, Michael Davy, Janet Williams, Part 1 of 4
When asked by Mesereau if she had more to say while answering a question, Janet replied “Oh, there’s still more. When it pops up, I’ll let you know.” Seriously!!!
Ron Zonen continued his redirect examination of Janet Arvizo today by trying to shore up some loose ends and get her to clarify various topics, including her recorded telephone call with Frank Cascio, her dealings with Larry Feldman, the money that she received from Louise Palanker, whether or not she asked anyone else for money, the Laugh Factory fundraisers, etc. This was nothing more than a lame attempt to make Janet look sweet and innocent in front of the jury:
16 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
17 BY MR. ZONEN:
18 Q. Miss Arvizo, good morning.
19 A. Good morning.
20 Q. Yesterday, there were a number of questions
21 that were asked about that tape-recording of the
22 phone call, or series of phone calls, between Frank
23 and you that you listened to in court early in your
24 testimony, and you had testified previously that you
25 believed it was a compilation of a few different
26 calls; is that correct?
27 A. This is correct.
28 Q. All right. Now, at any time during the 6773
1 series of telephone conversations that you had with
2 Frank after you had left Neverland on that first
3 occasion, did you talk with him about the specific
4 issue of danger?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And what specifically did you tell him?
7 A. The death threats about my children.
8 Q. How often did you bring up that subject in
9 the course of those conversations?
10 A. Every single time.
11 Q. You were asked some questions about
12 attorneys that you had seen over the last number of
13 years, and why you might have contacted an attorney
14 to deal with Mr. Jackson. Do you remember those
15 questions from Mr. Mesereau?
16 A. Yes, I do.
17 Q. It’s a little confusing because apparently
18 you have at one time or another dealt with two
19 attorneys by the same name, Feldman; is that
20 correct?
21 A. This is correct.
22 Q. The attorneys that you went to with regards
23 to the J.C. Penney’s lawsuit. What was the name of
24 that law firm?
25 A. The law firm was called Rothstein & Feldman.
26 Q. All right. Now, the Feldman that we’re
27 referring to, is that Larry Feldman?
28 A. No. That is not Larry Feldman. 6774
1 Q. It’s a different Feldman?
2 A. It is a different Feldman.
3 Q. Do you know his first name?
4 A. I come to know now that his name is George
5 Owen Feldman.
6 Q. Did you actually deal with Mr. Feldman,
7 George Feldman?
8 A. I’ve never dealt with George Owen Feldman.
9 Q. Who are the attorneys from that law firm,
10 Feldman & Rothstein, who you actually dealt with?
11 A. From that law firm, dealt with Mr.
12 Rothstein, Anthony Ramieri, and a Michael Adler.
13 Q. Now, did you contact Feldman & Rothstein?
14 A. And —
15 Q. Not Larry Feldman?
16 A. There was one more, but he was with Michael
17 Adler.
18 Q. Did you contact the law firm of Feldman &
19 Rothstein for purposes of dealing with Michael
20 Jackson in any way?
21 A. No.
22 Q. When was the first time issues of Michael
23 Jackson or actions involving Michael Jackson came up
24 with a lawyer?
25 A. Mr. Dickerman.
26 Q. And then Larry Feldman thereafter?
27 A. Then Larry Feldman thereafter.
28 Q. There were questions that were asked of you 6775
1 by Mr. Mesereau as to the amount of money that
2 Louise Palanker gave to you or your family. Did you
3 ever ask Louise Palanker for money?
4 A. No.
5 Q. How many separate checks were turned over to
6 your family by Louise Palanker?
7 A. It was two checks in the amount of $10,000.
8 Q. All right. Were you present at the time
9 either of those checks were written?
10 A. I wasn’t present.
11 Q. Were you present at either time the checks
12 were given to you?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Did you know in advance that David was going
15 to be given that money?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Did he discuss it with you in any way prior
18 to him getting the money from Louise Palanker?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Did you assist in cashing or depositing
21 either of the two checks?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Were you aware that one of them was written
24 to you?
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. Did you have to endorse that one, sign it?
27 A. Yes, I did.
28 Q. There’s been a lot of testimony so far about 6776
1 the cleanroom at your mother’s house for Gavin while
2 he was ill. The money that came to create that
3 clean room came from where?
4 A. From Wheezy, Louise Palanker.
5 Q. Did you have any conversation with Louise
6 Palanker, either before or after that check was
7 given to you, about how that check would be used?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Were you given any money by Fritz Coleman?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Did you ever ask for money from Fritz
12 Coleman?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Were you given any money by George or Ann
15 Lopez?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Did you ever ask for money from either
18 George or Ann Lopez?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Were you present at any time when that issue
21 of a wallet became the subject of discussion between
22 George Lopez and your husband, your then husband
23 David Arvizo?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Were you aware of that at the time that it
26 happened?
27 A. No.
28 Q. When did you first learn about that 6777
1 incident?
2 A. I think I heard it from Jamie. And this was
3 after David was no longer with us.
4 Q. At some point in time, did you learn that
5 there was an unnamed benefactor who was prepared to
6 give you money?
7 A. Yes.
8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading and
9 beyond the scope.
10 THE COURT: Overruled. The answer was,
11 “Yes.” Next question.
12 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Who is it who told you about
13 that?
14 A. Jamie.
15 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; beyond
16 the scope.
17 THE COURT: Overruled.
18 MR. ZONEN: The answer is in?
19 THE COURT: The answer was, “Jamie.”
20 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Was that Jamie Masada?
21 A. Yes, that was Jamie Masada.
22 Q. What was your response to this offer of
23 money?
24 A. I told him, “No, thank you”; that all I
25 wanted was friends and prayers.
26 Q. Do you know the name of the person who was
27 this benefactor?
28 A. I never knew. 6778
1 Q. Do you remember when that took place?
2 A. This was — the best I can remember, it was
3 after all this Neverland stuff happened. That’s the
4 best I can remember.
5 Q. Did you ever ask Jay Leno for money?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Did you ever meet Jay Leno?
8 A. I’ve never met Jay Leno.
9 Q. Did you ever have a telephone conversation
10 with Jay Leno?
11 A. I’ve never had a telephone conversation with
12 Jay Leno.
13 Q. Were you ever present at the time your son
14 made any telephone calls to Jay Leno or had a
15 conversation with him?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Were you present at any of the fund-raisers
18 that took place at The Laugh Factory?
19 A. No.
Next, Janet testified that she didn’t “recall” telling anyone that she was worried about whether or not her medical insurance would continue during Gavin’s treatment; the defense argued that Janet intentionally misled people about her medical insurance coverage in order to gain their sympathy and, in turn, their money:
20 Q. Mr. Mesereau asked you questions about
21 medical insurance covering Gavin’s illness during
22 that period of time. Did his medical insurance
23 cover all of the expenses of his illness during that
24 period of time?
25 A. Yes. This is correct.
26 Q. Did you ever tell anybody that — that
27 insurance was not covering the medical expenses?
28 A. No. 6779
1 Q. Were you ever concerned about whether the
2 medical insurance would continue?
3 A. I was concerned because David wasn’t
4 working. He didn’t want to go back to work.
5 Q. Did you express that concern to anybody, to
6 your recollection?
7 A. To my recollection, I don’t think so.
In an attempt to once again prejudice the jury and make the Arvizo family look like goody two shoes, Zonen asked Janet about the quality of her family’s life before she was invited by Jackson to go to Miami in February 2003:
8 Q. At one point you purchased an automobile —
9 or, excuse me. At one point — let me do that one
10 more time.
11 You were asked a question by Mr. Mesereau as
12 to whether or not you purchased an automobile. Did
13 you actually take steps towards purchasing an
14 automobile?
15 A. Yes, I did.
16 Q. What was it that you did toward purchasing
17 an automobile?
18 A. Okay. I had — I had called a car
19 dealership from a phone booth, from the phone book.
20 And the person — they transferred me over to the
21 sales department. And the gentleman who spoke on
22 the phone sounded really nice. So I figured that’s
23 the way I’m going to go, through this dealership,
24 through this man. And then —
25 Q. Which dealership was it?
26 A. I think it was — I don’t remember. But I
27 remember it was — I think it was Hollywood Ford.
28 I think it was. That’s the best I can remember. 6780
1 And so I had a — I don’t know whether it
2 was a travelers check or a cashier’s check, one of
3 those things made out to that, in that amount, but I
4 then changed my mind and I had it cancelled. But
5 I — so I never did purchase a car.
6 Q. Okay. You had a travelers check that you
7 actually made out for a certain amount of money?
8 A. Yes, I did.
9 Q. Were you able to cancel that check?
10 A. Yes, I was. I — yes. I didn’t follow
11 through with the purchase of the car.
12 Q. You were asked questions about conversations
13 with Mr. Jackson by Mr. Mesereau. Prior to the
14 phone call on the 5th of February, or the date that
15 you received that phone call from Mr. Jackson when
16 he was in Miami, inviting you to come to Miami, had
17 you had any conversations with Mr. Jackson prior to
18 that day?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Had you asked him for any money?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Prior to that date?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Or since that date?
25 A. No.
26 Q. Did you receive any money from him?
27 A. No.
28 Q. What was the state of your — what was your 6781
1 life like prior to that phone call?
2 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague.
3 MR. ZONEN: Let me change the question.
4 Q. On the 4th of February, the day before you
5 received that phone call, were there any problems
6 that you were dealing with at that time?
7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague.
8 THE COURT: Sustained.
9 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Were your children healthy
10 prior to that?
11 A. Our life prior to Mr. Jackson’s —
12 Q. No, just limit it to just the question.
13 A. Okay.
14 Q. Were your children healthy in early
15 February?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Gavin was dealing with no medical issues
18 other than the ones that he deals with on a regular
19 basis?
20 A. This is correct.
21 Q. How long had you been in a relationship with
22 Mr. Jackson at that time, Major Jackson?
23 A. It was a new, promising relationship with
24 him.
25 Q. Were you aware, prior to Mr. Jackson’s
26 telephone call to you, that he was even in Miami?
27 A. No.
28 Q. Did you express any desire to anybody to go 6782
1 to Miami?
2 A. No.
Before wrapping up his redirect examination, Zonen asked Judge Melville for permission to show the last 60 seconds of the surveillance tape, which he had neglected to show during his initial direct examination, and Judge Melville gave his approval over Mesereau’s objection.
3 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, finally, this might
4 be beyond the scope of the cross-examination in
5 which I would ask the Court’s indulgence to reopen.
6 I’ve advised Mr. Mesereau of this. We neglected to
7 show part of the surveillance tapes. We missed it
8 on Friday. And I’d like to show the last part
9 of it. It’s about 60 seconds’ worth, if I could do
10 that at this time.
11 MR. MESEREAU: Beyond the scope, Your Honor.
12 THE COURT: All right. I’ll allow you to
13 reopen.
14 MR. ZONEN: Thank you.
15 Q. You had previously seen some surveillance
16 tapes prior to coming into court and then you saw
17 some surveillance tapes on Friday. This is an
18 additional footage I’d like to show you at this
19 time. And then we’re going to stop the tape and
20 have you identify it.
21 If you could turn down the lights, please.
22 THE COURT: It’s going to be on “Input 1”?
23 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yes, Your Honor.
24 And we’re on “Input 1,” Your Honor?
25 MR. ZONEN: Bob, did you rewire this?
26 THE COURT: I think you all ought to go
27 together and hire a teenaged boy to handle this for
28 you. 6783
1 (Laughter.)
2 MR. ZONEN: Any teenaged boy.
3 MR. SANGER: You don’t have that hooked up.
4 THE BAILIFF: Do you want to play it off the
5 DVD?
6 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I think we’ll just play it
7 off the DVD.
8 We’ll need “Input 4,” Your Honor.
9 (Off-the-record discussion held at counsel
10 table.)
11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Your Honor, I’m just going
12 to fast-forward through a portion of it that we’ve
13 already seen.
14 MR. ZONEN: We’re ready, Your Honor.
15 Go ahead and stop it.
16 Q. Miss Arvizo, do you recognize those people?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And who is that?
19 A. This is now my now husband, Mr. Jay Jackson,
20 and my two boys, Gavin and Star.
21 Q. And they appear to be carrying something.
22 What is that?
23 A. Yes. This is — they’re carrying their
24 military uniforms.
25 Q. From the laundry?
26 A. Yes, from the cleaners.
27 Q. Do you know what street they’re on?
28 A. Yes, actually, this is right near Jay’s Army 6784
1 base, which is way far from where Jay was living.
2 Q. In West Los Angeles, do you mean?
3 A. Yes.
4 MR. ZONEN: And for the record, the date on
5 the lower right-hand corner is March 20th, ‘03, and
6 the time was 3:47 p.m.
7 Go ahead, please.
8 And stop it.
9 Q. They’re stopping now. The date on the lower
10 right-hand corner, March 21, ‘03, at 8:01 a.m.
