Skip to content

February 28th – March 1st, 2005 Trial Analysis: Summary of Sneddon and Mesereau’s Opening Statements

May 9, 2012

I will begin my analysis of the 2005 trial of Michael Jackson by summarizing the prosecution’s and defense’s opening statements in this post. Before I begin, I want to give readers an overview of what I set out to accomplish with this arduous task of summarizing the entire 2005 trial (which began on February 28th and ended on June 13th), and I also want to show you one of the most important yet overlooked fundamental facts about the trial:

I have read many excellent pieces of work about the trial, mainly “The Michael Jackson Conspiracy” by Aphrodite Jones (many of her interviews are compiled in this post), as well as the different Associated Press daily trial summaries (which are stored on the MJ Upbeat, Michael Jackson Fan Club, and Genius Michael Jackson websites), CBS News daily summaries, and the Veritas Project (which was an investigative report written by fans to rebut the negative and inaccurate press, and gives the definitive timeline of the allegations, as well as important background information on the major players).  I have also spent a considerable amount of time reading the testimonies of many witnesses, as well as numerous pleadings by both the defense and prosecution, and there is so much that I’ve learned that isn’t available in any of those aforementioned resources!

So I decided that since I have possession of all of the testimonies and court pleadings from the trial, that I will write a summary of each and every single witness so that I could help educate both current and future generations of Michael Jackson fans who may be unable to find or purchase “MJ Conspiracy”, or who simply want a quick reference for researching who said what, and when. And since I’ve been complimented numerous times by other fans about how I should write a book about the trial, this is the next best thing to actually doing so! In fact, in many ways blogging about the trial is more efficient than writing a book because I won’t have any time or space constraints, I won’t have to cave in to publisher’s demands as to what to include and exclude, and I can have links to other blogs, articles, and videos. You can use the “Testimonies at the 2005 Trial Summary and Analysis” category (located at the right hand side of the page) to quickly search through our archive of testimony summaries.

This is going to be a laborious and exhausting process for me, but in the end I feel it will be worth it, because I will be able to do my part to help educate both current and future generations of MJ fans with the complete truth of what happened during the 2005 trial. After receiving emails like the one below from fans who are in high school and college, and are using this blog to help them thoroughly and accurately research the allegations, I feel more emboldened than ever to bring my goal of summarizing the entire trial to fruition!


As someone who has been researching Jackson for almost 3 years, I must say that it’s very disappointing that there are many hardcore fans (and advocates for that matter) who have a very complacent and nonchalant attitude towards researching the allegations and knowing all of the intricate facts backwards and forwards (as I stride to do daily!). So many times I’ve talked to fans and advocates about the allegations, and the possibility of reading through all of the transcripts and pleadings, and they say things like “I don’t need to know all of the facts! I already know he was innocent, and set up by Sneddon! Besides, I’ve already read Michael Jackson Conspiracy by Aphrodite Jones!”, or words to that effect. To me, relying solely on “Michael Jackson Conspiracy” (or any other book or article about the allegations) is similar to relying exclusively on the Cliff’s Notes summary of Romeo & Juliet, instead of taking the time to actually read the play!

Reading “Michael Jackson Conspiracy” is not the end of your research on the trial; it is actually the BEGINNING of your research! You shouldn’t become stagnant and satisfied with the information that you know about the trial; you should strive to become as knowledgeable as possible, so that you can help spread that knowledge to others.

Because of the intense research that the admins of the blog have dedicated to investigating the allegations, we’ve been able to discover a lot of pertinent facts that we otherwise would not have known because they were not included in any other books or articles written about the trial. For example, because we have taken the time to read many of the court pleadings, our admin Helena was able to reveal to our readers that Jordan Chandler’s uncle Ray Chandler was subpoenaed to testify in court in September 2004 about the contents of his book “All That Glitters”, which was ghostwritten by Jordan’s father Evan Chandler and insinuates that Jackson was guilty in 1993.  But Ray wasn’t subpoenaed by the prosecution, as you would assume, but by the defense! And despite the fact that he gleefully promoted his book in numerous television interviews, he took legal action to quash Mesereau’s subpoena to testify, and he won! The subpoena was sealed, and the general public was never privy to this information until well after the trial concluded. Helena did a multi-part series on Ray’s subpoena, and you can read them here.  Similarly, she did a multi-part series on MJ’s art collection, which the prosecution tried to argue was homosexual and child erotica in order to prejudice both the jury and the general public.

I want to make it as easy as possible for both fans and skeptics to know exactly who testified in 2005, what they said, and what impact their testimony had on the case. I want to make bullet points out of all of the lies said about Jackson, and cross reference different people’s testimonies against each other to check for material discrepancies, similar to how we cross-referenced the discrepancies between June Chandler’s 2005 testimony and Jordan Chandler’s 1993 interview with Dr. Gardner, and how we did the same with Jason and Blanca Francia’s testimonies. (Additionally, I have compiled a list of journalists and lawyers who accurately reported on the trial in this post. They were certainly in the minority!) While many people may find these summaries to be long and boring (especially for some of the prosecution’s non-relevant expert witnesses), these summaries will be like a gift from heaven for students researching the case for their class projects, or for journalists and/or fans who decide to write books or essays about Jackson.

So having said all that, I will begin this series with my summary of the prosecution and defense’s opening statements from February 28th and March 1st, 2005. But first, let’s look at a major, significant, and substantial discrepancy between the charges that were leveled at Jackson shortly after his arrest and his indictment: 

After MJ’s arrest on November 21st, 2003, there was rampant speculation as to who his accuser(s) was (were), what type of accusations the accuser(s) was (were) making about Jackson, the number of accomplices in Jackson’s inner circle that may have aided and abetted Jackson, etc. (You can watch the complete press conference of District Attorney Tom Sneddon and Sheriff Jim Anderson here on the MJ Truth Now website.) Here is a compilation of the media’s coverage of Jackson’s arrest:

On November 30th, 2010, journalist Charles Thomson conducted an interview with Jackson’s former manager Dieter Wiesner and spokesperson Stuart Backerman about the events surrounding the filming of the “One More Chance” video, which was cancelled on the second day of filming due to the Neverland raid. Here is what Wiesner had to say about Jackson’s reaction to finding out that Neverland had been raided, and that his new accuser was none other than Gavin Arvizo!

Dream Turns into a Nightmare

At roughly 8.30 next morning Stuart Backerman and Jackson cohort Marc Schaffel spoke on the telephone to discuss their departure for Europe the following day. Their conversation was interrupted by an incoming telephone call for Schaffel from Joe Marcus, a security coordinator at Neverland. “It was a weird hour for Joe to be calling,” says Backerman, “so Schaffel said he would call me back.”

A short while later Backerman’s telephone rang. “You gotta turn on the television,” said Schaffel. Backerman switched on his TV and saw the now famous helicopter images of police swarming Michael Jackson’s Neverland Ranch. Led by District Attorney Tom Sneddon, 70 sheriffs from the Santa Barbara Police Department had been dispatched to raid Michael Jackson’s home. “Honestly,” Backerman recalls, “You would have thought it was an army battalion going into an Iraqi village. There were so many of them.”

His heart sank. “At that moment I realized that the European trip and the whole MJ Universe project was finished because by that point Diane Dimond was on, revealing that it was all over a second charge of child molestation.

“Michael was just getting ready to leave the 1993 allegations behind and rebrand himself. We’d just finished dealing with the Martin Bashir scandal and here it was again.” He sighs. “Here it was again.”

In Las Vegas, it fell on manager Dieter Wiesner to break the news to Michael Jackson. “Michael was still in his room,” Wiesner explains. “He was sitting next to the fireplace when I came in and he was very quiet. I had to tell him and it was not easy to tell Michael things like this because he was in such a good mood. He saw a future. When the Bashir situation arose he was very down. Now everything had changed and Michael was ready to do new things. Then, to go to his room and tell him such a bad situation… it was a disaster.

“I told him, ‘Michael, there is bad news but on the other side you have to see it as also good news. The bad news is the police are on the ranch.’ Michael was completely shocked. I was sitting next to him; I had my arm on his shoulder.

“He looked at me and he was really… You could see the blood going out of his face. He was deeply shocked. But I told him, ‘Michael, now you have the chance finally to clear up everything. Once and forever you can clear up everything.'”

News spread quickly amongst the crew. “I saw it on TV that morning and by the time I got to the hotel lobby, everybody else had already found out,” says a crew member. “So we went to work as normal and waited to see what was going to happen.

“Of course, when we got to the soundstage it was a complete zoo with paparazzi and fans. It had leaked where we were shooting. The day before, nobody knew we were shooting or anything.

“We waited that entire day for Michael to come and I think we went back a second day. Then he called finally and said, ‘I’m just not going to be able to come’.”

Jackson spent much of those two days crying, says Dieter Wiesner. “I was sitting with him day and night. He was shocked; he was crying… he didn’t know what to do. It was such a bad situation. We were supposed to go to Europe. He was ready to move on in his life and everything was prepared. It was just a beautiful situation and this news shocked him deeply. Really, it killed him.”

Two days after the Neverland raid Jackson’s depression turned to anger. When it emerged that the boy behind the accusation was none other than Gavin Arvizo, the boy whose hand Jackson had held in the Martin Bashir documentary, Jackson decided to fight.

“You know, when it was clear that this allegation was because of the Arvizos, then he started to really fight the situation,” says Wiesner. “Michael told me, ‘Dieter, you know what, they should bring this young boy into a big place, invite all the press and he should look me in the eyes and tell me that I did this.’ So he was ready to fight.”

That the allegation had come from the Arvizos made the ruination of the MJ Universe project even more galling for Stuart Backerman. “Sneddon didn’t have anything except the word of Janet Arvizo, and she was totally crazy,” says Backerman. “And I know that because I was there and I saw her. She had a track record as long as my right arm. Sneddon just wanted to get Jackson.

“It’s very frustrating to this day. We had the world’s greatest celebrity and he was more focused than he had been for a long time. But the whole thing got cut off by Sneddon.”

It’s important to note what Wiesner said that Jackson wanted to fight the charges, because after his arrest the media went crazy with wild stories about Jackson being suicidal at the thought of being charged with child abuse and facing jail time. (It also fit their narrative that Jackson was guilty, and hence suicidal.)

Shortly after Jackson’s arrest, the Statement of Probable Cause (written by Detective Paul Zelis) was released, and it included the alleged timeline of the allegations, as well as Det. Zelis’ own “diagnosis” of Jackson’s predatory characteristics.

One important fact that jumped out to me as I read this document is that, according to Det. Zelis, Gavin’s younger brother Star Arvizo claimed to have been molested by Jackson while riding on a golf cart at Neverland. Det. Zelis describes these claims on pages 12, 23, & 50:

When asked, Star said Michael Jackson touched him inappropriately. The incident occurred when they were in a golf cart. Star was driving the golf cart and Michael was next to him. Michael then reached over and touched Star’s “testicles and penis” over his clothes with Michael’s left hand. He did not say anything to Michael and continued driving the golf cart.

Yet, Michael Jackson was never charged with molesting Star! Instead, when Tom Sneddon filed his initial felony complaint against Michael Jackson on December 18th, 2003, it consisted of the following allegations by ONLY Gavin, which allegedly occurred from February 7th through March 10th, 2003:

  • 7 counts of lewd acts upon a child
  • 2 counts of administering an intoxicant

However, in the grand jury indictment that was filed on April 21st, 2004, the dates of the alleged offenses shifted to February 20th through March 12th, 2003, and the charges were materially altered as follows:

  • 4 counts of lewd acts upon a child
  • 1 count of an attempted lewd act upon a child
  • 4 counts of administering an intoxicant
  • 1 count of conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment, and extortion

Why is there such a discrepancy between the charges in the Initial Complaint and the Grand Jury Indictment? We’ll find out as we go through the opening statements, as we discover some important exculpatory information that was discovered by the prosecution shortly after the filing of the initial complaint, which completely rocked their world!

Here is Mesereau’s explanation as to why the prosecution added the conspiracy charge in their Grand Jury Indictment of Jackson; this excerpt is taken from the September 2010 Frozen in Time seminar, which is transcribed in this post:

The prosecution was out to get him in the best way that they could, and I understand that, but I think the person they chose as the victim, as the accuser, and particularly that person’s family, were really a disaster for them. They brought a conspiracy charge that Michael Jackson had masterminded a criminal conspiracy to abduct children, commit extortion, and falsely imprison a family. Michael Jackson couldn’t even imagine such behavior, let alone orchestrate it. And what that charge did for them, and I can’t get in the minds of the prosecutors, but here’s what I think they were doing, is that allowed the mother, who was really the lynchpin of that a lot of the case, to bring in co-conspirator hearsay under the exception. It allowed them to intimidate witnesses who were at Neverland because they would too fearful they would be indicted as conspirators. Great conspiracy here! The only person they charged was Michael Jackson. Everyone else was unindicted. She brings hearsay testimony in, the witnesses that can refute it are terrified to come to court for fear that they’ll be indicted, so they lawyer up. And plus, it makes Michael Jackson look like this “Mafioso-type” guru, which he’s not even capable of being.

On June 29th, 2004, Jackson’s defense team filed a massive 212 page motion titledNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE INDICTMENT”, which was an attempt to have Jackson’s grand jury indictment thrown out due to the following reasons (here are some of their bullet points):

The So-Called “Evidence” Presented to the Jury: much of the evidence presented was inadmissible over objection at trial.

The Indictment Constituted an Unwarranted Prosecution: Tom Sneddon and his prosecutors abused the grand jury process by bullying witnesses, allowed prejudicial material to be used as evidence, argued improper inferences to the jurors, etc.

The Admissible Evidence Is Insufficient To Establish A Strong Suspicion Of The Elements Necessary To Show Mr. Jackson Was Part of a Conspiracy: Innuendo, guilt by association, inflammatory and prejudicial material was presented as evidence and influenced the jury to indict.

Mere Association With The Perpetrator of a Crime Is Not Sufficient Evidence To Establish Participation In A Criminal Conspiracy: Mr. Jackson was the only alleged co-conspirator who was indicted despite the fact that, even under the prosecution’s version of facts, based on inadmissible evidence, he was the lease involved in the conspiracy of any of the alleged co-conspirators.   

The Prosecution Presented The Grand Jury With A Tremendous Amount of Inadmissible And Irrelevant Evidence: The fact that prosecutors introduced inadmissible evidence, bullied witnesses, allowed extremely prejudicial material to come in, gave short shrift to the law, vouched for their version of facts over that of sworn witnesses, and argued improper inferences, is an additional basis to set aside the indictment.

For obvious reasons, I will not reprint the entire transcript of the opening statements (or anyone’s testimony, for that matter), as it is entirely too long and too boring for a blog. I intend to use bullet points to summarize the opening statements, however. Before I start with Sneddon’s opening statement, I want to give you a quote from Judge Rodney Melville’s statement to the defense, prosecution, and jury, about the meaning of an opening statement:

An opening statement is not evidence. Because it is not evidence, do not take any notes during the opening statement. Neither is it argument. Counsel are not permitted to argue the case at this point in the proceedings. An opening statement is simply an outline by counsel of what he or she believes or expects the evidence will show in this trial. Its sole purpose is to assist you in understanding the case as it is presented to you.

Here is a basic overview of Sneddon’s opening statement, taken from journalist Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone Magazine. I don’t think he could have put it more succinctly!

The prosecution’s case therefore boils down to this: in a panic over negative publicity, Jackson conspires to kidnap a boy and force him to deny acts of molestation that in fact never happened, and then he gets over his panic just long enough to actually molest the child at the very moment when the whole world is watching.

It is a fantastic argument, a bilious exercise in circular prosecutorial logic: conspiracy to commit conspiracy, false imprisonment for the sake of it, followed by a sudden act of utter self-destructive madness. And none of it makes sense, until you actually watch Sneddon operate in court.

And here is CBS News Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen’s reaction to Sneddon’s opening statement:

If style mattered over substance, and sometimes it does in court, than the defense has the advantage after the first day of the trial. Sneddon’s opening statement was plodding and included way too many dates, names and petty details. Moreover, it meandered willy-nilly back and forth along the timeline that jurors will need to grasp if they are to convict Jackson. By the end, the monologue seemed like a book about Russian history, where all the names are so jumbled together and unfamiliar that they lose most of their meaning. That’s not a recipe for a good start to a long criminal trial.

Now, there was only so much Sneddon could do with a case that involves so many different characters, most of whom he says were acting at Jackson’s behest. But surely Sneddon could have simplified the presentation more than he did. There will be plenty of time in this case to offer details and nuance and complexity– opening statements should be a time for clarity, for themes, for sucking jurors into a compelling story that they will keep with them during the long days ahead. Sneddon obviously didn’t lose the case Monday– I’ve seen plenty of terrible opening statements precede big trial victories– but he didn’t take full advantage of his opportunity, either.

Why would Taibbi and Cohen be so hard on Sneddon? Let’s find out! I will make a bullet point summary of the opening statements, but before we get to it, I would like to prove to you the authenticity of the court transcripts that I will be using to summarize the trial:

Here is an email correspondence between myself and the official court reporter who transcribed everyone’s testimony from the trial, Michelle Mattson McNeil, RPR, CRR, CSR #3304:

Here is a sample of the  certification of the testimony that is included at the end of the transcript of each day’s testimony:


Here is an explanation what those certifications mean:

  • Certified Shorthand Reporter: This credential certifies a candidate’s written knowledge and dictation. The candidate must score at least 75% on the written knowledge portion of the test. The dictation portion of the exam requires the candidate to attain 95% accuracy for 5 minutes at 200 words per minute (wpm) of variable material and 95% accuracy for 5 minutes at 225 wpm of two-voice testimony. The candidate must also transcribe both sections of the dictation portion within a three-hour time limit.
  • Registered Professional Reporter: This credential certifies a candidate’s understanding and use of the English language, grammar and spelling, technology, medical and legal terminologies, and the ability to accurately write and translate varying types of material at high speeds. The nationally recognized RPR examination includes a three-part skills test and a Written Knowledge Test (WKT). The skills portion of the exam is a dictation test of literary matter at 180 wpm, jury charge at 200 wpm and testimony at 225 wpm. The WKT portion additionally tests those areas of knowledge needed to perform the duties of a court reporter, such as English language, relevant technology, diverse terminology, courtroom rules and procedures, transcript format, use of research materials, and professional responsibility.
  • Certified Realtime Reporter: This credential certifies a candidate’s ability to write realtime at variable speeds ranging from 180 to 200 words per minute at a minimum “first pass” accuracy rate of 96%. The CRR candidate must possess the requisite knowledge to implement the necessary technology to immediately generate and provide an electronic file of the realtime transcript.