11 Do you know who’s in that car?
12 A. Yes, I do.
13 Q. Who is that?
14 A. This is me.
15 Q. All right. And that car is —
16 A. And my boys.
17 Q. That car is your family car?
18 A. This at the time was — I’m now married to
19 Jay, but that was Jay’s car.
20 Q. Okay. The — do you know where you are?
21 A. Yes, I am.
22 Q. Where is that, in this slide?
23 A. Yes. Right here, I am dropping off the
24 children at their school. Gavin and Star. I’m
25 parked right there in front of their school.
26 Q. Is the school John Burroughs Middle School?
27 A. This is John Burroughs Middle School.
28 Q. And would 8:01 a.m. be consistent with about 6785
1 the time that you would drop them off at school?
2 A. Yes, this is consistent.
3 Q. Let’s go ahead and — March 21st was a day,
4 in fact, that they went to school?
5 A. Yes, I had already by this time immediately
6 reenrolled them back into John Burroughs Middle
7 School.
8 MR. ZONEN: Go ahead.
9 Go ahead, stop it.
10 Q. It now says March 22nd at 5:10 p.m.
11 Do you know what we’re looking at here?
12 A. Yes, this is Jay Jackson’s apartment. Where
13 you see that little rag or shirt, rag, shirt,
14 hanging off the balcony, that’s his apartment.
15 His — I don’t know — what’s that called? Balcony.
16 That’s what it is, balcony. And right beyond the
17 palm you can see me, I’m standing right there.
18 Q. And again, this says March 22nd, ‘03, at
19 5:10 p.m.
20 A. So if you look closer to the wall where the
21 palm is, right above the palm, that’s me.
22 MR. ZONEN: Stop it for just one second.
23 Q. I’ve asked to stop it one more time. Just a
24 couple of questions.
25 Behind this apartment building, what is
26 there? In other words, is it a parking lot or
27 something that’s right behind? Let me ask it
28 differently. 6786
1 A. Okay.
2 Q. Are we looking at the back of the apartment
3 or the front?
4 A. Yes, you are looking at the back of the
5 apartment building.
6 Q. Standing up on the balcony where you appear
7 to be, what can you see looking down?
8 A. You can see the street. You can see other
9 apartments. And beyond that, you can see the
10 actual — like a little eating area, market area,
11 stuff like that.
12 Q. Okay.
13 A. This was Korea Town.
14 Q. Can you tell, based on looking at this
15 picture, where the person would be who is taking the
16 photograph?
17 A. Yes. Based on this angle, they would be
18 right there, on the street, because right there is
19 an actual city street.
20 Q. Do you know the name of the street right
21 there?
22 A. No, I don’t. It’s just the back side of the
23 apartment building. The apartment building is
24 surrounded by three public city streets. And that’s
25 one of them.
26 Q. Were you aware — I mean, now that you know
27 the date, March 22nd, were you aware at that time
28 you were being filmed actually at that time? 6787
1 A. No. It’s by — by — sometimes I would see
2 them and sometimes I wouldn’t.
3 Q. But on this particular occasion —
4 A. But on this particular occasion, I did not
5 see them.
6 MR. ZONEN: Go ahead.
7 Your Honor, we have no further questions.
8 THE COURT: Mr. Mesereau?
9 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, please.
Mesereau hit the ground running by attempting to discredit Janet’s previous testimony about the JC Penney incident, but Zonen’s objection was sustained, and Mesereau had to rephrase his questions. Notice how Janet testified that her attorney for the JC Penney suit wanted her to break down her assault “to the millisecond”:
11 RECROSS-EXAMINATION
12 BY MR. MESEREAU:
13 Q. Miss Arvizo, the day after you claim you
14 were beaten severely in the J.C. Penney parking lot,
15 you returned to J.C. Penney, true?
16 MR. ZONEN: Objection; exceeding the scope
17 of the redirect examination.
18 THE COURT: Sustained.
19 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, you told — the
20 prosecutor asked you about — excuse me. Let me
21 rephrase it.
22 The prosecutor asked you about what happened
23 to you in the parking lot in his redirect
24 examination, okay? And I’d like to explore some
25 more of those facts, all right?
26 You were in a public parking lot, what time
27 of day?
28 A. I was in a public parking — I don’t know if 6788
1 you know a mall. Way, way, way at the end. And
2 this particular area where we’re talking about,
3 there’s actually no windows, no anything. It’s
4 almost empty.
5 Q. It was a public parking lot at J.C. Penney,
6 true?
7 A. Incorrect. It was a mall parking lot, which
8 was at the furthest distance where this Tower
9 Records sits independently. And there’s no windows
10 or no — nothing of view. So it’s kind of like in
11 a — the farthest away, where — it’s almost
12 isolated, that area.
13 Q. Is that where your car was parked?
14 A. Yes, this is where the car was parked.
15 Q. Is that where Gavin ran to with the items
16 that were not paid for?
17 A. I wouldn’t know that. I wasn’t there.
18 Q. Well, at some point, you saw something going
19 on near the automobile, correct?
20 A. That’s incorrect.
21 Q. Did you ever see something going on near
22 your automobile in the parking lot?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Did you see something going on at some point
25 that concerned you?
26 A. That’s too vague. Everything concerned me.
27 Q. Well, at some point, did you walk out of a
28 building and see some activity around Gavin and 6789
1 David?
2 A. When I had came out of the mall, I had to
3 walk the farthest distance of the parking lot and
4 that’s where I saw David getting beat up by this
5 male and this female. But, no, I did not see Gavin.
6 Q. Didn’t you tell the jury the other day that
7 nothing happened to David?
8 A. As far as to the extent that happened to me,
9 no. But I did see him getting hit by this male and
10 this female.
11 Q. And for how long did you see David being hit
12 by a male and a female?
13 A. The best I can remember, it’s from when I
14 had view of to where I walked up to them.
15 Q. How far away from the car was David when you
16 saw him being beaten up by J.C. Penney security
17 people?
18 A. Well, initially I didn’t see where the car
19 was. I just saw David. It’s until afterwards did I
20 become aware where the car was located.
21 Q. Did you ever learn that Gavin had the car
22 keys with him?
23 A. I was explained that afterwards.
24 Q. And where were you coming from?
25 A. I was coming from having had accepted a job
26 for loss prevention from Oshman’s.
27 Q. Now, you claim that at one point one of the
28 J.C. Penney security guards twisted your neck, 6790
1 correct?
2 A. This is correct.
3 Q. You said the person got behind you, put a
4 hand on your chin, grabbed your hair and twisted
5 your neck, true?
6 A. This is correct.
7 Q. Okay. You said your head was being pulled
8 from side to side, front and back, correct?
9 A. This is correct. And these are things that
10 are happening all in a fast motion. But this
11 attorney, defense attorney, wanted me to break it
12 down to millisecond to millisecond.
13 Q. Did you break it down from millisecond to
14 millisecond?
15 A. I tried to do my best.
16 Q. Okay. Did you tell the truth?
17 A. Of course.
18 Q. Okay. Now, you said one of the J.C. Penny
19 security guards was calling you “Bitch, bitch,”
20 right?
21 A. I think so.
22 Q. Would it refresh your recollection to see
23 your —
24 A. I’m saying I think so. I’m saying yes.
25 Q. Now, J.C. Penney security guards were
26 assaulting you, if you remember?
27 A. The best I can remember, it was two males
28 and a female, and then that other one from that 6791
1 other store. That’s the best I can remember. And
2 we’re talking about this event that occurred almost
3 seven years ago.
4 Q. You walked over to where you saw David being
5 struck, correct?
6 A. Yes, I did.
7 Q. And you claim you never struck anyone, true?
8 A. This is correct.
9 Q. You claim you never resisted in any shape or
10 form, right?
11 A. This is correct.
12 Q. You were just attacked by these people for
13 no reason, right?
14 A. Yes, this is correct.
15 Q. You said your head was being twisted like
16 the exorcist, correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You said that someone struck you with their
19 knee, right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You said at some point you were —
22 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as hearsay,
23 unless it’s inconsistent with current testimony.
24 The deposition would be hearsay.
25 THE COURT: Overruled.
26 You may proceed.
27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You said you were dragged
28 on the ground, true? 6792
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And who dragged you?
3 A. I remember how he looked, and it was one —
4 it was one of the J.C. Penney’s people. That’s the
5 best I can remember.
6 Q. Now, you were handcuffed at one point,
7 right?
8 A. Yes, I was.
9 Q. And you were then dragged with the
10 handcuffs, right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And you had trouble breathing, right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You fell and you were dragged and dragged
15 and dragged, right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. That was in public view, correct?
18 A. Like I said, this area is the furthest of
19 the shopping parking mall and it’s actually almost
20 behind this building, Tower Records. And on this
21 side of the building, there is no windows. So, yes.
22 Q. Was it a public parking lot?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Was it a parking lot attached to a mall?
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. Was J.C. Penney’s in that mall?
27 A. J.C. Penney’s was on the other side of the
28 mall. 6793
1 Q. Was Tower Records in the mall?
2 A. No, Tower Records is an independent
3 building, and that’s where these people did what
4 they did.
5 Q. Now, you said your head, neck, arms, hand,
6 fingers, back, butt, thighs and calves were all
7 injured, right?
8 A. This is correct.
9 Q. Do you know approximately what time this
10 happened?
11 A. Okay. Like I said before, this is something
12 that happened seven years ago, and the best I can
13 remember, it was in the afternoon. Actually, the
14 afternoon.
15 Q. Do you know what day it was?
16 A. No. I can’t.
17 Q. Well, you arrived sometime between 6:00 and
18 6:30, correct?
19 A. That sounds about right.
20 Q. And was it during the week or a weekend, if
21 you remember?
22 A. I wouldn’t be able to tell you that.
During her JC Penney deposition, Janet testified that prior to the incident with the security guards, she and David were driving around in the parking lot as they were “kissing”, thus intentionally delaying finding a parking spot. Seriously.
23 Q. Now, you said that David was driving around
24 the parking lot and delaying what you were doing
25 because you were kissing him over and over, right?
26 A. The best I can remember — the best I can
27 remember is that David couldn’t find a parking space
28 close to the mall. And so, yes, I was. I was happy 6794
1 to have a job.
2 Q. And you said that your appointment was
3 delayed because you were driving around the mall
4 with David kissing him, correct?
5 A. Like I said, there was no parking near the
6 entrance area. So he was trying to find a parking
7 space.
8 Q. There was no parking because the lot seemed
9 pretty full, true?
10 A. No. The — since I was just going to run in
11 and out to go pick up the drug test, and we were on
12 our way to go wash clothes, so that’s why.
13 Q. But you testified under oath you were
14 driving around the lot because David — because you
15 kept kissing David, right?
16 A. He was my husband.
17 Q. Did you say that?
18 A. That — yeah, that he was my husband.
19 Q. Was that your testimony?
20 A. Yes.
Janet continued to testify about the abuse she allegedly suffered, including getting hit with a closed fist, getting hit with handcuffs, getting kicked, etc. Notice how Janet denied that she was touched in the breasts and genital area, which is a direct contradiction to her earlier testimony:
21 Q. Now, yesterday, you said Gavin was six or
22 seven, correct?
23 A. It’s approximately six, seven, maybe — the
24 boys are about a year difference. So depending —
25 if we count back seven years, so maybe six, seven,
26 seven, eight, about there. Because you didn’t ask
27 me specifically. You said “boys,” I think.
28 Q. Well, you testified on December 14th, the 6795
1 year 2000, that Gavin was eight years old when this
2 happened, right?
3 A. When — when — he’s mixing up things
4 purposely. My son was deposed right in the middle
5 of chemotherapy and radiation treatment. And
6 that — and at that age, he was ten years of age.
7 But when this happened, he must have been —
8 the boys are a year apart. He was either six or
9 seven, seven or eight. And this is the best I can
10 remember. The deposition was done when my son Gavin
11 was ten and my son Star was nine.
12 Q. Do you remember testifying that Gavin was
13 eight years old when that incident happened?
14 A. This was seven years ago. The best I can
15 tell you is either the boys were six and seven, or
16 seven and eight. They’re only a year difference.
17 So — I’m not really good at math, so if you would
18 like to subtract seven years from now, that’s about
19 when.
20 Q. Now, you testified that one of the security
21 guards, a female, kept using the “F” word at you,
22 right?
23 A. I think so. I believe so.
24 Q. That she was going to “F” you up, right?
25 A. I think so, yes.
26 Q. And she said — you testified she called you
27 an “F asshole,” right?
28 A. I think so, yes. 6796
1 Q. Would it refresh your recollection to see
2 your testimony?
3 A. No, I’m saying yes, I think so.
4 Q. And you testified she did this for no
5 reason, right?
6 A. That’s how I felt. That’s my opinion.
7 Q. They didn’t know —
8 A. Because definitely I did not go inside the
9 store. And definitely I did not do what they were
10 claiming that I had done, which was burglary, petty
11 theft and assault and battery.
12 Q. And this woman said this to you when you
13 walked over to what was happening to David?