And to verify the authenticity of the court pleadings that I will reference throughout this series, here is information about theRemote Electronic Access for Extraordinary Criminal Cases website, which was set up by the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County as way for the media and general public to be able download the official court transcripts and pleadings without bombarding the staff with requests, which would have been unprecedented due to the unusual amount of interest in the case. Judge Rodney Melville discussed the formation of this website during the Frozen In Time seminar in September 2010, and here’s an excerpt:

On another level, we sought help from the judicial counsel. There were huge numbers of motions and declarations through the pretrial hearings. It totaled thousands of pages, and the clerk’s office couldn’t possibly handle the large demand for copies of everything that was filed. So we made application to the judicial counsel to have them amend the rule to already allow access to civil cases. We wanted that changed to allow electronic access to this criminal case and other unusual criminal cases. In a highly debated session, members of the judicial council voted 9-to-9 on this rule. This required the chief justice to break the tie, and he voted to allow us to have this new electronic rule allowing unusual criminal cases to be displayed electronically. Without this rule change, we would have required at least two or three more clerks, and certainly more sophisticated copying information, or support electronics. So to this day, whenever I see the Chief Justice I think him again for breaking that tie vote!

Here is a video that describes the creation of the website. Notice at the 5:35 mark, SBC Executive Officer Gary Blair mentions how the site prevents the media from sensationalizing documents that don’t even exist, and Richard Goldman, Dean of Santa Barbara College of Law, states that the site prevents the media from running rampant with speculation. (Although they still managed to do so anyway!)

So now there should be no questions about the authenticity of the transcripts or the pleadings. Let me now take the opportunity to introduce everyone to the judge, prosecution, and defense attorneys in the Jackson trial:

Judge Rodney Melville: Here is his bio from the Superior Court of California website:

Appointed to the Municipal Court Bench by Governor George Deukmejian in 1987, Judge Melville served in that capacity for 3 years. Elevated by Governor Deukmejian in 1990 he served on the Superior Court for 17 years. Judge Melville retired as Judge for the Superior Court in 2007. During his 20 years on the bench Judge Melville experienced every type of litigation and completed three terms of service as the Court’s Presiding Judge.

    As a Superior Court Judge he had extensive experience in Criminal, Civil, Family Law and Probate matters. He was instrumental in establishing the Court’s first Substance Abuse Treatment Court. As a private attorney in the firm of Melville & Iwasko he distinguished himself as a competent and capable trial lawyer with his work in Criminal and Civil matters. During this time he became a State Certified Specialist in Family Law. Prior to moving to Santa Maria in 1971 he served as a deputy district attorney in the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office for 2 years.


Thomas Sneddon, District Attorney

Ron Zonen, Assistant District Attorney

By the way, Zonen mentioned the use of pretext phone calls in cases that he’s prosecuted, but Gavin refused to make one to Jackson in this case! Here is an excerpt from Mesereau’s closing statement on June 3rd, 2005:

16 But typically in this kind of investigation,

17 you have what is called a pretext phone call. 

18 Typically, the police will get the alleged victim, 

19 they will sit with the alleged victim, and they will 

20 talk about making a phone call to the person who’s 

21 suspected of committing the crime. And I’m sure 

22 you’re familiar with this from television. They 

23 will make the phone call. The so-called victim 

24 makes the call, and the so-called victim is told to 

25 ask certain questions that are incriminating in 

26 nature. 

27 For example, Gavin could have called Michael 

28 Jackson and said, “Why did you improperly touch me? 12935 

1 Why did you do that to me in bed? Why did you touch 

2 me that day we were together? Why, when we were in 

3 the wine cellar drinking, did you do this or do 

4 that?” And typically the police are listening in, 

5 and they’re recording it, and that becomes their 

6 primary evidence. 

7 Now, particularly in a case like this, where 

8 you have no independent witnesses, with credibility, 

9 watching the alleged molestation, and you have no 

10 forensic evidence to support it, you would think, if 

11 they did anything, it would have been a phone call 

12 like that. 

13 You know why they didn’t do it? 

14 Look at that police interview. Gavin 

15 refuses. Doesn’t want to make a call to Michael 

16 Jackson. And Gavin is someone who has been schooled 

17 by his parents to very effortlessly call 

18 celebrities, one after another, after another, after 

19 another. He’s not shy about phone calls. He’s not 

20 shy about contacting Jay Leno, Chris Tucker, Michael 

21 Jackson, Suli McCullough, you name it. 

22 Why no recorded phone conversation with an 

23 incriminating statement from Michael Jackson? 

24 Because he knew if he did that, he wouldn’t get an 

25 incriminating statement, because it didn’t happen. 

26 Now, they’ll probably tell you he was 

27 terrified, he was scared, he was traumatized to be 

28 on the phone. That’s a bunch of baloney. 12936

Gordon Auchincloss, Assistant District Attorney: Here is his bio from the Santa Barbara County website:

Gordon Auchincloss, Chief Deputy District Attorney, South County

 J. Gordon Auchincloss has been a Deputy District Attorney for the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office for twenty years. During that time, he has served as a Senior Deputy District Attorney, Acting Chief Trial Deputy and Acting Chief Assistant District Attorney. Over his career, he has successfully prosecuted over a thousand cases including murder, attempted murder, major sex crimes, major narcotics vendors and major white-collar crimes. 

Raised locally, Gordon attended high school, college and law school in Santa Barbara. He currently sits on the board of the PARC Foundation and The Santa Barbara Children’s Museum and is a longstanding volunteer for The Counsel on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Fighting Back program acting as both a mentor and a Teen Court judge. 

In July 2010, Gordon was appointed Chief Deputy District Attorney by District Attorney Joyce Dudley. In that capacity he is currently assigned to supervise vulnerable victim crimes including sex crimes and crimes involving domestic violence; financial crimes and misdemeanor operations. Gordon is also tasked with forming and supervising a new prosecution team to focus on White-Collar Crime including Major Fraud cases, Financial Elder Abuse and Cyber Crimes.

Defense Attorneys

Thomas Mesereau & Susan Yu:

Robert Sanger:

Brian Oxman (who was fired before the trial ended):

I want to take this moment to define the meaning of some very common courtroom jargon that readers will need to understand in order to comprehend what is going on in the courtroom as they read the transcripts:

Objection: An ‘objection’ is simply a kind of motion. An ‘objection’ is asking the judge to exclude evidence that the other side is seeking to offer. For example, you might object that a question calls for hearsay. Or, you might object that the information sought by the question is irrelevant. So, an ‘objection’ is asking the judge to make a ruling that an evidence that the other side seeks to offer is inadmissible.

Sustained: Sustained means that a judge has upheld an objection; so if a party objects that a question calls irrelevant information, for example, and the judge sustains the objection, then that question will not be answered and the adversary has to ask another question.

Overruled: Overruled is the opposite of sustained. This means that the judge disagrees with the objection, that it is not the thing that the objection is valid and will let either a question stand if the objection was to the answer of the question or will let the answer stand if the objection was to the answer.

Here are a list of the most common types of objections in a criminal trial.


1. “Objection, your Honor, the question is ambiguous.”

A question is ambiguous if:

It may be misunderstood by the witness. It is objectionable on the ground that it may take on more than one meaning.

2. “Objection, your Honor, the question is argumentative.”

A question is argumentative if:

It is asked for the purpose of persuading the jury or the judge, rather than to elicit information.

It calls for an argument in answer to an argument contained in the question.

It calls for no new facts, but merely asks the witness to concede to inferences drawn by the examiner from proved or assumed facts.

3. “Objection, your Honor, the question has been asked and answered.”

A question may be objectionable on the ground that the witness has already answered a substantially similar question asked by the same attorney on the same subject matter.

4. “Objections, your Honor, the question assumes facts not in evidence.”

A question assumes facts not in evidence if:

It presumes unproved facts to be true. Example: “When did you stop beating your wife?” This question assumes that the person has beaten his wife.

5. “Objection, your Honor, the question is compound.”

A question is objectionable on the ground that it is compound if:

It joins two or more questions ordinarily joined with the word “or” or the word “and.”

6. “Objection, your Honor, the question is too general.”

A question is too general, broad, or indefinite, if:

It permits the witness to respond with testimony which may be irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible. Each question should limit the witness to a specific answer on a specific subject.

7. “Objection, your Honor, the question is hearsay.”

A question is hearsay if:

It invites the witness to offer an out-of-court statement to prove the truth of some matter in court. There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule.

A question is irrelevant if:

It invites or causes the witness to give evidence not related to the facts of the case at hand.

8.”Objection, your Honor, the question is leading.”

A question is leading if:

It is one that suggests to the witness the answer the examining party desires. However, this type of question is allowed on cross-examination of a witness.

9. “Objection, your Honor, the question mis-states the evidence.”

A question misstates the evidence if:

It misstates or misquotes the testimony of a witness or any other evidence produced at a hearing or at a trial.

10. “Objection, your Honor, the question calls for a narrative answer.”

A question calls for a “narrative answer” if:

It invites the witness to narrate a series of occurrences, which may produce irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible testimony.

Question and Answer interrogation is the standard format. It allows opposing counsel to object to improper questions.

11. “Objection, your Honor, the question calls for speculation.” 

A question is speculative if:

It invites or causes the witness to speculate or answer on the basis of conjecture.

Now, here is my summary of Sneddon’s opening statement:

1. In the year 2000, Gavin Arvizo was a young cancer victim who was knocking on death’s door.  During his fight with cancer, Gavin and his family were introduced to comedian Jamie Masada, the owner of The Laugh Factory in Los Angeles. Masada sponsored camps each summer for underprivileged children, and grew fond of the Arvizo family due to Gavin’s sickness, and vowed to do anything he could to help. So Masada arranged for Gavin to meet Jackson via the Make A Wish foundation.

2. After several months of talking to Gavin on the phone, Jackson invited the entire family to Neverland in August 2000.  On the last night of their stay, Sneddon alleges that Jackson asked Gavin to ask his parents for permission to sleep in his bedroom, and they said yes. That night, Sneddon alleges that Jackson and Frank Cascio showed pornographic material to Gavin and Star Arvizo on a laptop computer.