14 A. I think they were just overzealous security.
15 And so they did what they did. I think they
16 themself were in the moment.
17 Q. Now, you said you were hit with a closed
18 fist, correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. By this woman; right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. You said you saw David being choked,
23 correct?
24 A. Yes, I did.
25 Q. Now, you also mentioned that a male security
26 guard assaulted you, correct?
27 A. They all assaulted me.
28 Q. And at some point you hit the ground, right? 6797
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay. And while this happened, the security
3 guards kept cursing at you, right?
4 A. I believe it was only the — one of the
5 males, and the female.
6 Q. You indicated that one of the security
7 guards took his badge and twisted it into your face,
8 correct?
9 A. I think so. But at that time I couldn’t
10 tell there was a badge.
11 Q. Well, you testified that he took a badge,
12 twisted it into your face and said to you, “For the
13 tenth time,” and did it, right?
14 A. Yes, I came to find out afterwards that
15 that’s what it was.
16 Q. You testified you thought you were going to
17 die, right?
18 A. Yes, it did feel that way.
19 Q. And at no time did you resist any of this
20 assault, right?
21 MR. ZONEN: Objection; asked and answered.
22 THE COURT: Overruled.
23 You may answer.
24 THE WITNESS: This is correct.
25 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And you said at some point
26 you were face down on your stomach, right?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. And you said at no time did David ever come 6798
1 over to help you, right?
2 A. Yes. This is correct.
3 Q. You said he just stood there on the
4 sidewalk, right?
5 A. That’s right. He just stood there on the
6 sidewalk.
7 Q. You said that the woman was hitting you over
8 the head with her handcuffs, right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you said she was pulling your hair,
11 right?
12 A. This says — if — yeah, that’s the best I
13 can remember.
14 Q. And you said the male security guard is the
15 one who grabbed your breasts and touched you in your
16 private areas, right?
17 A. This is correct.
18 Q. You also said he was kicking you, right?
19 A. I think so. Yes.
20 Q. And the woman was kicking you as well,
21 right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And you said you had no idea why you were
24 being assaulted this way, right?
25 A. This is correct.
26 Q. You said you were being choked, correct?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. You said you were kneed by one of the two 6799
1 guards, right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You said they all scratched you, correct?
4 A. Yes. I did receive scratches.
5 Q. You said you were hit with handcuffs that
6 were like brass knuckles, right?
7 A. They had — I was trying to describe where
8 they were on their hand.
9 Q. You said that you were smashed like a
10 cockroach, correct?
11 A. Probably so.
12 Q. Did you say that?
13 A. I probably did, trying to — for them to get
14 a visual.
15 Q. You said that the male was holding on to
16 your breast with one hand, right?
17 A. This is correct.
18 Q. You said they were hitting you all at the
19 same time everywhere, correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You said that Star was assaulted for no
22 reason, right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. You said Gavin was assaulted for no reason,
25 right?
26 A. That’s right.
27 Q. And how many security guards do you remember
28 being in the parking lot with your family? 6800
1 A. Okay. The best I can remember is first it
2 was the male and female. Then another male. Then
3 another male. And then way towards the end, there
4 was another male, but that other male didn’t do a
5 single thing. That’s the best I can remember.
6 Q. You said everything became like an echo,
7 like a cave in a tunnel, correct?
8 A. Yes. It did.
9 Q. And that’s when you thought you were going
10 to pass away, correct?
11 A. Pass out.
12 Q. Well, you said you thought you were going to
13 die, right?
14 A. Yes, but you’re taking it — he’s mixing up
15 words. I did feel that way.
16 Q. And you said they took Gavin and they shoved
17 him into some vomit, right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And you said at some point Gavin just laid
20 there, right?
21 A. He did.
22 Q. Okay. Were you handcuffed standing up or
23 when you were on the ground; do you know?
24 A. I — I remember that. And the best is —
25 yes, I was laying down when they handcuffed me.
26 Q. And you said at one point you were called an
27 “F-ing wetback,” right?
28 A. Yes. 6801
1 Q. And you said they were all laughing while
2 they did this, right?
3 A. Yes, they were.
4 Q. And you said Gavin and Star were following
5 while you were dragged, right?
6 A. Oh, yes. Oh, that is — that is burned
7 right there.
8 Q. You said at one point your breasts were
9 outside your blouse and Gavin helped you redress,
10 right?
11 A. Gavin and Star. My breasts were outside of
12 my bra, and the boys — because I was handcuffed,
13 the boys got my breasts, put them inside my bra and
14 buttoned me up. So, yes, it was my boys.
15 Q. And you said that one of the security guards
16 told you, “I hate blacks and I hate Mexicans,”
17 right?
18 A. One of the security guards, that was his
19 focus.
20 Q. Is that what you claim that one of them
21 said?
22 A. I think so. But, you know, I’m — since —
23 this is seven years ago. This is the best I can
24 remember. And since he takes things out of context
25 and mixes words around, I’m — you know, but that
26 does sound correct.
27 Q. You said under oath, “Gary said, ‘I hate
28 blacks and I hate Mexicans,’” right? 6802
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. You were asked how you felt about the fact
3 that clothes were taken without being paid for and
4 that’s when you said, “David is extremely honest.
5 He’s too honest,” right?
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. You said Gavin helped you get your cell
8 phone out of your pocket, right?
9 A. Yes, I remember that.
10 Q. And you were both dialing 9-1-1, right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And at some point, all of you were arrested,
13 right, you and David and the children?
14 A. The children were never arrested.
15 Q. Did they go to the station with you?
16 A. No, they never went to the station.
17 Q. Where did they go?
18 A. They — when I was standing outside, the
19 police officer did not want to take the boys into
20 custody. So he had the station call my parents. My
21 parents came. And my — and the officer gave the
22 boys to my parents and that’s from right there.
23 Then I was taken to the police station after my
24 parents came from there, from the area, and took the
25 children with them.
26 Q. And you went to the station, correct?
27 A. This is correct. 28 Q. Your photograph was taken, right? 6803
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Did your photograph show bruises on your
3 face?
4 A. I don’t think so. I had makeup on at the
5 time.
6 Q. Do you remember testifying that at the
7 station, you didn’t show bruising, you showed marks,
8 correct?
9 A. This is correct.
10 Q. You said, “As days went by, they started
11 getting darker and changing colors, you know, every
12 day, every week,” right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay?
15 A. Yes. Yes.
16 Q. You said you had no black and blue marks
17 prior to the incident, right?
18 A. Yes, this is correct.
Mesereau moved on from the actual incident itself to Janet’s statements to Mary Holzer about the incident, including her confession to lying about the story to get money from JC Penney. Janet denied recanting her story to Holzer, and denied admitting that her injuries were the result of David’s beatings:
19 Q. Now, the prosecutor asked you questions
20 about a woman who worked at the law firm that
21 represented you named Mary Holzer, correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And you told Mary Holzer that the
24 photographs in the J.C. Penney case were the result
25 of David’s beatings, not anybody at J.C. Penney,
26 right?
27 A. That’s incorrect.
28 Q. You said your hand was broken, correct? 6804
1 A. Yes. Right here.
2 Q. You said they stomped on your hand, correct?
3 A. I think so. I think so.
4 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show
5 you that page?
6 A. No, I’m saying I think so, so that’s a
7 “yes.”
8 Q. You didn’t ask that anyone in your family be
9 taken to a hospital, right?
10 A. Yes, I did. I asked — I asked the officer
11 and the officer said, “We’re going to just process
12 you. It shouldn’t take long. And then you can go
13 to the doctor’s.”
14 Q. Do you remember testifying, your response to
15 the following question: “Did you urge anybody at
16 any time, including to the police, that either of
17 your sons be taken to the hospital or receive
18 emergency treatment?” And the answer was, “No”? Do
19 you remember that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And you were asked, “Why is that? You
22 didn’t think there was an emergency?” You said, “At
23 that point I could breathe again. And since my mom
24 knows how to fix everything, you know” —
25 “Q. You were going to leave it in her
26 hands?
27 You said, “Yes,” right?
28 A. Yes. Yes. 6805
1 Q. All right. You said you’re not a doctor,
2 and you didn’t have any reason to think you needed
3 emergency treatment, right?
4 A. That’s correct. But there’s also somewhere
5 in the deposition where I stated — what I had asked
6 the J.C. Penney’s people, for them to call the
7 paramedics or something like that – this is the best
8 I can remember – and he declined it. And it’s in
9 there.
10 Q. And you testified at the time you just
11 wanted the J.C. Penney guards arrested. You didn’t
12 want any lawsuit, right?
13 A. Show me that.
14 Q. Sure.
15 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?
16 THE COURT: Yes.
17 THE WITNESS: So this is correct, then.
18 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as vague to the
19 question, “at the time.” At the time of the
20 deposition or the time of the event?
21 THE COURT: You’re refreshing her memory. Go
22 ahead.
23 THE WITNESS: That’s right. At —
24 THE COURT: Wait. Just a moment.
25 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to
26 look at that page?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what 6806
1 you said in that deposition under oath?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You said you wanted them arrested, you
4 weren’t interested in suing, right?
5 A. That’s correct. At that moment, that
6 second, when the officers came, that’s what I
7 wanted.
8 Q. You later changed your mind and decided to
9 file a suit, correct?
10 A. Because the time had already expired for
11 these people to be arrested.
12 Q. You claim you had a back injury, right?
13 A. Yes, I did.
14 Q. You said prior to this event you had never
15 had a back injury before?
16 A. This is correct.
17 Q. Okay. You were asked if you knew whether or
18 not David was aware that Gavin was going to run out
19 of the store with the unpurchased items, and you
20 said, “I didn’t have to, no. I know David’s honest
21 character,” right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. You testified that in the parking lot, your
24 breasts were fondled for minutes, not seconds,
25 right?
26 A. That’s how I felt.
27 Q. You said your pelvic area was touched for
28 minutes, correct? 6807
1 A. That’s how I felt.
2 Q. You said you were hit with closed fists,
3 right?
4 MR. ZONEN: Objection; asked and answered.
5 THE WITNESS: Yes.
6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And you said the security
7 guard spit intentionally —
8 MR. ZONEN: There was an objection to the
9 last question, Your Honor.
10 THE COURT: Overruled.
11 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You said the security
12 guards at J.C. Penney spit intentionally into Star’s
13 face, correct?
14 A. I think so.
15 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if you
16 see that?
17 A. I think so. “I think so” meaning “yes.”
18 Q. Did you say that under oath?
19 A. I don’t know if — this is seven years ago,
20 so I don’t know whether it was Star or Gavin, so
21 that’s why I’m saying yes, I think so. But since he
22 said Star —
23 Q. Would it refresh your recollection to look
24 at the deposition transcript?
25 A. Okay. I’m saying to you, because he’s
26 saying this, I said yes, I think so —
27 THE COURT: Just a moment.
28 THE WITNESS: Okay. 6808
1 THE COURT: He asked you a question whether
2 it would refresh your recollection to look at the
3 transcript.
4 THE WITNESS: It’s okay.
5 I remember it happening to one of my boys.
6 And he’s specifying —
7 THE COURT: Ma’am, you’re not answering my
8 question.
9 THE WITNESS: Okay.
10 THE COURT: Do you want — will it refresh
11 your recollection to look at the transcript?
12 THE WITNESS: It’s a yes.
13 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You also said the security
14 guards started spitting pumpkin seeds at your
15 family, correct?
16 A. Oh, yeah, I remember that. That’s right
17 there, burned.
Here’s another lie straight from the lips of Janet Arvizo: during her deposition, she denied that David Arvizo had ever struck her or her children at any time, and that is absolutely laughable in light of all of the previous testimony that we have heard throughout this trial about David’s abuse:
18 Q. And at that point in the deposition is where
19 you said that David Arvizo had never struck you or
20 your children at any time, right?
21 A. Yes, this is correct.
22 Q. When did you first go to a lawyer after this
23 incident?
24 A. I think it was about a year later.
25 Q. So a year after the incident you change your
26 mind and decided you did want to sue, right?
27 A. That was too long ago, the question.
28 Q. Well, during the time of the alleged events 6809
1 you described, you said you weren’t going to sue
2 anyone and then you changed your mind, right?
3 A. There was a criminal proceedings. I was
4 charged with crimes. I was charged with burglary,
5 petty theft, assault and battery. That process took
6 months. And those people needed to apologize.
7 Q. So you only sued for an apology?
8 A. Yes, I did.
9 Q. At one point didn’t your lawyer ask for
10 millions of dollars?
11 A. No.
12 Q. But you accepted 152,000, right?
13 A. No. On — in my hand, what I received, was
14 only about 32,000. That’s it.
In this excerpt, Mesereau caught Janet in yet another lie; she testified that the money given to her from Louise Palanker was used for Gavin’s clean room, but during her previous testimony she testified that she didn’t know what the money was used for. Janet tried to explain away this discrepancy by saying that her memory was refreshed after she spoke with Zonen overnight.