3. The Arvizo’s went to Neverland a few more times in 2000, but Jackson was not there. They didn’t go to Neverland at all during 2001. In the fall of 2002, Jackson invited them back to Neverland so that he could include them in his documentary with Martin Bashir. He wanted Gavin to explain to the world how much Jackson helped him during his time of need. Gavin came to the ranch, shot that scene, and went home the next morning, and there was no additional contact between Jackson and the Arvizos until just before the documentary aired.

4. Jackson and his inner circle received an advance copy of the final transcript of the Bashir documentary and realized that it would make him look like a child abuser, so (according to Sneddon) he reached out to the Arvizos and invited them to join him in Florida so that they could schedule a press conference with the media to deny the allegations of abuse that were insinuated from the documentary. The Arvizo family flew to Miami with Chris Tucker on his chartered jet on February 5th, 2003, the day before the documentary aired in the United States.

5. According to Sneddon, Jackson had five people in his inner circle that conspired to force the Arvizos into shooting a rebuttal video to deny any abuse, and to fly them to Brazil to escape the media attention. These five people were Frank Cascio, Ronald Konitzer, Marc Schaffel, Dieter Wiesner, and Vincent Amen.

6. On February 7th, Jackson, his children and their nannies, the Arvizos, Dr. Al-Farschian, the younger brother and sister of Frank Cascio, and others flew on a chartered plane back to Neverland. According to Sneddon, the Arvizos consumed alcohol on the flight, and Jackson caressed Gavin Arvizo’s face and licked his forehead as he slept next to him. Once they landed, the family was taken straight to Neverland.

7. During this time period, with multiple news networks airing hit pieces on Jackson (which Helena discussed in this post), and trying to get him to grant them an interview, and Schaffel was trying to put together a rebuttal to Bashir’s documentary called “The Footage You Were Never Meant To See” (which can be viewed side by side with Bashir’s documentary on this website). According to Sneddon, Schaffel told Janet that “the killers” were out to get her and her family, and that they needed to cooperate with Jackson and do the rebuttal video by reading a script that they were provided.

8. On February 12th, 2003, Janet asks Jesus Salas to take her and her family from the ranch, and he takes them to the residence of Janet’s parent’s, and then to the apartment of Jay Jackson (Janet’s then fiancé.) According to Sneddon, there were over 40 phone calls made to Janet by Frank Cascio to get her to come back to Neverland, and in these calls he promises Janet that neither Dieter Weizner or Ronald Konitzer will be there. He also told her that a trip to Brazil was in the works, and Jackson would meet the family there. Janet agreed to return to Neverland on February 17th, 2003, but left by herself and was driven back home by Chris Carter when she discovered that Weizner and Konitzer were there at the ranch.

9.  The principal of the middle school that the Arvizos attended contacted the Los Angeles Department of Child and Family Services and lodged a complaint, and asked them to look into allegations that Jackson abused Gavin, and to see if Janet is an unfit mother. They contacted Janet and scheduled an interview with the family for February 20th, 2003. According to Sneddon, Frank Cascio gave Janet an ultimatum: either she agreed to film the rebuttal video, or she would not have access to her children. So Janet agreed to film it, and it was filmed and completed on February 20th, 2003.

10. According to Sneddon, the Arvizo children were all taken back to Neverland as soon as their interview with the DCFS was over (on February 20th), and Vincent Amen took Janet Arvizo to get duplicates made of the Arvizo family’s birth certificates in order to get expedited passports for their trip to Brazil.

11. On February 25th, 2003 the Arvizo family was taken from Neverland to the Calabasas Inn, and Amen and Tyson stayed with them in order to keep a watchful eye over them and make sure that they did not escape before their trip to Brazil. The family stayed there until March 2nd, 2003.

12. During that time, according to Sneddon, Amen checks out Gavin and Star Arvizo from school, and puts on the checkout form that the family is moving to Arizona. The family’s possessions are put into storage, and Amen paid two months’ rent in order to keep the family from losing their apartment.

13. According to Sneddon, the period of March 2nd to March 12th (the last day that the Arvizo family was at the ranch) is when Jackson started to abuse Gavin.

14. During this time, Jackson allegedly masturbated Gavin twice in his bedroom as Gavin laid on his bed, passed out from intoxication, and these two acts were witnessed by Star (who also allegedly witnessed numerous empty bottles of wine).  There were two other occasions when Jackson allegedly masturbated Gavin without any witnesses present. On another occasion, as the brothers were lying in Jackson’s bed watching TV, Jackson allegedly entered the room wearing no clothes, and with an erection, and asked them to take off of their clothes, but they ran downstairs. On another occasion, Jackson allegedly told Gavin that he should masturbate because if he doesn’t, he may “go crazy and go out and rape a woman”.

15. On March 9th, 2003 Gavin allegedly told Jackson that he was worried that the alcohol that Jackson plied him with would be detected during his urine test, which was scheduled to be performed by doctors on March 10th in order to see if his kidney was functioning properly. Gavin allegedly confessed to his mother Janet that Jackson plied him with alcohol, and she was so upset that she allegedly sent Davallin to get her brothers from Jackson’s room, but to no avail.

16. The next day (March 10th), according to Sneddon, Amen took Gavin and Janet to Kaiser Hospital, and on the way there Amen claims that the bottle of urine spilled open, and most of the contents were lost, but Janet didn’t believe it at all, and thought that it was an attempt to prevent the alcohol in the urine from being detected by doctors.

17. According to Sneddon, Janet became so upset that she decided to finally leave Neverland once and for all, so she had Amen drive her to a beauty parlor that was located close to where her fiancé Jay Jackson was stationed. She called him and asked him to come down and take her home, and he did. But Gavin wanted to stay at the ranch, so he was brought back.

18. On March 11th, 2003 Janet Arvizo had to go to court for a divorce hearing, and she called Frank Tyson and told him that her kids needed to be with her in court, and he promised her they would be there, but instead he shows up alone. Out of frustration, Janet promises Frank that she and the family will agree to go to Brazil, but first they must visit her sick father at his apartment. The children are told to pack their bags, and they are brought from Neverland to their grandparent’s home (ironically, they did not want to leave Neverland).

19. Janet contacted attorney Bill Dickerman to help her get her furniture from out of storage, and to get the “Living With Michael Jackson” documentary pulled from the air due to its inclusion of Gavin without her consent.  Dickerman referred the Arvizos to attorney Larry Feldman, due to his prior litigation against Jackson in 1993. Feldman referred Gavin and Star to psychologist Stan Katz, to whom they first disclosed their abuse, and Katz notified the authorities, which commenced the investigation and subsequent arrest and indictment of Jackson.

That was my summary of Sneddon’s opening statement; now here is Sneddon’s summary of the case from the PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S PRIOR SEXUAL OFFENSES, which was filed on December 10th, 2004 (pay attention to the dates that Sneddon claimed the Arvizo family left Neverland for the last time):

Statement Of The Current Case

Gavin Avizo met the defendant in 2001. He was 11 years old and was being treated for cancer. At the height of his illness he was not expected to live. Gavin and his younger brother, Star had previously attended a comedy camp at the Laugh Factory, a comedy theater in Los Angeles. The owner, Jaime Masada, introduced Gavin to a number of celebrities in an effort to boost his spirits and encourage his recovery. One of the celebrities Gavin asked to meet was Michael Jackson. Masada arranged the introduction.

Jackson called Gavin at the hospital and had a lengthy conversation with him followed by many more phone conversations. That resulted in an invitation to visit him at Neverland, Jackson’s 2800 acre ranch in Santa Ynez. The first visit was with the entire family, Gavin’s mother Janet, his father, David, his sister Davellin, and his brother Star. As early as the first visit Gavin and Star stayed in Jackson’s room in the main residence while his parents and sister stayed in the guest cottages away from the house. On that first visit Jackson gave Gavin a lap top computer. He then showed Gavin and Star how to access pornography on the Internet.

Gavin returned to Neverland many times thereafter, usually with his father, sister and brother. If Jackson was there the boys stayed with him in his room, usually in his bed. Jackson gave Gavin a sport utility vehicle. Although Gavin’s father drove it, the vehicle was a gift to Gavin. After the car broke down it was returned to Jackson. By age 12 Gavin was recovering from his cancer. These visits to Neverland began tapering off. By age 13 the boy lost contact with Jackson and had stopped visiting. Then in the spring of 2002 Gavin and Star were invited to return to Neverland by Chris Tucker, a celebrity previously introduced to the boys by Masada. Tucker took the boys back to Neverland to celebrate his son’s first year birthday.

Later in the fall of 2002 Michael Jackson called and invited the kids back. Gavin, Star and Davellin returned to Neverland for a visit. They were introduced to a man named Martin Bashir. Although the boys did not know it, Bashir was a journalist working on a documentary on Michael Jackson. Gavin had previously told Jackson he was interested in being an actor. Jackson asked Gavin to agree to be interviewed by Bashir, telling him it would be like an audition.

In February 2003 the Bashir documentary “Living with Michael Jackson” aired in England. It was highly critical of Jackson’s lifestyle and revealed his custom of sleeping with children not his own. Gavin was featured seated next to Jackson, holding his hand and leaning his head on Jackson’s shoulder. He was identified by his true first name.

Soon after “Living with Michael Jackson” aired in England, Gavin received a call from Jackson. Jackson asked that he come with him to Miami to appear in a press conference which hopefully would stem some of the negative publicity. Gavin said he would do so but only if his siblings and his mother came with him. Jackson objected to Gavin’s mother coming along, but he ultimately agreed.

Gavin, his sister, brother and mother were flown to Miami with Chris Tucker in a private jet. Gavin’s father, David, was no longer part of the picture. After years of abusing Janet, he was restrained by court order from seeing his wife or children. Jackson was well aware of the strife in the Arvizo family.

In Miami the family stayed at the Turnberry Resort hotel with many members of Jackson’s entourage. While Gavin and his family were in Miami “Living with Michael Jackson” aired in the United States. Jackson forbade any of the people with him in his suite, including the Arvizo family, to watch the program.

There was no press conference, and the Arvizo family returned to California and to Neverland Ranch two days later.

Mrs. Arvizo was informed by one of Jackson’s employees that she and her children had to move to Brazil for their own safety. From the time of their return to Neverland on February 7, 2003 to the time of their ultimate escape from the ranch on March 10th, the Arvizo children stayed exclusively at Neverland, except for a couple of days in Los Angeles and a few days in Calabasas in the company of Jackson’s employees, preparing for the Arvizos’ departure to Brazil. Jackson took them to “Toys R Us” in Santa Maria and treated them to a shopping spree. While in Calabasas they all purchased new clothes, presumably for their trip to Brazil. When Jackson was present at the ranch the boys stayed with him in his bedroom. Otherwise they stayed in the guest cottage. Davellin and her mother always stayed in one of the ranch’s guest cottages. Increasingly, Janet lost contact with her sons. She stayed in the guest cottage most of the day and had little interaction with the boys. Even Davellin started to lose contact with them. She did not go in Jackson’s bedroom and felt her connection with her brothers weakening.

The boys did not attend school, had no homework to do, and were given no responsibilities. They spent their days enjoying the many games, rides and race cars at Neverland. At night they retired to Jackson’s room. Jackson had nicknames for the boys, like ‘Rubba,” “Dodohead” or “Applehead.” When Jackson was there he drank heavily and encouraged the boys to do so as well. On one occasion he presented himself to the boys naked and assured them it was a natural thing. He asked them about masturbation and whether they did it. He simulated a sex act with a mannequin of a female child he had in his room. He told them a story of how a boy once had sex with a dog because he did not masturbate. He told them he had to do it or he would go crazy. When Gavin told him he did not do it, Jackson became offended, told him he was lying and that Gavin did not trust him. Jackson offered to teach him how to do it.

Although Gavin was drinking regularly when Jackson was there, he has a clear recollection of at least two incidents of being in Jackson’s bed and Jackson masturbating him with one hand inserted in his underwear while masturbating himself with his other hand. Gavin said there may have been other events but he was too intoxicated to be certain.

Gavin’s brother Star witnessed two separate acts of Jackson molesting Gavin, which caused Star to stop sleeping in Jackson’s bedroom. On both occasions Star came into Jackson’s bedroom late in the evening to go to sleep. Jackson’s bed was located in the upstairs portion of his bedroom suite. To get there, Star had to open the door affording access to the downstairs portion of the bedroom suite by entering the combination on the keypad for the door’s lock. Star could then walk up the stairs to the bedroom itself. As he was climbing the stairs and neared the top, Star reached the level where he could see Jackson’s bed through the railing that separated the stairwell from the bedroom area. He saw his brother Gavin and Jackson in the bed, lying side by side. On both occasions it appeared to Star that Gavin was asleep or unconscious and that Jackson was masturbating Gavin and himself.

On each occasion, Star turned before reaching the top of the stairs, left and went to the guest cottage to sleep. Star did not sleep in Jackson’s bedroom thereafter.

Janet had to use subterfuge to finally get her children away from Neveriand. She had her parents call and tell the kids they (the children’s grandparents) were ill and wanted to see them. Janet negotiated with one of Jackson’s men for a day visit by the children with their grandparents, and the kids were delivered to her parents’ home in El Monte. The children did not want to leave Neverland. Gavin, in particular, was upset at learning he would not be allowed to return.

After leaving Neverland on March 11, 2003, Janet and her parents in El Monte received numerous phone calls from Jackson’s employees encouraging Janet and the children to return to Neverland. They did not do so. Jackson’s employees had emptied her apartment and moved all of the family’s possessions into storage and refused to tell Janet where. Janet contacted a lawyer in an attempt to get her property returned. Janet also asked attorney Bill Dickerman to attempt to stop the airing of “Living with Michael Jackson,” because she had been given no prior knowledge of her son’s involvement in the production of the documentary, and because the airing of the program was exposing her children to public ridicule. She knew nothing of her child being molested at the time.

Dickerman referred them to Attorney Larry Feldman who had previously sued Michael Jackson for molesting another 13-year-old boy, Jordan Chandler, ten years earlier. Attorney Feldman immediately referred the boys to psychologist Stan Katz. It was to Dr. Katz that the boys first disclosed the sexual abuse. That commenced a lengthy and extensive investigation resulting in the indictment of Michael Jackson.

Before I continue, I want to show you an obvious discrepancy in Sneddon’s timeline, and this is the first of many that you will see throughout this trial. In Sneddon’s motion from December 2004, he stated that the date of the Arvizo’s “escape” from Neverland was March 10th, 2003, and later stated that it was March 11th, 2003! But in his opening statement, he said they left Neverland for the last time on March 12th, 2003!

24 I believe that the records from the ranch

25 logs and the testimony from individuals involved

26 here will show that from basically March the 2nd to

27 March the 5th, that the defendant and the Arvizos

28 were on the ranch together. That again, from March 115

1 9th until March 12th, when the Arvizos left for the

2 last time, that the Jackson — Michael Jackson, the

3 defendant in this case, was present.


I also want to point out two things that literally jumped out at me as I read Sneddon’s Opening Statement: first, he admitted that Neverland was a beautiful place that Jackson has used to bring happiness to underprivileged and sick children! So if Sneddon himself doesn’t doubt that Jackson truly cared for children, nobody else should!

1 THE COURT: Mr. Sneddon. Go ahead.

2 MR. SNEDDON: Thank you, Your Honor.

3 Ladies and gentlemen, the scene for most of

4 the events that occur in this particular case is

5 going to be the defendant’s home, Neverland Valley

6 Ranch. And I think you’ll get a very good feel for

7 the ranch through videos that are going to be shown

8 probably by both sides, as well as snippets of tape

9 and footage that is shown in the Martin Bashir

10 documentary.

11 But for just a moment, since probably most

12 or none of you have an idea of what the ranch is

13 like, I want to take you on a little visual tour of

14 what it is.

15 And I want to say, first and foremost, that

16 the ranch is something that is a beautiful thing.

17 And it’s been used for beautiful causes. For the

18 children, the underprivileged children, for the

19 children who have been suffering, who have been

20 brought there to share a day or a weekend on the

21 ranch. It’s something very good.

22 But just like so many things in life,

23 something very good can end up being, on another

24 occasion, in another setting, something very bad.

25 And several of the witnesses in this case

26 are going to tell you that some of the young

27 visitors at the ranch, that stay on and that visit

28 with Mr. Jackson, and who are there on a prolonged 45

1 basis, begin to change because of the personality of

2 the ranch.

Second, Sneddon also admitted that Martin Bashir tricked Jackson into trusting him to portray him in a positive light with that documentary. So if Sneddon himself didn’t doubt Bashir’s treachery, then nobody else should!

20 Marc Schaffel, through his contacts in the

21 media, had received an advanced copy of the

22 transcript of the Bashir documentary. And he

23 immediately contacted Ronald Konitzer. And they

24 immediately contacted Michael Jackson. And it was

25 apparent to anybody who saw it that even though the

26 video starts out in a very favorable way to the

27 defendant, that the totality of the video was

28 clearly not what the defendant anticipated, what he 71

1 expected, but it was clearly a boomerang on a

2 comeback attempt, and they saw it as a public

3 relations disaster.

4 The entire video was broadcast in England

5 for the first time on February the 3rd of 2003 to 17

6 million people in Europe on a show called “Trevor

7 McDonald.”

8 As I said, Bashir was less than

9 complimentary, and he expressed open disbelief and

10 concern about Jackson’s admissions and his behavior

11 with children, both his and others.

12 So there will be no argument about the fact

13 that somehow Bashir had tricked the defendant into

14 going into this topic or somehow misled him down a

15 path.

Now that we’ve heard Sneddon’s opening statement, I want to show you what Jackson’s confession would look like if he would have written one. This is designed to be a parody of what it would look like, but it’s based completely on the prosecution’s case! This parody appeared originally on the website (the author’s own commentary appears in red):

I’ve often criticized the media for lacking objectivity when dealing with the allegations against Michael Jackson. It suddenly occurred to me that I was being completely hypocritical. How unfair of me to assume that he is innocent just because the father of his first accuser admittedly plied his son with a memory altering drug and was caught on tape discussing a plan to destroy Michael Jackson. I now see the error of my ways and have decided to entertain the notion that Michael Jackson might be guilty. I’ve taken on the role of the accused and looked at this from the perspective of a guilty man. Here’s what I came up with:

Hi, I’m Michael Jackson, the most selective pedophile in the world. While most child molesters have hundreds of victims, I have a one boy every ten year average. The thing is, I’m only attracted to kids who have greedy, lawsuit-happy parents. Remember back in 1993? Let me refresh your memory.

Evan Chandler, the father of my first victim, demanded $20 million in return for his silence. I had every intention of paying him off eventually but I decided to let him turn me in first. I figured it would be fun to be publicly humiliated, strip searched, investigated by the police and all that other great stuff that comes along with being accused of sexual abuse. There was that little problem of going to jail but luckily for me, I came up with this brilliant plan to pay the boy not to testify (gee, what a concept! I wish I’d thought of this when Evan Chandler first tried to blackmail me). It seems, however, that there’s a typo in the settlement document because apparently it says that the boy and his family could have still testified against me in a criminal trial… WHOOPS!