Mesereau also trapped Janet into explaining why she set up a bank account for Gavin’s expenses, included herself as a signatory, but claimed that she never asked anybody for monetary help, and never questioned where the money that was deposited into the account came from. Janet explained that she was merely acting as David Arvizo’s “secretary”.
15 Q. Now, did you talk to the prosecutor last
16 night about what you were going to testify to today?
17 A. I — on the telephone he spoke to me that he
18 would like to show these surveillance videos, and
19 that’s it.
20 Q. Did the prosecutor talk to you last night
21 about Louise Palanker?
22 A. Yes, he did.
23 Q. Do you remember testifying yesterday you
24 didn’t know what happened to the money Louise
25 Palanker gave you and David?
26 A. This is correct.
27 Q. But last night you talked to the prosecutor
28 and now you remember it was used on the room for 6810
1 Gavin?
2 A. No. He refreshed my memory as far as what
3 it was. That’s all.
4 Q. Now, you said today — excuse me. Let me
5 rephrase.
6 You said today that you never asked for any
7 money to help Gavin, right?
8 A. This is correct.
9 Q. To your knowledge, the only person in your
10 family that ever asked for money to help Gavin was
11 David, right?
12 A. Yes. This is — now I know.
13 Q. But on the Washington Mutual account, which
14 was set up to take funds for Gavin, you were the
15 signatory, right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. You were the one who withdrew money from the
18 account, correct?
19 A. This is correct.
20 Q. So you’re on that account for Gavin which
21 you have no knowledge of any fund-raisers, right?
22 A. This is correct.
23 Q. You’re the signatory on that account, but
24 you don’t know why anybody even deposits money into
25 it, correct?
26 MR. ZONEN: That’s argumentative.
27 Objection.
28 THE COURT: Overruled. 6811
1 You may answer.
2 THE WITNESS: Okay. Can you ask it
3 differently?
4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Sure. You’ve said you had
5 no knowledge of any fund-raisers for Gavin, correct?
6 A. This is correct.
7 Q. You said you never asked anybody for any
8 financial help at any time, right?
9 A. This is correct.
10 Q. You said you never asked anybody for
11 financial help to assist Gavin, right?
12 A. Yes, this is correct.
13 Q. Yet at the same time, you set up a bank
14 account —
15 A. Is this a question or a statement, what
16 you’re starting right now?
17 Q. Yet at the same time, you set up a bank
18 account for Gavin’s benefit with you being the
19 signatory, correct?
20 A. Yes, I did follow David’s instructions.
21 Q. And you have no idea why anybody put any
22 money into that account, correct?
23 A. This is correct.
24 Q. You just saw the money there and withdrew
25 it, right?
26 A. Yes. I was David’s personal secretary.
27 Q. Never asked a question of anybody, “Where
28 did this money come from?” Right? 6812
1 A. That’s correct.
2 Q. Just assumed it was for you to withdraw,
3 right?
4 A. No. I did what David told me.
5 Q. And you said yesterday you couldn’t remember
6 what any of that money was spent on, right?
7 A. This is correct.
8 Q. And you had no idea that Chris Tucker was
9 going to wire some money into that account, right?
10 A. Yes, this is correct.
11 Q. And all your discussions with your friend
12 Aja Pryor, who was his fiancee, the issue of Chris
13 Tucker giving money never came up, right?
14 A. This is correct. Like I testified
15 yesterday, I didn’t become friends with Aja until
16 after David was completely out of the picture.
17 While Gavin was sick we hardly even spoke. The one
18 I spoke most to was Ann Lopez.
Janet once again denied having any knowledge of the Laugh Factory fundraisers for Gavin, and using money donated for Gavin to obtain plastic surgery for herself:
19 Q. And in your discussions with Ann Lopez, you
20 never learned that George Lopez was planning to put
21 together a fund-raiser for Gavin, right?
22 A. Yes, this is correct.
23 Q. And in all your discussions with Jamie
24 Masada, you never learned that he was putting any
25 fund-raisers together for Gavin’s benefit, right?
26 A. Yeah, this is correct.
27 Q. And in any of your discussions with Fritz
28 Coleman, you never learned that Fritz Coleman was 6813
1 helping to assist your family with Gavin’s illness,
2 right?
3 A. Yes, this is correct.
4 Q. No one told you about any of this, right?
5 A. That’s right.
6 Q. You never knew that comedians showed up at
7 The Laugh Factory on a number of occasions to help
8 raise money for Gavin, right?
9 A. This is correct.
10 Q. You never knew that Gavin was in the lobby
11 with his father accepting funds, right?
12 A. This is correct.
13 Q. Now, you said you began to buy a car and
14 then changed your mind, correct?
15 A. Yes. This is true.
16 Q. And approximately when was that?
17 A. The best I can remember, the best, because I
18 never even stepped foot in the dealership, was the
19 fall of 2001. I think — no. No, no, that’s
20 incorrect. I apologize.
21 It was definitely the fall. No, it was, the
22 fall of 2001. That’s the best I can remember.
23 Q. And was the company that you were going to
24 purchase an automobile from Hollywood Ford?
25 A. Yes, it was.
26 Q. Did you go to Hollywood Ford yourself?
27 A. I never went to Hollywood Ford.
28 Q. How did you communicate with Hollywood Ford? 6814
1 A. I looked in the phone book, and I — I got
2 their phone number from there, and I called.
3 Q. Do you recall using any money that had been
4 donated for Gavin’s benefit on cosmetic surgery?
5 A. No, I used a credit card.
6 Q. Was it your credit card?
7 A. Yes. My credit card. Which is still
8 outstanding.
9 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as exceeding
10 the scope of the redirect.
11 THE COURT: Sustained.
Once again, Janet continued to deny having any knowledge of the sick room that was built for Gavin:
12 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: The prosecutor mentioned
13 the room that was constructed for Gavin at your
14 parents’ house, okay? Do you remember him asking
15 you questions about that?
16 A. Yes, I believe so.
17 Q. And that’s the room that today you say
18 Louise Palanker’s money was spent on, right?
19 A. This is what Mr. Zonen made me aware,
20 refreshed my memory yesterday.
21 Q. Did you hire a contractor to fix up that
22 room?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Do you know if anyone did?
25 A. I now know that David did hire, through
26 Wheezy, through Louise Palanker. I know now.
27 Q. Did you have anything to do with a
28 contractor fixing up that room for Gavin? 6815
1 A. No.
2 Q. Did you ever meet a contractor who was
3 fixing up that room for Gavin?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Did you even tell a contractor what to do to
6 fix the room up for Gavin?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Did you have any involvement at all in
9 making sure that room was fixed up properly to help
10 Gavin with his illness?
11 A. I think so. It’s my mom’s house. It
12 started with it being in my mom’s house.
13 Q. Did you ever see it being repaired?
14 A. No. I was with my two other children.
15 Q. Do you remember when it was repaired by a
16 contractor so that it would be an appropriate room
17 for Gavin?
18 A. No.
19 Q. You never had a discussion with anyone about
20 what the requirements were for Gavin in that room?
21 A. No.
22 Q. That was all David, too; is that correct?
23 A. Yes, this is correct.
24 Q. So David was the one who was telling the
25 contractor what the specifications were for this
26 renovated room, right?
27 A. Yes, this is correct.
28 Q. And David was the one telling the contractor 6816
1 what Gavin’s requirements were to make sure he
2 didn’t get exposed to germs and things of that sort,
3 right?
4 A. I think so.
5 Q. Was all David, right?
6 A. Yes. I wasn’t there. I was with my two
7 other kids.
8 Q. It was done at your parents’ home but David
9 was the one taking care of everything, right?
10 MR. ZONEN: Objection; asked and answered.
11 THE WITNESS: Yes, that’s correct.
12 THE COURT: Sustained.
13 Just a moment.
14 Next question.
15 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, in response to the
16 prosecutor’s questions, you said that you never
17 obtained any of the money from the first Louise
18 Palanker check, correct?
19 A. Yes, this is correct.
20 Q. That was a $10,000 check written to Janet
21 Arvizo, correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Was that presented to you by David?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Well, who presented the check to you?
26 A. I — I think this is how it went. I
27 endorsed it, give it back to David, and that was it.
28 Q. You just said — excuse me. Who gave you 6817
1 the check to begin with?
2 A. David had me endorse it, and that’s it.
3 Q. And you know —
4 A. I think so. That’s how it happened.
5 Q. Did you know David was going to deposit the
6 check into your parents’ account?
7 A. Now I understand, this is my understanding,
8 that my mother cashed it for him.
9 Q. You didn’t know that was going to happen at
10 the time?
11 A. No, I was with my two other kids.
12 Q. Well, you saw a check for $10,000 —
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. — made out to Janet Arvizo, correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And you knew it was made out to you by
17 Louise Palanker, correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And you’re saying that David asked you to
20 endorse it, but didn’t tell you where it was going?
21 A. This is correct.
22 Q. And you never knew until recently that it
23 was deposited into your parents’ account?
24 A. Yes. This is correct.
25 Q. Okay. When did you first learn it had been
26 deposited into your parents’ account?
27 A. It wasn’t deposited, it was cashed. Just
28 with a lot of events that are occurring now. 6818
1 Q. And you never knew where any of that money
2 went, true?
3 A. This is correct. I was — I did what David
4 told me. I was like his personal secretary.
5 Q. Did you ever learn that Louise Palanker had
6 written a second check for $10,000 to David?
7 A. I am aware now.
8 Q. Did you know at the time?
9 A. At the time, no.
10 Q. Well, you were communicating with Louise
11 Palanker a lot at that point, weren’t you?
12 A. Yes, I was.
13 Q. Wheezy was your friend, correct?
14 A. Still.
15 Q. And you were talking to her quite often,
16 were you not?
17 A. I feel — I feel I was.
18 Q. Yet, Wheezy never mentioned she was
19 contributing $20,000 to your family?
20 A. Yes, that’s correct.
21 Q. Wheezy never mentioned she was writing a
22 $10,000 check to you?
23 A. This is correct.
24 Q. Wheezy never mentioned she was writing a
25 $10,000 check to David?
26 A. This is correct.
27 Q. You never knew anything about this, right?
28 A. Yes, this is correct. At that time, 6819
1 David — David was more in control of all these
2 previous friendships that I had had.
3 Q. By the way, do you recall David’s using
4 Von’s to cash checks?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Did you ever learn that David would go to
7 Von’s and cash checks?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Okay. To your knowledge, did David have his
10 own account anywhere at that time?
11 A. No.
12 Q. He had no bank account at all?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Did he use a credit union at Von’s?
15 A. Maybe. I don’t know.
16 Q. But you never heard anything about that,
17 right?
18 A. No.
Janet was caught in another lie, and tried to explain why she told the police that she was abused by her ex-husband David on numerous occasions, but denied any spousal abuse during her JC Penney deposition:
19 Q. Now, in one of the police reports involving
20 David’s domestic violence, you said you had been
21 abused by him throughout your marriage, true?
22 MR. ZONEN: Objection; exceeding the scope
23 of the redirect.
24 THE COURT: Sustained.
25 MR. MESEREAU: It would have to do with her
26 injuries, Your Honor.
27 THE COURT: All right. I’ll allow the
28 question. 6820
1 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.
2 Q. Do you remember telling the police, when
3 David was arrested, that throughout your 16-year
4 marriage he had physically abused you?
5 A. Yes. Finally I said something.
6 Q. You told the police that he would hit you on
7 all parts of your body, right?
8 A. Yes, he did.
9 Q. You said he forced your head under water,
10 right?
11 A. Yes, he did.
12 Q. You said he prevented you from wearing
13 makeup, right?
14 A. That’s correct.
15 Q. And in a number of interviews with the
16 police, you said he had beaten you throughout that
17 marriage, right?
18 A. Yes, he did.
19 Q. Yet, in the J.C. Penney case, you said none
20 of your bruises or injuries had anything to do with
21 David, right?
22 A. That’s correct.
23 Q. When you testified under oath in the J.C.
24 Penney case that initially you weren’t bruised but
25 as time went on they got blacker and blacker, what
26 did you mean?
27 A. Well, that I had — even though I had — I
28 did have visible abrasions, that even though these 6821
1 people had hit me, it wasn’t immediate. I could see
2 them.
3 Q. Did your attorney have those photographs
4 taken that the prosecutor introduced into evidence
5 yesterday?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. You didn’t go to a lawyer till a year later,
8 right?
9 A. No. He’s incorrect. Those photographs were
10 taken immediately with the criminal court
11 proceedings. That stuff, criminal case, whatever.
12 Had nothing to do with the civil case. I had those
13 photos already. Well, actually, my — the defense
14 attorney had those photos.
15 Q. Who hired the photographer?
16 A. Actually, I think it was — I don’t remember
17 very clear. I don’t remember very clear. But it
18 was per the defense attorney’s actions, ways, I
19 don’t know what you would call it, suggestion. I
20 don’t know.
21 Q. It wasn’t taken — excuse me. Those photos
22 were not taken by the police, correct?
23 A. This is correct.
24 Q. They were taken at the direction of a
25 lawyer, correct?
26 A. Yes. This is correct. A defense attorney.
27 Not a civil lawyer.
28 Q. Where were those photos taken? 6822
1 A. That I do remember. It’s at — it’s a place
2 in El Monte. I don’t remember the name, but it’s El
3 Monte.
4 Q. Was it an office of a photographer?
5 A. No, it’s actually one of those, like,
6 one-hour photo places.
7 Q. Who took you there?
8 A. I think it was David. Yes, I think it was
9 David.
10 Q. Do you know when he took you there?
11 A. Immediately.
12 Q. But didn’t you testify in the deposition you
13 didn’t have these bruises immediately?
14 A. No. That’s right. When the — when the
15 defense attorney had told us, then that’s the time.
16 Q. Who went there to get their photographs
17 taken?
18 A. I believe it was me and David. And then I
19 think Gavin was — the boys were with us. I think
20 so.
21 Q. And were you doing this all at the direction
22 of David?
23 A. No. I was doing it in the direction of the
24 defense attorney.
25 Q. And what was this defense attorney’s name?
26 A. Mr. Fountain.
Finally, Mesereau wrapped up his recross-examination by asking Janet to confirm or deny if she was aware that Gavin had called Jay Leno, and if she had ever asked any other celebrities for money, and of course she denied it all:
27 Q. The prosecutor asked you questions about
28 Attorney Bill Dickerman. You first met Attorney 6823
1 Bill Dickerman on February 21st, 2003, correct?
2 A. Incorrect. I remember the date. It was
3 February 25th.
4 Q. Did you ever tell anyone that you met with
5 Bill Dickerman on February 21st?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Have you ever discussed with Bill Dickerman
8 the date you first met him?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Are you aware of Gavin telephoning Jay Leno
11 at any time?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Never heard anything about that?
14 A. No. I’ve heard now.
15 Q. Did Gavin ever tell you, “I tried to reach
16 Jay Leno”?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Were you ever standing in the background
19 during a phone call that Gavin made to Jay Leno?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Have you ever spoken to Jay Leno?
22 A. I’ve never spoken to Jay Leno.
23 MR. MESEREAU: If I may just take one
24 second, Your Honor, I’ll be ready to wrap this up.
25 THE COURT: Yes.
26 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Were you aware of Gavin
27 making any attempt to contact celebrities by phone?
28 A. No. 6824
1 Q. To your knowledge, did Gavin ever try to
2 contact any celebrity from your home?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Did you ever contact any celebrity from your
5 home?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Did you attempt to contact any celebrities
8 at any time?
9 A. No.
10 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.
Zonen had a few more general questions to ask Janet, and then both lawyers offered no further questions, thank goodness!
12 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
13 BY MR. ZONEN:
14 Q. Ms. Arvizo, did you earlier testify that you
15 had contacted George Lopez when your son became ill?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. All right. Did you contact any other people
18 when your son became ill to notify them that he was
19 ill?
20 A. I think I contacted Jamie Masada, Louise.
21 These are all previous people that I had already
22 known before Gavin had become ill. And that’s it.
23 That’s the best I can remember.
24 Q. When did you first learn that Gavin had been
25 injured in the altercation at J.C. Penney’s?
26 A. Okay. My parents had came and picked up the
27 children from the parking lot, because the officer
28 did not want to take them to the police station. 6825
1 And so it was my mom who called me up and told me
2 that — that she’s tried everything, everything,
3 first aid, and that was still not enough for the
4 kids to feel better.
5 Q. You say she called you up. Where did she
6 call you?
7 A. She called me — at that time I had a cell
8 phone.
9 Q. But where were you at the time? At what
10 time was this?
11 A. I was staying in the place that we were
12 staying in.
13 Q. Okay. I’m asking you when. So had you
14 already been arrested and released from jail?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And had you already gone to the hospital?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. For your own injuries?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. So at the time that you were being arrested
21 at J.C. Penney’s in the parking lot, were you aware
22 that Gavin was injured at that time?
23 A. I had seen them, the way they had hit both
24 the boys, but I figured my mom, you know, could do
25 what she always does, and in first aid, just like
26 when they fall or scrape or anything, that she can
27 tend to them. So that’s what I figured. I didn’t
28 think it was beyond what my mother could care for. 6826
1 But my mom made me aware that it was beyond her
2 capability.
3 Q. Did you know at the time that you were
4 arrested that your son Gavin had a broken elbow?
5 A. No, I didn’t.
6 Q. Did you know at the time that you were
7 arrested that you had a broken bone in your hand or
8 wrist?
9 A. No, I didn’t.
10 MR. ZONEN: Thank you. I have no further
11 questions.
12 THE COURT: All right. We’ll take our
13 morning break.
14 (Recess taken.)
1 THE COURT: Any further questions, Mr.
2 Mesereau?
3 MR. MESEREAU: No, Your Honor.
4 THE COURT: Call your next witness.
5 MR. ZONEN: Thank you, Your Honor. We’ll
6 call Detective Vic Alvarez to the stand, please.
7 THE COURT: Come forward, please.
8 When you get to the witness stand, remain
9 standing. Face the clerk over here, and raise your
10 right hand.
Ladies and gentlemen, that is what a paranoid schizophrenic sounds like on the witness stand. In order to know the role that Janet’s schizophrenia played in her delusional testimony, let’s look at this excerpt from journalist and MJ blogger Sean Chai’s excellent article “The Untold Story”:
Janet Arvizo’s testimony was so bizarre and disjointed that many people inside the courtroom began to question her mental health. “Courtroom observers gossiped furiously about Janet during the breaks, wondering why the prosecution would have put this witness on at all,” crime reporter Aphrodite Jones commented in her book on the trial, Michael Jackson Conspiracy. “Janet had become a joke, and most people thought the woman was out of her mind. . . people watched with amazement, waiting for the next crazy thing to come out of her mouth.”
However even in the wake of Janet Arvizo’s questionable testimony, the media continued its firmly established focus on Michael Jackson, and on the more salacious aspects of the case against him, at the expense of objective debate on the trial. Though Janet’s demeanor was discussed in the press during her testimony, it received substantially less coverage than references to “Jesus juice” – presumably a private joke about either transubstantiation or the wedding at Caana – and Jackson’s arrival at court in pajamas after being hospitalized and ordered to appear within the hour or forfeit his bail and be jailed. Given Jackson’s assertion that he had been mistreated and injured during his arrest – a claim which, despite the Attorney General’s report to the contrary, was corroborated by a medical examination which found his injuries were consistent with the treatment he described – it is understandable that he would have gone to any lengths to avoid ending up in custody again.
Michael Jackson’s defense team were aware that Janet Arvizo was believed to have schizophrenia, most likely through records from the JC Penney case, including psychiatric reports, which were subpoenaed in April 2004. The issue of Janet’s mental condition was brought up repeatedly in submissions to the court in the latter months of 2004 and early 2005, with the defense arguing that “The complaining mother is a paranoid schizophrenic with sexual delusions who infuses those delusions on her children”.
The defense sought a mental examination of Janet Arvizo in advance of the trial, on grounds including the assertion that she had paranoid schizophrenia, a condition which would seriously compromise her ability to differentiate between her delusions and reality and, by extension, her competence to testify. This was opposed by the prosecution, and the motion was denied by the court. The defense also subpoenaed medical and psychiatric records for the family, though these records were ultimately the subject of a judicial order which prohibited the opening of subpoenaed records without the consent of both sides. The prosecution vehemently opposed the procurement of psychiatric records by the defense in the months prior to the judicial order.
The prosecution, meanwhile, argued that Janet’s psychiatric history amounted only to treatment for depression, argued that “whether or not she is schizophrenic has nothing to do with whether Michael Jackson molesting (sic) her oldest son”, and that a diagnosis of schizophrenia “would cut against the notion that Jane Doe had the ability to coordinate a conspiracy of this magnitude”, but did not address the effect such a diagnosis would have on her ability to imagine one. The prosecution later sought to characterize her unorthodox behavior and beliefs as a consequence of Battered Women’s Syndrome, a form of post traumatic stress disorder which occurs in women who have been subjected to prolonged spousal abuse. While Janet Arvizo claimed that her ex-husband, David Arvizo, had subjected her to years of physical abuse, this was vehemently denied by David. Their children also claimed that David was violent, though there was evidence that the children had previously blamed Janet for the bulk of the physical abuse that occurred in the family, and a family friend told defense investigators she had witnessed Janet assault David. Ultimately, David Arvizo pleaded no contest to a spousal abuse complaint brought against him by Janet, and had lost custody of and access to his three children by the time the allegations regarding Michael Jackson had emerged. During his grand jury testimony in April 2004, Star Arvizo stated he had not spoken to his father since 2001.
The documents submitted to the court regarding Janet Arvizo’s mental state were among the more sensitive documents which were submitted under seal, and remained sealed in their entirety until after the trial had concluded and the world’s media had lost interest in the legal process. They were released following a judicial order on June 16, 2005, and have been publicly available since their release.
Understanding schizophrenia
Schizophrenia is a devastating chronic psychiatric illness which affects roughly one per cent of the population. Despite its prevalence this condition is poorly understood and is often mischaracterized as a form of multiple personality disorder. Schizophrenia manifests itself in a variety of ways, and symptoms are broadly categorized as positive or negative. Positive symptoms refer to the presence of unusual thoughts and perceptions, while negative symptoms usually constitute a lack of key psychological functions.
Positive symptoms are the most obvious manifestations of schizophrenia, and include delusions and hallucinations. Delusions are basically false beliefs and affect a sufferer’s ability to perceive reality. Delusions can be caused by a misinterpretation of real events, or can be manufactured and have no basis in fact. Delusions are fixed beliefs and a person with schizophrenia will be unwilling to consider other, possibly more rational, explanations for these beliefs, and are generally confrontational when their claims are questioned. Delusions can take many forms and are further categorized in a number of groups, some of which are discussed below.
Persecutory or paranoid delusions are by far the most common. Examples of persecutory delusions include being followed, watched, poisoned, or kept under electronic surveillance. People with schizophrenia can believe their personal safety, or even their lives, are in danger, for a variety of reasons. The sufferer is generally preoccupied with these delusions, which become more elaborate over time. Delusions of reference cause a person with schizophrenia to attach an alternative meaning to events which have no significance to them. An example would be someone believing that they are being discussed on the TV or radio, or believing that other people’s conversations contain hidden or inferred messages, often threats, to them. Delusions of control cause a person to believe their thoughts, movements, or actions are being controlled by outside influences.
Hallucinations involve someone with schizophrenia perceiving something that isn’t there, and commonly take the form of auditory hallucinations (hearing voices) and visual hallucinations, though any of the senses can be affected.
Another key element of schizophrenia is thought disorder, a disorganized thinking which is often expressed as disorganized speech. Examples of disorganized speech include using unusual descriptive words, frequently breaking off on tangents or losing a train of thought, and use of stock phrases or unique words. Disorganized speech can be profound enough to make someone completely incoherent, known as word salad, but in practice the effects are usually more subtle than this.
Negatives symptoms of schizophrenia generally affect a person’s ability to interact with people and carry out basic tasks. Examples of negative symptoms include lack of motivation, a lack of facial expression or emotional range, known as flattening or blunted effect, inappropriate social skills or behavior, and social withdrawal.
People with schizophrenia can also experience cognitive symptoms which affect memory and concentration. Poor cognitive function can lead to confusion when trying to carry out basic tasks and can affect a sufferer’s ability to hold down a job. People with schizophrenia can be sufficiently affected to need help in carrying out simple administrative tasks such as paying bills and filling out forms.
Ultimately, no amount of discussion or dissection of the symptoms of schizophrenia can adequately explain the devastating effect this illness can have on sufferers and their families. A person with untreated or undiagnosed schizophrenia lives in a fearful and claustrophobic world, suspicious of almost everyone and unable to make sense of the strange thoughts that assail them at every turn. Because hallucinations and delusions appear absolutely real to the sufferer, a person will often not accept their diagnosis, and this lack of insight into their illness can present a serious barrier to seeking and accepting treatment. Even after a diagnosis of schizophrenia, the affected individual can decide to refuse treatment and medication, a decision which will inevitably result in relapse.
Having a close family member with schizophrenia is a frightening experience, especially for children with a schizophrenic parent who will often seek to engage the children in their delusional landscape, or who may even believe that their own children or other family members mean them serious harm.
While the prognosis is good for people with schizophrenia who adhere to medication and other therapies, there is a paucity of information or support available for families of sufferers. A diagnosis of schizophrenia affects an entire family, because family members must deal with the symptoms of this illness on a daily basis unless or until the affected individual is diagnosed and treated. A poor understanding of schizophrenia generally, coupled with the stigma which unfortunately accompanies any form of mental illness, means that many families do not seek the support they need.