Even though my stupid lawyers messed up my witness tampering plan, I still got off because the kid didn’t want to testify against me in the criminal trial. Neither did his parents; it seems that once they got their paycheck, the Chandlers no longer felt it was necessary to get justice for their poor molested son. Talk about good luck, huh? The first boy I decided to molest just happened to have parents who were willing to prostitute their kid. Evan even asked a judge to allow him to release an album of songs about the abuse. Cool, huh? That Evan Chandler is a great guy.

For the next ten years I went cold turkey. That all changed after a little documentary called “Living with Michael Jackson” aired. I knew the kid who was shown on the documentary for almost two years and never touched him until after I paraded him around on national television and talked about our innocent, non-sexual sleepovers. Then everybody started saying that something sexual was going on and I thought, “Hey that’s not a bad idea. But shit, he’ll probably turn me in if I molest him so lemme hire a lawyer first.” Then I called Mark Geragos and asked him to defend me in a crime that I hadn’t committed yet!

Once I had the right legal representation, everything was set. The family and I were still on friendly terms at this point but I kidnapped them all, stole their furniture and forced them to say nice things about me on camera. Why did I go to all that trouble? Well, I wanted to improve my image after the Martin Bashir documentary aired (don’t ask how the furniture fits into all of this). For some reason, however, I didn’t include the footage of the family in my rebuttal video to Bashir’s documentary… kinda defeats the purpose of my kidnapping scheme, huh? After getting their statements on tape, I then molested the boy even though the whole point of the conspiracy was to convince the world that I wasn’t a child molester. Wrap your head around that one.

Now you’re probably thinking I’m a total asshole at this point but I swear, I wasn’t that bad to the family. I bought them gifts, gave them my credit cards, allowed them to go on shopping sprees, let them visit their civil lawyers – how many other child molesting kidnappers extend such privileges to their victims? Shit, I even let the mother phone a friend and everything. From what I hear she actually told her friend – let’s call him Jamie Masada – that I was holding her against her will. Hey, don’t look at me. It’s not my fault that the idiot didn’t bother contacting the police!

Anyway, things were going according to my plan until I found out the Department of Children and Family Services and the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department were going to launch an investigation. Luckily, my entire staff knew about what was going on, accompanied the kid to his interview and intimidated him into saying nothing was wrong. For some reason, the DCFS and the SBCSD didn’t pick up on the fact that the family was being held hostage. Strange huh? Oh well, in the words of my man Tom Sneddon, “it’s LA, what do you expect?” Wait a minute… his department investigated too. Ah, whatever, either way I was cleared of any wrongdoing. Although it was a close call, I decided to molest the kid after being investigated by authorities. Makes sense, right?

My plan hit another glitch when the family escaped from Neverland. For whatever reason, they didn’t go to the police after their great escape (phew!) and I was even able to talk them into coming back. I then came up with a cunning plan to ship them off to Brazil to prevent them from speaking with authorities once I was finished molesting the boy… you know, because there is no way of contacting the Santa Barbara Police Department all the way from Brazil.

There was still the possibility, however, that the family might come across a telephone or a computer in Brazil (a bit far-fetched, I know) so I got Geragos to force the whole family into signing more documents that say I didn’t do anything wrong. So basically, my entire staff, Mark Geragos, the DCFS, the SBCSD and all of my friends and family members who visited the ranch during that time period are also to blame. This was a mass conspiracy that was designed just so I could molest this poor boy and steal his mother’s furniture.

Yep, the prosecution’s case makes perfect sense…

NOTE: While this page is supposed to be satirical, the above scenario is solely based on information that has come from the prosecution’s side. Seriously.

Here is my summary of Tom Mesereau’s Opening Statement:

1. Janet Arvizo tried to scam Jay Leno by having Gavin call him and ask for money, and Leno told police that he heard Janet in the background coaching Gavin, and felt uncomfortable and ended the call.

2. The Arvizos accused comedian George Lopez of stealing $300 dollars from them, which Lopez strongly denied, and it lead to a permanent falling out between him and the family.

3. They tried to get actress Vernee Watson (who played Will Smith’s mother on “The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air” sitcom) to let them move in with her and loan them money, but she refused.

4. Louise Palanker loaned the Arvizo family $20,000 dollars to renovate Gavin’s room to accommodate his illness and make it habitable, but they didn’t pay the builder who redid his room and instead bought expensive electronics.

5. The Arvizos tried to reach out to heavyweight boxer Mike Tyson, comedians Adam Sandler and Jim Carrey, and local Los Angeles weatherman Fritz Coleman.

6. In 1998, Janet sued JC Penney and accused their security guards of battery, false imprisonment, and infliction of emotional distress. In 1999, she amended her lawsuit to claim that she was also sexually assaulted, her nipple was squeezed 10 to 20 times, and was molested in her vaginal area. Her ex-husband David Arvizo said that Janet coached her kids into lying, and Mary Holzer, a paralegal, said that Janet told her that she had lied about the JC Penney case, but Holzer never came forward because she had been threatened by Janet.

7.  In October 2001, Janet filed for welfare despite having received a settlement of $152,000 dollars from JC Penney.

8. In November 2001, Janet told the LAPD that David Arvizo had molested their daughter Davellin 12 years earlier, and had falsely imprisoned them and made terrorist threats. During this time, she also told police that Jackson, NBA star Kobe Bryant, and weatherman Fritz Coleman would each help her sue her ex-husband. So that makes three different people who Janet accused of falsely imprisoning her (JC Penney guards, David Arvizo, and Michael Jackson. This is a symptom of paranoid schizophrenia, which Janet was diagnosed with by a psychiatrist during her JC Penney lawsuit litigation. )

9. Despite Gavin being fully insured under David Arvizo’s medical insurance plan, Janet approached the Mid Valley News newspaper and asked them to put an ad in their paper to solicit donations from readers, and had the money deposited into a bank account that was in Gavin’s name, but she was the signatory and able to withdraw money. Employees from the newspaper also went to her apartment on Thanksgiving Day and offered her a turkey, but she was upset because she wanted money instead.

10. The Arvizos first visited Neverland on August 27th, 2000. In October 2000, Janet had Gavin tell Jackson that she was without transportation, so Jackson gave them an SUV, but Janet didn’t want her name on the registration because she never disclosed it on her welfare applications and other requests for public assistance, including disability.

11. In October 2001, Janet began to receive $104 dollars per week in disability, but didn’t disclose her JC Penney settlement on her application, but a week later she bought a new car for $23,000 dollars and also applied for welfare and food stamps. And when she filed for welfare and food stamps, she did not report her disability income, either!

12. Here is a list of items that the Arvizo family bought and charged to Jackson’s credit cards during their “imprisonment” at Neverland:

A.) February 11th, 2003: Full leg wax at bare Skin Salon for $50 dollars, lip wax and bikini wax at Aromatherapy Day Spa for $140 dollars.

B.) February 21st, 2003:  Hair Products at Lisa’s Beauty for $28.91, bras and Jockey bikinis at Robinson-May for $92.24.

C.) February 25th, 2003:  clothes at Anchor Blue for $448.04, and clothes at Robinson’s-May for $115.83, and cosmetics at Lisa’s Beauty for $34.29.

D.) February 26th, 2003:  clothes at Pacific Sunware for $26.80, clothes at Jockey for $454.64, clothes at Banana Republic for $416.18, clothes at The Gap for $64.32, clothes at Levi’s Outlet Store for $436.77, clothes at Abercrombie & Fitch for $74.69, clothes at Robinson’s-May for $88.06 and $160.58, and shoes at Foot Locker for $91.44. 

E.) February 27th, 2003: daywear treatment for $129.36, cosmetic and facial soap for $30.85, slippers for $28.12, all at Robinson’s-May, feminine hygiene products and other items at Rite-Aid for $62.09, various items at Anchor Blue for $92.01, a haircut for Gavin for $20 dollars, a manicure and pedicure for Janet for $51 dollars.

F.) May 3rd, 2003:  clothing at Anchor Blue for $29.23, and cosmetics at Robinson’s-May for $71.86.

G.) March 10th, 2003: another manicure and pedicure at Lovely Nails for $115 dollars. The grand total of all of their purchases was $3,312.05.

13. After the Bashir documentary aired, Janet wanted to get distribution rights, and her then fiancé Jay Jackson wanted millions of dollars in lieu of a new house and the cost of Gavin, Star, and Davellin’s college tuitions completely paid by Jackson! Here is his exact quote: “Michael Jackson can give us a house. Michael Jackson can pay for college. Michael Jackson can pay for benefits. That’s not enough. We want big money.”

14. Bashir decided to use Jackson’s love for Princess Diana to get him to agree to do the documentary. He used Uri Gellar as an intermediary between he and Jackson, and told Gellar about he could help bring to fruition Jackson’s plans to establish an International Children’s Day, and his plans to meet the Secretary General of the UN Kofi Annan in order to help fight AIDS in Africa. When Gellar arranged a meeting between the two, Bashir showed Jackson a crumpled up letter purportedly from Princess Diana, in which she “praised” him for his 1995 interview with her. Jackson believed Bashir and agreed to do the documentary, but with some conditions: his children’s faces would not be shown on camera, he would get a chance to edit and review the documentary before it aired (which ultimately never happened), and all profits would go to charity. (Uri Gellar wanted a percentage of the net proceeds, but he worked it out with Bashir and didn’t involve Jackson.) You can read this post for more information about how Bashir tricked Jackson into doing the documentary.