The relevance of schizophrenia
A diagnosis of schizophrenia would be of enormous relevance in a case where someone is alleging being threatened, watched, or abused in some way, as persecutory delusions are a very common symptom of this condition. Sufferers routinely report being kept under surveillance, and often believe they are under threat from sinister sources. It is not uncommon for someone experiencing an acute schizophrenic episode to believe that their life is in danger.
While delusions can give rise to someone with schizophrenia making a complaint, either to law enforcement or to family or friends, regarding assault, harassment, or other forms of abuse, these complaints are not lies in the traditional sense – delusions are very real to the person experiencing them, and they believe that they are telling the truth.
There is little clinical data on the affect of a parent’s schizophrenia on children, and the bulk of the empirical research which has been published tends to focus on the risk of these children developing psychiatric and psychological problem as adults, though it should be noted that most children raised by a parent with schizophrenia go on to lead normal, productive adult lives. However, a parent with schizophrenia will go to great lengths to engage their children in their delusions, particularly if those delusions involve actions by or on the children. For a child or teenager growing up with a schizophrenic parent whose delusions form a part of their normal family life, it can be difficult to differentiate between fact and fantasy at the best of times, particularly if the child has little or no understanding of the parent’s condition. Challenging the ill parent’s beliefs will invariably result in conflict and, often, rejection by the parent, who may believe the child has been brainwashed or is deliberately trying to sabotage them. Repeated interrogation by a schizophrenic parent seeking to confirm their delusional beliefs can cause the child to be effectively browbeaten into accepting as fact a scenario which may at first seem preposterous, resulting in a shared delusional state or folie au deux . This transmission of delusions can affect an entire family, known as a folie a famille. Parents with schizophrenia also generally cultivate a culture of secrecy and loyalty within the family, which in turn makes it incredibly difficult for a child to contradict the parent’s assertions in public.
Persecutory delusions can cause a schizophrenia sufferer to believe they have been sexually assaulted or abused, or falsely claim that their children have been abused, generally by their father. While it is less common for a schizophrenic parent to make such claims regarding their children against someone who is not related, it is by no means unprecedented and this issue has arisen in other legal cases, most notably the McMartin pre-school abuse case, which began when a mother with schizophrenia claimed her young son had been sexually abused by a man who worked at his daycare center. The ensuing investigation, which lasted for seven years, encompassed two trials, cost $15 million, and ended in a mistrial, is regarded as the longest and most expensive case in US legal history. It emerged afterwards that the prosecution had suppressed the fact that the complaining mother had paranoid schizophrenia, and that she had made a similar allegation against the boy’s father, while the interview techniques used on the children in the case were found to have been leading and likely to elicit a false positive with regard to claims of molestation. The McMartin case is now broadly accepted as foundationless, and a useful lesson in how not to conduct an investigation into claims of child sexual abuse.
You can read all about how the prosecution did everything in their power to keep Janet’s history of psychological issues out of the courtroom in this post and this post.
This is what author J. Randy Taraborrelli had to say about Janet’s testimony in his book “Michael Jackson: The Magic, The Madness, The Whole Story”, on page 355:
I have so many memories of that infamous trial. Sometimes they hit me in waves when I least expect it, especially since Michael’s death.
For instance, I remember the day Gavin’s mother, Janet Arvizo, testified. Her testimony on 13 April 2005 was so preposterous, so unlikely – what with her allegation that she believed Michael was going to kidnap her children and take them away in a hot air balloon – many of us in the press corps actually began to feel as if we’d been duped. After all, we’d spent months before the trial at court hearings in Santa Maria about evidence that had been sealed.
We had no idea what the DA had on Jackson, we just knew it had to be pretty bad. But the testimony thus far provided by the DA seemed weak and inconsistent, and when Janet Arvizo came to town with her quirky manner, it became clear to a lot of people that this wasn’t such a cut-and-dry case.
Could it be that Michael was being set up by a family intent on making money, maybe, or a DA determined to finally nail him? After Janet’s testimony, one CNN reporter came over to me and said, ‘You know what, pal? I feel so…so…used.’ It was as if he’d been promised something by a suitor and been betrayed. A friend of mine named Michael Lawler – an ardent Jackson admirer who had followed the proceedings so closely he knew the evidence better than even I did – had flown in from New York to attend the trial. I helped him get into the courtroom for Janet’s testimony. He was so disgusted by it that he couldn’t help but mutter something derogatory under his breath. Overheard by the officials, he promptly got tossed right out of the courtroom. ‘The next time you help someone get into here,’ a sheriff deputy told me later, ‘you’d better tell him to keep his trap shut even if the witnesses are crazy as freaking loons.’
I couldn’t have said it any better.
Summary of Janet Arvizo’s Testimony
1. During her direct examination, Janet Arvizo testified that when Gavin and Star were invited back to Neverland in September 2002 (after originally visiting Neverland in 2000), she thought it was because Gavin had just cleared a biopsy test, but later she learned that they were filmed in Martin Bashir’s documentary without her knowledge or consent. After the documentary aired in England, she received a phone call from Jackson, asking her to fly to Miami with him because her family was in “danger” due to “this Bashir man”, and were receiving death threats.
2. Janet claimed that Jackson spoke to her about her ex-husband David, and said that the children had told him about David’s abuse, and that Jackson didn’t want her or her children around David anymore. This revelation just came out of nowhere, because neither Davellin, Star, nor Gavin ever testified to telling Jackson about their father’s abuse! And Janet testified that she never confirmed with her kids that they really did tell Jackson about their father’s abuse! (Essentially, she’s putting words in Jackson’s mouth that he obviously never said!)
3. During that same phone call, Jackson allegedly stated to Janet that he wanted Gavin to participate in a press conference in Miami, Florida, but she initially refused to let him go, and changed her mind once Jackson suggested that the entire family should go to Miami. The initial plan was for the Arvizo family to fly to Miami with Jackson, but instead they flew there with Chris Tucker on his private plane.
4. After arriving in Miami, Janet spoke with Jackson for around 45 minutes, and he warned her about the danger that she was in, using a “very normal, very male” voice, and Janet “was just like a sponge, believing him, trusting him”. (Yes, she really said that during her testimony!) Janet emphasized that Jackson used a “very normal voice, very male voice” during their conversation, insinuating that Jackson’s high pitched voice was for publicity purposes only!
During her questioning by Zonen, Mesereau objected to her answers being interrupted by the prosecution, and Janet replied that there was still “more” to her story, and “once it pops up”, she’ll let them know! That one statement personifies EVERYHING about Janet’s character, and this joke of a trial!
5. Janet claimed that she was asked by Dieter Weisner to sign “something”, which turned out to be an authorization for attorney Theodore Goddard to file a complaint on behalf of Gavin, which was signed on February 7th, 2003. Janet had no recollection of who Goddard was, or of what the actual document represented. The document turned out to be an official complaint against Bashir and his employer ITV.
6. Janet testified that just prior to the trip back to Neverland from Miami, she was told by Jackson’s security that she should fly on a separate plane, but she complained about it and was ultimately allowed to fly with Jackson and her kids on his plane.
7. Zonen questioned Janet about an alleged incident that she saw on the plane, and before describing it, Janet TWICE looked to the jury and said “Please don’t judge me”, which was one of many erratic behaviors that she would demonstrate during her testimony. She testified that she saw Jackson licking Gavin’s head multiple times as he slept, and because everyone was asleep, she didn’t tell anyone, nor did she attempt to stop it. Janet contradicted herself on two consecutive questions when she first said that Star was the first person that she told about this event, and in the very next question she said the police were the first people that she told!
8. Zonen pivoted to the topic of Janet’s first “escape” from Neverland with Jesus Salas. She claimed that she asked Dieter Weisner and Ronald Konitzer for permission to leave, but they denied it because they wanted her to shoot the rebuttal video. Unbelievably, Janet stated that Michael Jackson and the five unindicted co-conspirators “ended up being the killers”!!
9. Here is an example of how erratic Janet’s behavior was during her testimony: after giving a rambling, nonsensical answer to the simple question of why did she go to Jesus Salas for help, Zonen asked Janet if she remembered the question that she was asked, and she answered “No!”
After having the question repeated, she stated that she asked him to bring her home because she was afraid of Ronald and Dieter, and the more she was questioned, the more bizarre her answers became! She even admitted to having her legs waxed during this exchange, too.
10. Frank Cascio allegedly told her that it was too “scary” for her to stay at her mother’s house, so she and her kids went to Jay Jackson’s house. From there, Frank and Michael Jackson called her numerous times and convinced her to return to Neverland in order to avoid “death threats”. During this testimony, Janet looked directly at Jackson and told him that “I believed you”, after she was asked by Zonen if she believed Jackson’s claims that she and her children were in “danger.”
11. Zonen questioned Janet about the avalanche of offers that she and her family received from the media to grant interviews after the documentary aired. Janet thought that those offers were proof that “the killers” that Jackson and his entourage had told her about were really out to get her. One of the offers that she received was for $100,000 dollars to give a story about her ordeal with Jackson, and this is offer may be from the same people who offered Janet the book deal that her ex-husband David was referring to in his interview with Mesereau’s private investigator on page 25 of this document.
12. Zonen asked Janet to elaborate on the phone calls that she received from Frank Cascio and Michael Jackson, in which they allegedly begged her to return to Neverland to shoot the rebuttal video. Janet testified that they told her that the media was evil, and as she continued in her testimony, she looked towards the reporters sitting in the back of the courtroom, and told them that they were now “good guys”! This is yet another example of her erratic behavior!
13. Next, Zonen played portions of the recorded phone calls between Frank Cascio and Janet Arvizo to the jury, and asked Janet about her opinion of Frank, after hearing the phone calls again. She stated that she agreed to return to Neverland after Frank told her that “the Germans” (Ronald Konitzer and Dieter Weisner) had been fired by Jackson for “mistreating” her and her kids.
14. Janet shot off at the mouth again and gave a rambling answer about trying to help Jackson by gathering the numerous legal documents that she had in her possession that pertained to her legal battles with David Arvizo, and she directed these answers at Jackson. She was not asked about this, but instead she brought up this issue on her own, and took Zonen by surprise!
15. Janet testified that when she returned and saw both Dieter and Ronald, she immediately suspected that Frank Cascio had lied to her, and she concocted a story of having an emergency and wanting to leave Neverland with her kids. She claimed to have told that story to Dieter and Ronald, but they told her that the kids must stay at Neverland. She was returned to Los Angeles by bodyguard Chris Carter, who we’ll be hearing a lot more about later on in this trial. During her trip to LA, she made several phone calls to Jay Jackson, and told him about Frank’s desire to have the Arvizo family shipped to Brazil.
16. Upon her return to Jay’s residence, she learned that the Department of Child and Family Services wanted to interview her and her children, due to the fact that two complaints had been filed (one by Gavin’s principal, and the other by Dr. Carole Lieberman), and she was told by Frank that she and her family had to shoot the rebuttal video before meeting with the DCFS social workers.
17. Janet was asked to describe the shooting of the rebuttal video at the home of Hamid Moslehi; it was initially supposed to be shot at Neverland, but Janet refused to return there. When she arrived, she claims that there was a “script” that she and her kids were told to follow. When she was asked by Zonen what she would have said if she had not been told what to say, Janet claimed that she still would have said “nice things”!
18. Zonen questioned Janet about the preparations he made for the video, and her conversations with Jackson’s attorney Vicky Poderevski, who suggested that she be present during the DCFS interview. Janet also expressed concerns that her children would be taken away from her, based on what Vicki told her, and this motivated Janet to participate in the interview. After shooting the rebuttal video way into the wee hours of the night, Janet and her kids were driven to Jay Jackson’s apartment by Vinnie Amen, and arrived there at around 6am. Aja Pryor and the DCFS social workers arrived (separately) at around 10am.
19. Janet described the threats that she allegedly received from Jackson’s security guard Asaf to say positive praises about Jackson, and who also demanded that she tape record her interview with the DCFS. Janet also described the video of Gavin and Jackson from 2000, where they walked around Neverland together. During the interview with the three social workers, Janet and the kids were questioned together the entire time. Janet also turned off the tape recorder after Aja left the room, prior to the start of the interview, because she knew that it was illegal to tape record someone without their permission (but she had absolutely no problem scamming JC Penney or falsely accusing Michael Jackson!)
20. After the taped conversation between Janet and Frank Cascio was admitted into evidence, Zonen questioned Janet again about the DCFS interview, and she stated that they said they (the social workers) were concerned about Jackson, but didn’t want to be sued by him. Janet was told by Vinnie Amen that her answers during the rebuttal video were “inadequate” because she didn’t “stick to the script”. Aja Pryor drove her and the children back to Neverland after the interview was completed.
21. Immediately after the interview concluded, Janet was taken to get passports and visas for the trip to Brazil, while Azja took Gavin, Star, and Davellin to Neverland. When asked about the proposed trip to Brazil, Janet testified that she didn’t want to go because Gavin had a close relationship with his doctors, and she had “waited a lifetime” to find someone like Jay Jackson, and she wanted to be with him for Valentine’s Day, but decided to go because Jay and her parent’s lives were in danger from “the killers”. Seriously.
22. After an endless series of questions about the passports, birth certificates, and other documents that were needed for the trip to Brazil, Zonen questioned Janet about her interactions with Marc Schaffel, whom she claimed coerced her into doing the rebuttal video with “the Germans”. She and Vinnie went to Schaffel’s house to pick up passports, and then returned to Neverland, and stayed there until February 25th, 2003, when she and her family were taken to the Calabasas Hotel to stay at as they did more shopping for the trip to Brazil.
23. On February 25th, 2003, Janet and Gavin were taken to the hospital by Vinnie Amen so that Gavin could deliver his urine sample to the doctors. During the trip, Vinnie made a stop at the Laugh Factory, where Janet went inside to meet with attorney William Dickerman and comedian Jamie Masada for 20 minutes, while he, Davellin, and Gavin waited in the car. After the trip to the hospital, Vinnie made a stop at the Laugh Factory, where Janet went inside to meet with attorney William Dickerman and comedian Jamie Masada for 20 minutes, while he, Davellin, and Gavin waited in the car. Janet got ahead of herself – again! – during her testimony, and Zonen told her to “hold on a second”. After leaving the Laugh Factory, the Arvizos were taken to the Calabasas Country Inn from February 25th through March 2nd. Janet testified that they were told by Vinnie that they couldn’t go back to Neverland because “the killers” had arrived there, and it wasn’t safe. She called her friend Louise Palanker while at the hotel, but of course she didn’t call the police, and this is because she believed that all of her calls were being monitored.
24. Janet then testified that she went back to Neverland on March 2nd, 2003, and stayed until March 10th, 2003, but that is a contradiction to Sneddon’s opening statement, during which he claimed that the Arvizos stayed at Neverland until March 12th, 2003! Janet also claimed that Jackson was there the entire time until they left, and that Gavin and Star were with him at all times. (This will be refuted later on in the trial.)
25. Janet then claimed that Ronald and Dieter would arrange for her kids to be enrolled in school during their stay at Neverland, but it never happened, and she never complained because Frank Cascio would yell at her every time she tried to say something, and thus her speaking days were “over”. Seriously. When Janet moved out of the Soto Street apartment on March 1st, 2003, her possessions were put into storage, and her back rent was paid by Jackson’s associates
26. Zonen questioned Janet about the trip to the hospital on March 10th, 2003, where Gavin had to have his kidney examined and a urine sample submitted. Janet testified that Frank Cascio took away her urine container during their stay at the Calabasas Hotel because he knew that Gavin had been drinking alcohol with Jackson.
27. According to Janet, at 4am in the morning of March 10th, 2003, Gavin called her from Jackson’s bedroom and said that he had been forced to drink “Jesus Juice”, and Jackson was scared that it would be detected during the urine test. Janet and Gavin were driven to the hospital by Vinnie Amen, and Gavin was passed out in the back seat of the vehicle. Before arriving at the hospital, they stopped at a Denny’s restaurant so that Janet could use the restroom, and she went in by herself. When she was finished and went back outside, Vinnie and Gavin had driven away, but returned a few minutes later. Janet claimed that some of the urine had been dumped out, and when she asked Vinnie what happened, he said that the bottle “must have fallen”.
28. From there, Janet and Gavin were taken to Jay’s apartment, and she called Jay at work and told him to meet her at the nail salon because she was afraid that her phone calls were still being monitored, and she wanted to talk to him in person. While she was there, Janet had a leg wax. (Remember that fact, because it will become an issue during her cross examination!)
Jay arrived and became very confrontational with Frank over the telephone, and Janet asked Jay to just “play along” and allow Gavin to return to Neverland, while she returned to Jay’s apartment.
29. The next day, March 11th, 2003, Janet went to Family Court for a child support hearing. Vinnie told her that he would bring her kids to the hearing, but he arrived by himself, and took Janet to Jay’s apartment after the hearing was concluded. Later on that day, she and Jay called Karen Walker, one of the three DCFS workers who interviewed her on February 20th, but she could offer no help in getting Janet’s kids returned to her, so Janet concocted a story about her father being sick and wanting to see his grandchildren. Janet told this story to Frank Cascio, and offered herself in exchange for the kids.
30. When Jay Jackson and Janet Arivzo arrived at her parent’s house, Gavin, Davellin, and Star had already been dropped off, and Janet complained that Gavin became angry and violent because he wanted to go back to Neverland! This was a crumbling blow to the prosecution, because why on earth would Gavin so vehemently want to return to Neverland if he had been abused there several days (or weeks, depending on what version of his story you believe) prior to leaving?
Janet testified that Gavin wasn’t allowed to bring his luggage back home, but Star and Davellin were allowed to bring theirs, and after they returned home, a different set of people that she had never seen before starting surveilling her apartment.
31. In yet another act of desperation: Zonen wanted to play videotapes of Bradley Miller’s surveillance tapes from Janet’s Soto apartment, and Mesereau objected because there was no foundation laid that they really were his tapes. Also, there was wording added to the tapes that Mesereau felt would influence the jury, which is yet another form of evidence tampering. Mesereau wanted each tape played individually, in its original form, but Zonen wanted to play the compilation DVD that the prosecution made of the tapes. Judge Melville excused the jury as he let Zonen and Mesereau make their respective cases for and against the playing of the tapes, and things got very heated! They both accused each other of lying, and Zonen sarcastically said that he’d take a polygraph test, and Mesereau snapped back and said “You’ll fail it!”, so Judge Melville had to admonish both of them to stop.
32. Zonen decided to withdraw the exhibit and play it the following morning, and he resumed his direct examination of Janet Arvizo by asking her about the lack of schooling for her children during their time at Neverland. She was allegedly told by Frank and Vinnie that she and her family would not get any tutoring until they made it to Brazil.
33. Next, Janet was asked about the furniture that she had returned to her after getting her attorney William Dickerman to send letters requesting their return to Mark Geragos. Additionally, she wanted Dickerman to stop Geragos’ investigators from surveilling her.
34. Zonen moved on to the subject of Janet’s introduction to Larry Feldman and Dr. Stan Katz. She claimed that she was meeting with Dr. Katz because her house was a “cuckoo house”. Seriously.
She also claimed that Gavin told her about Jackson’s abuse, and when asked to describe the discussion, she said it was like an “erupted volcano”. This is in direct contrast to both Star and Gavin’s testimonies, where they both claimed that they never spoke to anyone about the abuse until they met with Dr. Katz in May 2003. Notice how she answered “Ummm” when she was initially asked if Gavin told her about his alleged abuse, which is indicative of her thinking about what lie to say to answer the question. She also testified that she told Star to “forgive and forget”.
35. Janet claimed that she came to the conclusion that Gavin had been molested after she was told by police, subsequent to the “trust bond” that they formed with Gavin (her words, not mine!)
36. Janet testified that she was offered a house and an apartment by Vinnie and Frank, but only if she left the country first. She claimed that they told her that she needed both a house and an apartment because she needed to be able to go back and forth between them to avoid “the killers”. This information was also “burned in her brain”!
37. Mesereau’s cross examination began with him attempting to play the audiotape of Janet’s conversations with Frank Casco to the jury, and asking questions about that discussion. Mesereau questioned Janet about statements that she made to Frank Cascio, and she denied ever asking for any security or money. Mesereau also questioned Janet on the overly effusive “we’re family” statements that she repeatedly said to Frank Cascio during their conversation. Janet testified that people over 50 years old have “a tender spot” in her heart, and that is why she loved the Cascios without even knowing them. Seriously. There were other statements that Janet claimed the tape had been manipulated.
38. Mesereau made a colossal mistake during the early part of his cross examination of Janet Arvizo, and it had the potential to have extreme ramifications on the remainder of the trial. He asked Janet if she had ever received a body wax during her stay at Neverland, and she corrected him by admitting to receiving a leg wax! How could Mesereau confuse a body wax with a leg wax?!!! (I’m being sarcastic, guys!)
39. Janet was asked about her contentious history with ex-husband David Arvizo, who was charged with numerous crimes against his family in 2001 and 2002. Janet admitted that she filed a report claiming that he had molested Davellin ten years prior, although she said it wasn’t an allegation, but merely “information” that she provided to police. Whatever. In addition to David Arvizo’s abuse of Davellin, Janet was also investigated by the DCFS for allegedly abusing Gavin! When he was in kindergarten, he accused Janet of abuse, but then changed his story.
40. Janet testified that she “knew” that she was being held against her will by Jackson’s associates through the use of force and fear, and (not surprisingly) she didn’t know what the word extortion meant! You would think she would know, since that is exactly what she did to JC Penney! According to Janet, she was too intimated by Jackson’s people to try to get a restraining order against them.
41. Janet acknowledged that she referred to Jackson as “family” even AFTER her first “escape” with Jesus Salas in February 2003! Janet corrected Mesereau’s claim that she escaped from Neverland three times by including her final “escape” from Neverland as the fourth escape.
42. When asked if she paid for the leg wax, brow treatment, lip treatment, face treatment, and bikini wax that she received on February 11th, 2003, Janet testified that she only received a leg wax, and was adamant that she paid for it herself! She refused to look at the receipt because it wouldn’t refresh her recollection, and she claimed it had been manipulated.
43. Mesereau caught Janet in yet another lie by getting her to confirm that all of the nice things that she said about Jackson during her phone call with Frank Cascio were true, yet all of the nice things she said about Jackson during the rebuttal video a few weeks later were “scripted”!
44. Mesereau was admonished by Judge Melville for telling Janet that she was a “good actress”, after she stated that she was a poor actor. I’m sure that all of us can thoroughly understand Mesereau’s demeanor at this point in the trial, as he wouldn’t normally act in such an unprofessional manner, but then again he needed to relieve some stress and bring some levity into the courtroom! Janet was also admonished for not properly answering Mesereau’s questions.
45. Mesereau made Janet admit that she never mentioned anything about death threats to Frank Cascio during their phone call, despite claiming that she received them to police. And yet another one of her ridiculous answers was stricken from the record!
46. One thing that we can ascertain from Janet’s testimony is that she tried to be a good Catholic! She vehemently asserted to the court that she never missed Ash Wednesday church services until she was trapped at Neverland! As you can imagine, that comment was stricken from the record. It’s too bad that she chose to ignore that little thing about not bearing false witness against thy neighbors…..
47. Mesereau forced Janet to admit that she told Frank Cascio to tell Jackson that he’s “her family”, and the reason that Mesereau focused so much on these effusive statements during this portion of the testimony is because he wanted to emphasize to the jury that Janet grew attached to Jackson, and not the other way around, and her assertion that she was “forced” to say good things about Jackson during the rebuttal video was absolutely preposterous.
48. Janet testified that she was referring to David Arvizo and his family when she spoke about being neglected and spit on during the rebuttal video, which is a total lie because she was referring to society as a whole, whom she obviously felt had an obligation to help her family financially.
49. Once the questions regarding Janet’s taped conversations with Frank Cascio were over with, Mesereau went straight into Janet’s divorce and history of domestic abuse with David Arvizo, and this was an attempt to show the jury just how dysfunctional her family really is.
For example, on December 18th, 2000, Janet gave a sworn deposition for her J.C. Penney lawsuit, and in it she claimed that all of her injuries were sustained from the security guards, when in fact they were from her husband David, who abused her for 17 years. Under oath in that deposition, Janet denied ever being struck by David, or having any marital problems, but under cross examination she denied that she made that statement.
50. When asked to describe the type of abuse she allegedly suffered at the hands of the security guards, Janet testified that she was told that the security guards were doing belly flops on top of her body! But she probably didn’t even notice it for herself since she couldn’t breathe and her nipples were squeezed between 10 to 25 times! How she could keep count of each nipple squeeze is beyond me!
And the icing on the cake is when Janet admitted that she testified to all of this in order to get money! How honest of her!
51. Janet confirmed that she claimed in her lawsuit that Gavin’s cancer actually got worse due to his treatment at the hands of the security guards! She also denied telling paralegal Mary Holzer after she received her settlement that she lied during her deposition and had a brother in the Mexican mafia who would come after her if she snitched. Janet tried to discredit Holzer by describing her as a “giant Michael Jackson fan”. Holzer will testify later on in this trial and confirm what she was told by Janet.
52. Janet denied lying under oath, but instead she blamed it on her law firm. Mesereau was once again admonished by Judge Melville after he made yet another sarcastic remark to Janet, and Zonen was also admonished for not following the proper procedures for calling an objection. Judge Melville was so angry that he asked Mesereau if he wanted the trial to be shut down! Whoa!
53. Janet went on to answer more questions about her alleged abuse by the JC Penney security guards. She felt that Mesereau had an unfair advantage against her because of the “big, giant book” that he used for his notes during his cross examination. Mesereau obviously used that “big, giant book” to help him “mix up the facts purposely”, as Janet accused him of doing!