15. After the documentary aired, Gavin and his family denied any wrongdoing on Jackson’s part numerous times to authorities (such as the DCFS), private investigators (such as Brad Miller, an employee of Mark Geragos), and to the world in the rebuttal tape that they shot (but was never aired). The Arvizo family never called police to complain about being forced to do the rebuttal tape, or to stay at Neverland. Janet was in contact with several police officers that she associated with from previous years, and she was also in contact with her then-fiancé Jay Jackson, and never complained about being kidnapped and held against her will.

16. In the weeks after the documentary aired, while the Arvizo kids were at Neverland, their behavior changed drastically; they were rude to employees, they memorized the codes to the Ferris Wheel and used it without permission, they threw rocks at Jackson’s animals, they broke into Jackson’s wine cellar and drunk alcohol on their own volition, and they found some of MJ’s pornographic magazines and looked through them.

17. Jackson wasn’t at or even near Neverland during most of the dates that the alleged crimes were committed. From February 20th to March 12th, 2003, Jackson was only at Neverland approximately four times.

18. Janet Arvizo was very excited about the prospect of travelling to Brazil to meet Jackson, until she realized that Jackson’s inner circle were trying to profit off of him and keep her from what she thought was her rightful percentage of the revenues of the rebuttal video. It was Marc Schaffel’s idea for the Arvizo family to go to Brazil because he travelled there, often due to his business contacts and production facilities there. He went there anyway, even after the Janet declined his invitation.

19. On February 8th, 2003, 60 Minutes journalist Ed Bradley and the President of CBS Entertainment Jack Sussman arrived at Neverland with a film crew in order to shoot an interview with Jackson about his reaction to the Bashir documentary. Mark Geragos was present at Neverland as well, because he had the full intention of participating in the planned interview with 60 Minutes. But the interview is cancelled when MJ discovers that Jordan Chandler’s declaration (AND NOT A DEPOSITION! Read this post for more details.) from 1993 has leaked unto the internet, and as a result Jackson was too devastated to go through with the interview. During his time at Neverland, Ed Bradley spoke with the Arvizo family, and they offered nothing but praise to Jackson, so it was extremely puzzling to Bradley that they would later go on to accuse Jackson. He spoke about his interactions with them in this 2004 interview with Larry King:

20. On February 13th, 2003 Frank Cascio records a phone conversation that he had with Janet Arvizo, and in that conversation she says the following: “Yeah, it’s like we’re family, you know, Frank.”, “I love you so much. You don’t know how much I love you. Your little sister and your little brother.”, and “I know we’re family, Frank. Me — you, me, my kids, are family. You, Marie Nicole, my kids, Baby Rubba, are family. Michael, Marie Nicole, you, me, are family, and my parents, that’s all I got.” She also grabbed MJ’s hand and her children’s hands, and asked them to kneel down with her and pray with “Daddy Michael”, which made Jackson incredibly nervous and upset.

21. On February 16th, 2003 Janet Arvizo was interviewed by Brad Miller, a licensed California private investigator who was employed by Mark Geragos. He hired him to investigate the background of the Arvizos because he was concerned about them possibly having a litigious history (which they did!), and possibly making false claims against MJ. He tape records his interview with her, and during this interview Janet praised Jackson for being so kind to her family during their time of need, and she described the abuse she endured at the hands of her ex-husband David for many years, among other things. She made no complaints whatsoever of being fearful for her life, or feeling trapped at Neverland and held against her will. Gavin told Miller that he and his brother slept on MJ’s bed while MJ slept on the floor, and nothing inappropriate ever happened.

22. On February 20th, 2003 the Arvizo family shot the rebuttal video willingly and happily. Included in the video were such statements as: “Daddy Michael rescued us. Took us into his fold, became the surrogate father.” & “God’s grace as God works through people, so does the devil. But God elected to work in Michael to breathe life into Gavin and to my two other children, and to me a much necessary love in a very traumatic time in our life.

23. After shooting the rebuttal video and completing her interviews with the DCFS on February 20th, 2003 Janet contacted attorney William Dickerman, who then contacted Mark Geragos in an effort to get Janet’s furniture returned to her. Janet had originally asked that her property be put in storage, that her back rent be paid, and she and her daughter Davellin complained about wanting to move into a “nicer place in the Hollywood Hills”. Jay Jackson complained that he wanted millions of dollars for the Arvizo’s cooperation in the rebuttal video, and he said that a free college education for each of the children wasn’t enough. Dickerman wrote numerous letters to Geragos, and never once mentioned any alleged abuse by Jackson. In late March 2003, Janet (while out running errands) runs into one of the DCFS social workers who interviewed her, and still didn’t complain of any alleged abuse, and on April 16th, 2003 the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department closes their investigation of MJ and conclude that no criminal activity has taken place.

24. After departing from Neverland for the last time, Janet told one of her associates in the LAPD that “Something big is happening, and I got a lawyer.” After the police began their investigation in June 2003, Janet told repeatedly them “I need money, I want money.” and “You know, my kids have till the age of 18 to file civil suits.” On May 15th, 2003, Larry Feldman met with the Arvizo family, and referred them to psychologist Stanley Katz, and on May 29th Gavin disclosed the alleged abuse for the first time. Katz notifies Feldman and Dickerman on June 5th, 2003, and instead of going straight to the police with their claims, they notify the DCFS on June 13th, and their investigation begins. Also, while having lunch with talk show host Larry King, attorney Larry Feldman told King that Janet Arvizo “wants money”. (Mesereau didn’t mention the date of this meeting, but I believe it was in 2004.)

25. The prosecution changed the dates of the alleged abuse in between the filing of the Initial Complaint in December 2003 and the Grand Jury Indictment in April 2004 (this was discussed above.) The prosecution originally stated that Gavin originally claimed to have first been abused by Jackson BEFORE the shooting of the rebuttal video and interview with the DCFS on February 20th, but then they stated that Gavin claimed to be abused AFTER the shooting of the rebuttal video and interview with the DCFS.

26. The sheriff’s department searched Jackson’s bedrooms for DNA evidence belonging to the Arvizo children, but none of their DNA was found. (Read this post, this post, and this post for more information on the DNA evidence that was found at Neverland.)

27. On a side note, Mesereau mentioned the fact that Jackson’s attorney David LeGrand tried to investigate certain people in Jackson’s inner circle (Schaffel, Konitzer, and Wiesner) for fraud and embezzlement, but he was terminated before the investigation was complete. Here is an excerpt from his opening statement:

13 MR. MESEREAU: He didn’t. This is what

14 Dieter and Konitzer were planning to do with regard

15 to Mr. Jackson: Now, as for his involvement,

16 referring to Michael Jackson, Michael is an

17 entertainer and not a businessman. He does not like

18 business. He does not care about any formalities,

19 proper procedures, detailed briefings, et cetera.

20 Any one of those elements kills his creative energy.

21 He wants to stay out of that. That is the reason

22 why he gave us an extensive power of attorney.

23 Do you know what a power of attorney is,

24 ladies and gentlemen. I’m sure some of you do.

25 Maybe you all do. It’s giving away to somebody an

26 ability to sign for your affairs and represent you

27 in signing things and doing things from a legal

28 point of view. It’s a very serious act when you 190

1 give someone a power of attorney. But they got one

2 out of Michael.

3 They said further, “His intention was

4 definitely not being bothered with signatures here

5 and there, every other day, and with personal

6 meetings with each and every member of the team. We

7 realized that some might feel insulted, but it’s not

8 personal. Signatures and meetings with Michael

9 will, in general, not happen. Only in very special

10 cases, exceptions will be made.”

11 We will prove to you that these so-called

12 business advisors made a concerted effort to keep

13 Michael Jackson away from a lot of what they were

14 trying to do on his behalf and to control his

15 affairs, particularly the music business.

16 On January 11th, 2003, this is what one of

17 them wrote: “Yes, I and Mr. Weizner, whom you met

18 in Las Vegas, are authorized to engage you. We

19 shall gain control of financial affairs, records,

20 documents, agreements, and also operations, anything

21 else belonging to Michael Jackson in their

22 possession or control.”

23 They identified two phases of activity they

24 were going to pursue: One, take-over. Two, cleanup

25 operation, clean up old business. And they said

26 they were going to create what they called “The

27 Michael Jackson Universe.” This was their business

28 proposal for managing and controlling all of Michael 191

1 Jackson’s business, while he spent his time creating

2 and writing and choreographing and the things he

3 loves to do.

4 We will prove to you that, unlike what you

5 were told, he didn’t know a lot of things they were

6 doing, because they intended that he not know what

7 they were doing. And they weren’t telling him a lot

8 of what was going on.

9 We will also prove to you that a lawyer

10 named David LeGrand was, at one time, retained to

11 help Mr. Jackson. David LeGrand had been a

12 securities law prosecutor. As a securities law

13 prosecutor, we will prove that he had prosecuted

14 people for financial crimes, stock fraud, not

15 following proper procedures and disclosures if

16 you’re selling stock or securities. Things of that

17 sort.

18 David LeGrand began to smell that something

19 was wrong, and he confronted Dieter and Konitzer

20 with his suspicions, even writing to them and

21 saying, “Why are you withdrawing money. Who told

22 you to do that. Who gave you permission. Where’s

23 it going. What are you doing with it.”

24 They then were able to convince Michael

25 Jackson to fire LeGrand. But before that happened,

26 David LeGrand commenced an investigation into the

27 activities of these alleged co-conspirators, Dieter,

28 Konitzer, Schaffel and others. He hired a 192

1 top-flight investigative firm in New York to check

2 out their backgrounds, to check out what they were

3 doing, to see if they were hiding things overseas,

4 to see if Mr. Jackson was being, as he said,

5 defrauded, and to see if they were engaging in acts

6 as what he described as self-dealing.