To no one’s surprise, Janet denied knowing the lawyer who represented her in the JC Penney case, even though Mesereau showed her legal documents that proved otherwise.
54. When Mesereau finally moved on from J.C. Penney to Janet’s meeting with law enforcement on December 18th, 2003, during which she signed a sworn document that stated that she had investigated Jackson from the time period of January 1st, 2000 to December 18th, 2003 due to his “interactions with her children at Neverland Ranch”. However, Janet didn’t even meet Jackson until August 2000, so Mesereau inquired how could she sign and affirm that document, and Janet answered that it was for a “general time period”, and some other hogwash. Judge Melville had the document admitted into evidence and would rule on it later on in the case.
55. Mesereau played the rebuttal tape to Janet and had her answer questions about the statements that she made, similar to the way he asked Star, Gavin, and Davellin earlier in the trial. First of all, Janet testified that her laughter during the rebuttal video was scripted, and everything that was said was memorized from the script. She also stated, once again, that she was a “poor actress”, and she made an absolutely ridiculous comparison to Halle Berry and her awful movie “Catwoman”.
56. Mesereau challenged Janet about why she did not call the police when she was held “hostage”, and of course she claimed that it was because “nobody would believe her”. Janet denied being in contact with a certain officer, and declined Mesereau’s offer to show her a transcript of a police interview in which she mentioned that she had been in touch with him during her ordeal.
57. During the weekend break, Janet met for 10 minutes with the prosecution to her testimony review and police documents, including one in which she told police that Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryant, and weatherman Fritz Coleman would help her! She claimed she said this because David told her that he would tell everyone that she had slept with them, and she wanted them to verify that it wasn’t true.
58. Janet was asked about a photograph of her holding a knife in a threatening manner, and she stated that she and David were just playing around when she posed for that photo. According to Janet, that photo was sold to the tabloids by David and his attorney.
59. Mesereau asked Janet about her descriptions of David’s abuse during her interview with Miller. For example, she described an incident in August 2000 where David was upset with her for dancing with Jackson, and Mesereau used this to pounce on her earlier statement of never having had a conversation with Jackson. Janet claimed that she danced with Jackson but didn’t converse with him, which is total baloney because she also ate dinner with him at his dinner table (this is when Gavin asked her if he could sleep in Jackson’s bedroom).
60. When asked about the JC Penney lawsuit, Janet once again gave herself an honest assessment by admitting that she said she was depressed during her deposition because she was a “nobody”, and that she is STILL a “nobody”!
Janet also confirmed that she filed for disability because of her depression, which was caused from the fact that her husband didn’t lover her or her kids anymore. Whatever. Mesereau pointed out that she deliberately didn’t tell her lawyers during her deposition that David caused her depression because she was worried that it would affect her settlement.
61. Mesereau finally gets to Janet’s police interviews, and boy were they interesting, to say the least! Janet attended vocational school in the summer and fall of 2003 (so she claimed) and studied to be an orthopedic technologist; too bad this stupid trial diverted her dreams!
Janet also confirmed that she was an acquaintance of Carol Lamere, a grandmother of one of the students in Davellin’s tap dance studio, and that Davellin spent many nights at her house in 2000. This testimony corroborates Lamir’s interview with Mesereau’s investigator in which she stated that Davellin confessed that Janet planned to blackmail Jackson into buying her a house by threatening to accuse him of showing her sons online pornography; this interview can be read on pages 26-33 of this document.
62. Mesereau proceeded to question Janet about the gifts that Gavin received from Jackson during his hospital stay, and the phone messages that Jackson left for Gavin on his answering machine. Janet told police that Jackson was trying to cure Gavin, and by doing that she shot herself in the foot because the prosecution asserted that all of Jackson’s communications with Gavin were part of the grooming process! Janet admitted that she said that due to her own “cluelessness”.
63. Janet claimed that Jackson himself took Star and Gavin to Neverland to film their scenes, which is a total fabrication of the facts because Jackson stayed at Neverland and sent a limo to pick them up.
64. When Mesereau discussed Janet’s involvement with the various fundraisers for Gavin at the Laugh Factory, she testified that she wasn’t sure whether or not she knew they were even going on, but would find out afterwards, or some nonsense like that.
65. Janet was next questioned about a story that was written about Gavin in her local newspaper in which she solicited donations for his illness. Janet claimed that she gave the reporter her story because she was trying to help her out with her career, and that she told the reporter that Gavin’s chemotherapy treatments were $1,200 dollars each, but the reporter made a typo and printed that they were $12,000 dollars each! Seriously!
66. Janet denied telling Azja Pryor that David Arivzo spent some of Louise Palanker’s donation on drugs. She also claimed that she didn’t know tht Chris Tucker had wired money into her bank account until the police told her during their investigation. Upon receiving the money, she withdrew it and gave it to David, instead of using it for Gavin’s benefit (as it was surely intended by Chris!).
67. Janet testified that she never complained to her about not getting paid for the Take 2 rebuttal special hosted by Maury Povich, that she never told her that she wasn’t interested in going to Brazil after finding out that Jackson wasn’t going, and that she never declined a college fund offer from Jackson due to her doubts that Gavin wouldn’t be alive in 10 years. And even though she claimed to have told her attorney Michael Manning about being imprisoned at Neverland, he never called the police. Could it be because she never told him that?
68. Janet just couldn’t control herself, and she asked Judge Melville if she could use the restroom in the middle of her testimony!
69. , Mesereau questioned Janet about the alleged head-licking incident on the flight back to Neverland from Miami, and the number of times that she allowed her kids to go back to Neverland after this incident. Janet couldn’t remember exactly how many times she allowed them to return, but claimed that Jackson’s people were around them the entire time. Mesereau then questioned Janet about when she first learned that Gavin had allegedly been given alcohol by Jackson, to which she gave some nonsense answer that you have to read for yourself!
70. Janet went on to testify that the first person that she described the death threats she received was attorney William Dickerman in July 2003, well after she had already met with Larry Feldman and Stan Katz. According to Janet, her entire family was “cuckoo” at that point, and Feldman decided to make “heads and tails” and help them. Janet continued to go on and on about how she didn’t want to call the police because she wanted the people that she called (Azja Pryor, Louise Palanker, etc.) to call them for her. Mesereau moved on to the DCFS interview, and asked Janet if she knew why she was being interviewed; she had no clue!
71. Just to give the jury more examples of exactly how wacky, bizarre, and unstable Janet really was, Mesereau just began to ask some general questions about the numerous opportunities she had to ask for help from the many people that she interacted with during her various shopping trips, and she explained that she thought the phones at the beauty salon were tapped, and that she didn’t want to put her parents at risk because Jackson’s people “had full control of her”.
72. After thoroughly denying that she had ever talked to either George Lopez, his wife, David Arvizo, or Gavin Arvizo about the $300 dollars that was allegedly stolen from Gavin’s wallet by George Lopez, Janet was asked about the fact that she never mentioned anything about being pursued by “killers” to Frank Cascio, and she explained that her comments had been erased from the recorded phone call!
73. Mesereau questioned Janet about the itinerary for the trip to Brazil, which she acknowledged that she saw, but didn’t tell Jay Jackson until after she had left Neverland for the last time. Janet claimed that she was forced to sign all of her documents relating to getting visas and passports, while being followed by “killers” who trailed her from building to building. They had threatened to kill her parents, so that is why she never attempted to call authorities or notify the employees of those government buildings.
74. Janet told police that she was told by Frank, Ronald, Dieter, and Vinnie that they had various ways to make her children disappear, including the power to fly them away from Neverland in a hot air balloon. Sneddon should truly be ashamed of himself for allowing this witness to be anywhere near the witness stand!
75. Janet denied ever being so poor that she had to live in a stable with horses, which is a statement that was attributed to Jamie Masada in the media.
76. Janet was questioned again about her relationship with attorney William Dickerman. He did not include anything about alcohol, molestation, or imprisonment at Neverland in any of his letters to Mark Geragos, which were written to facilitate getting Janet’s furniture returned to her from storage. Dickerman represented Janet until he “kicked her to the curb” for refusing to tell him information that she was giving to police, which she claimed she was told by police not to tell to anyone because it would compromise their investigation. Mesereau immediately challenged the logic behind this, because Janet didn’t talk to police until almost two months after meeting with Dickerman!
77. Mesereau questioned Janet about the final time that she and her family left Neverland; she stated that she left because Jackson gave Gavin alcohol. Furthermore, Janet testified that she didn’t know that Jay Jackson demanded money from Frank Cascio as compensation for their participation in the rebuttal video.
78. Janet next testified that she thought that she being “forced” to leave the country, and she denied telling a Neverland employee named Katie Bernard that Jackson was a great guy. And, once again, just to clarify it to the jury, Janet corrected Mesereau’s assertion that she had a spa treatment by saying she “only” had a leg wax.
Mesereau continued to question Janet about other Neverland employees who drove her to various places, and she denied all of it, and made sure that she also included the fact that she was forced to miss Ash Wednesday services at church (she was obviously trying to play the “religion” card to gain the juror’s sympathy).
79. Mesereau’s lengthy cross-examination ended on a crucial point: the time period when Janet learned of her son’s alleged molestation. Earlier in her testimony she claimed that she learned from police that her son had been abused, yet in this excerpt Janet insinuated that she “became aware of things” through Gavin and Star, before being told in September 2003 that her children had been abused.
80. Zonen began his redirect examination by attempting to clarify exactly what happened during the JC Penney incident; this issue comprised a significant part of Mesereau’s cross-examination. He allowed Janet to regurgitate her side of the story, and he also questioned Janet about her relationship with paralegal Mary Holzer, who Janet admitted to lying about her deposition after receiving her settlement. Janet attempted to discredit her by calling her a “humongous Michael Jackson fan” who “begged” her to meet him, and then denied telling her that she lied about being assaulted by the JC Penney security guards.
81. Ron Zonen continued his redirect examination of Janet Arvizo by trying to shore up some loose ends and get her to clarify various topics, including her recorded telephone call with Frank Cascio, her dealings with Larry Feldman, the money that she received from Louise Palanker, whether or not she asked anyone else for money, the Laugh Factory fundraisers, etc. This was nothing more than a lame attempt to make Janet look sweet and innocent in front of the jury.
82. Under recross examination, Mesereau hit the ground running by attempting to discredit Janet’s previous testimony about the JC Penney incident, but his Zonen’s objection was sustained, and Mesereau had to rephrase his questions. Janet testified that her attorney for the JC Penney suit wanted her to break down her assault “to the millisecond”. During her JC Penney deposition, Janet testified that prior to the incident with the security guards, she and David were driving around in the parking lot as they were “kissing”, thus intentionally delaying finding a parking spot. Seriously.
83. Mesereau caught Janet in yet another lie; she testified that the money given to her from Louise Palanker was used for Gavin’s clean room, but during her previous testimony she testified that she didn’t know what the money was used for. Janet tried to explain away this discrepancy by saying that her memory was refreshed after she spoke with Zonen overnight.
Mesereau also trapped Janet into explaining why she set up a bank account for Gavin’s expenses, included herself as a signatory, but claimed that she never asked anybody for monetary help, and never questioned where the money that was deposited into the account came from. Janet explained that she was merely acting as David Arvizo’s “secretary”.
84. After Mesereau finished his recross examination, Zonen continued with additional redirect examination, in which he asked a few general questions, and then ended his questioning. Mesereau had no more questions.
lynande51
sanemjfan
thetis7
Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0 
AMEN AND AMEN XX
amen x
http://Lpmvoice.com/
Hello very cool blog!! Guy .. Excellent .. Wonderful .. I’ll
bookmark your website and take the feeds also? I’m happy to seek out so many useful information here in the submit, we
need work out extra techniques on this regard, thank
you for sharing. . . . . . http://www.elnovilloalegre.com.uy/9-tips-on-how-to-raise-your-grade-point/
Thanks for doing this David,
I see in bullet 52 Mesereau gets reamed by the judge..I think the judge was that angry because he saw Mesereau was willing to take the chance of really angering the judge to get his opinion about Janet Arvizo across to the jury.He really pushed the envelope sometimes
Interesting that the McMartin pre school accusations started with a woman with the same mental disorder as Janet Arvizo., and if I remember correctly, Stanley Katz had some involvement in the McMartin accusations also..
given the trial was in Ca and Sneddon was a long term DA, you might think he would have seen the similarities involved,., which makes me see , all the more that Sneddon and company KNEW the Arvizo accusations were absolutely bogus before they ever walked into the courtroom.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mcmartin/mcmartinaccount.html
According to this article , the DA was very ambitious and ignored exculpatory evidence in that investigation, much like Sneddon did in the Jackson case.
Only Sneddon, was also givng credibility to people like Diane Dimonds sources like Adrian McManus .
Again , the fact that people were being paid for stories and 2 other juries in civil trials involving Dianes sources found for MJ and awarded him monetary damages , should have stopped Sneddon, but he just kept going like a runaway train.
How stupid for him to not realize that Dimond was using the prosecutors for her own purposes and ambitions also.