7 But they were able to get to Michael and

8 stop the investigation by getting him to fire

9 LeGrand, because they convinced him that LeGrand was

10 doing something wrong.

11 An investigative report was prepared. It

12 wasn’t completed, but it was prepared.

I will continue this series with the testimony of Martin Bashir, and then the testimony of Anne Kite, who was hired to perform public relations work for Jackson in the aftermath of the Bashir documentary, and she’ll discuss in further detail LeGrand’s investigation into Wiesner and Konitzer………………

Here is the link to the testimonies of Martin Bashir and Anne Kite:

Here is a link to another great summary of the timeline of events leading up to the trial: 

UPDATE May 12, 2012

I want to thank everyone who has offered their support to me as I undertake this immense task of summarizing the entire 2005 trial. I have already read the first 10 days of testimony (only 56 more to go!!), and I can’t wait to show everyone all of the lies that Jackson’s accusers hurled at him! There are so many contradictions, inconsistencies, and discrepancies that I will surely have to make several posts to summarize all of the cross-references that will be included in each day’s summary. I truly wish that I had started on this project sooner, but I was caught up with fact checking all of the other lies that I have refuted over the last few months.

The comment below by my good friend Erin Jacobs is representative of 99.999999% of the feedback that I have received. Thank you Erin!


113 Comments leave one →
  1. February 13, 2013 3:58 pm

    Another question, the Arvizo’s make reference to a BG of MJ’s called “Ansef”, who is this supposed to be?

  2. stacy2 permalink
    February 9, 2013 8:14 am

    Of course when Mj was acquitted the media and everyone else blamed it on celebrity justice and Sneddon and company were all hurt and disappointed and tried to blame it on everything under the sun except themselves. The prosecution did not lose because of “celebrity justice”. They lost because they had the guilty until proven innocent mentality. They rushed to judgement and were not objective. They were very close-minded and saw things that weren’t there and were too obsessed with trying to win at any costs, and when you’re not objective, when you have the guilty as sin mentality, it can really hurt your case. The jury on the other hand, were not like that. They put their personal feelings aside and actually looked at the evidence that was presented to them. They went through the accuser and his family’s testimonies and counted the numerous lies they told under oath, as well as the numerous contradictory statements. They also looked at the timeline which was highly questionable, as well as the store receipts that proved that the family was lying about being kidnapped and falsely imprisoned at neverland. Based on the evidence, they acquitted on all counts. So if you don’t like their verdict, that’s fine, but don’t be mad at them. They did their jobs and followed the law. Be mad at the “victim” and his family. This was a case that should have never even been brought to begin with.

    • nannorris permalink
      February 9, 2013 4:37 pm

      The problem for me with this case, is, more then they were just myopic…I dont see how they couldnt have realized this was fabricated…
      They had to have known ,
      Even if they were so myopic at first…
      surely before they walked into court, they knew , because it looks to me like they made an effort to fabricate evidence and conceal exculpatory evidence..
      Over and over with just about every single witness, it favors MJ
      Their idea of how and why this case happened changes as it goes along also
      There is absolutely NOTHING credible about what these people say.
      It is like trying to fit a square block , in a round hole..,
      I know Mesereau says the prosecutors thought they were winning, but if they were winning , it wouldnt have been with evidence, it would have been with intimidation tactics, stacking charges, to pressure the jury into thinking he must have been guilty of something, the constant dribble of D Dimond to the public.
      The insults to MJ sexuality , plastic surgery, even his music and finances..
      not the evidence, though…
      They seemed to have pressured the grand jury into an indictment , if you read Mesereau very long list of tactics they used and bringing in Larry Feldman, to mention the giant settlement , in grand jury and also, in this case, It was just pure BS, and I think the jury knew that also , but didnt want to call Sneddon out publicly

      • lynande51 permalink*
        February 9, 2013 5:02 pm

        You know Nan what you said about the constant dribble of Diane Dimond and the surgeries,his sexuality, his music, his financing and his parenting. All of those things were meant to color the jury’s concept of Michael with the “freak factor”. Because everyone knows that a pedophile is a freak right?
        Then along comes a man called Randall Sullivan 8 years later and he writes a book that supposedly says that Michael was weird, had a fake nose, died a virgin but he doesn’t “thnk” Michael was a pedophile.
        When I read that Mesereau had endorsed that book I was floored.Someone that close to Michael at that time in his life must have known just how much Sneddon and the media counted on the freak factor that they had painted of Michael to get a conviction. I think he forgot that part and just exactly how much that hurt Michael and continues to hurt Michael’s legacy today. That one factor was not enough to have endorsed that book because Sneddon thought just like so many others that the “freak factor” was enough to get him convicted then and they still use it to create a mystery that just isn’t there.

    • nannorris permalink
      February 10, 2013 1:56 pm

      I absolutely love Tom Mesereau, he is a personal hero to me.But I would be flat out lying if I said I completely understand his support of the Sullivan book.
      ‘Supposedly Debbie Kunesch is going to do an interview with Mr Mesereau and I have some questions for him pending.
      The book that I am waiting for , is a book about Tom Sneddon , because people figure he must have had a reason for bringing these charges, in the first place, in order to have gotten this to court, which he didnt ..He belongs in jail, imo, for abusing the power of his office.
      I would buy 20 books if someone wrote about him.

  3. February 8, 2013 4:14 pm

    This opening document is so interesting.

    Click to access 111703stmtpc.pdf

    First claims were about how there was a “sort of false imprisonment.” That’s on a legal document opening the charges against him. Really?

    Star claims here he knew what the wine MJ gave them was, “he tasted it and he knows what red wine tastes like.” Didn’t they claim they didn’t know what wine tasted like?

    “Star disclosed that upon returning from Miami, the children and the mother stayed at the Neverland Ranch. During this three to six week period after the TV show while at Neverland Ranch, he and Gavin continuously slept in Michael’s room. Michael and Gavin would always sleep in the bed and Star would usually sleep on the floor and once in a while on the bed. Michael always wanted Gavin to sleep in his room, but didn’t really want Star around. Gavin, however, insisted that Star stay.”

    Except Gavin admitted they only spent one night together in MJ’s room when he slept on the floor.

    The mannequin humping story: “[Star] couldn’t recall if Michael was clothed or not.” So he witnessed this and couldn’t even remember if MJ had been naked or not? Janet also claims when they told her this she didn’t know if MJ was dressed or not.

    “Gavin said he saw Michael naked one time. He explained that they (Gavin and Star) were watching TV and Michael just stood there naked for a moment.”

    Janet’s version of this story: “Star and Gavin both saw Michael naked in Michael’s bedroom. Michael was sitting on the edge of his bed while Star and Gavin were on the bed watching TV.”

    How many versions of this naked story are there then, 3, 4?

    In her original statement Janet claimed a key had broken from the laptop MJ gave Gavin in summer of 2001 so they asked him to fix it and he never returned it. Janet claimed that MJ had demanded to see Gavin alone in the summer of 2001 and she wouldn’t allow it, and she claimed this is the reason MJ refused to return the car and the laptop. She was very concerned about getting back her SUV.

    Yet in this same statement she claims the reason the family never went to Neverland through the whole of 2001 was because Gavin was too sick on chemotherapy to go.

    She claimed she had no knowledge of the filming of the Bashir documentary. This was proven untrue, right?

    “Michael wanted Star to take a sleeping pill. (Mrs Arvizo said Star kept the pill and that it is currently with their attorney.)” So that’s confirmation about the Masada storyline on how originally it had been sleeping pills and not alcohol. I wonder what happened to this crucial piece of evidence? No mention was made about this pill throughout the case was there?

    “Star saw Gavin and Michael in bed together. Gavin was passed out and Michael was up against Gavin, with his leg over Gavin. Michael was moving his hips against Gavin. (Mrs Arvizo had no other detail on this incident)”

    Isn’t that different from what Star and Gavin would claim happened?

    Janet also claims here again that MJ touched Star on his privates. Except this was never a charge Sneddon tried making. Why?

    I’m really confused by how Sneddon would claim Gavin was in love with MJ and that’s why he lied about not being abused, when MJ had to get him drunk and drugged to abuse him, so Gavin couldn’t even remember anything except the standing around naked parts? How is this making sense to anyone?

    • February 8, 2013 4:24 pm

      More: “Janet told the police Gavin had told her, “Gavin and Michael were in bed together and Michael told Gavin, “I want to be your father” while caressing Gavin’s chest and stomach.” Am I the only one who doesn’t remember Gavin claiming this happened?

      Janet told the police Gavin had told her, “Gavin and Michael were in bed together and Michael told Gavin, “I want to be your father” while caressing Gavin’s chest and stomach.” I don’t remember Gavin ever saying this in his statements?

      And check this out:

      “These disclosures [from Gavin and Star] were made to her after February or March of this year. She explained that she would interrupt and tell Star and Gavin to “forgive and forget.” She did this because she thought she was doing the right thing. She wanted Star and Gavin to make the disclosures to a priest or someone else. She has since learned that this was wrong of her to do.”

      LOL so they told her this right after it happened and while she was speaking to various lawyers, including Feldman and psychiatrists, and she never once disclosed it.

      And she claims her kids were talking about being sexually abused and all she kept saying was “to forgive and forget” and hoped they would speak to a priest. She learned this was wrong of her to do, NO SHIT. How did she believe this was convincing? How did any of them?

    • February 8, 2013 5:56 pm

      This stuff really is gold.

      She claims the original telephone conversations MJ and Gavin had made her suspicious, because after, Gavin’s favorite color was the same as MJ’s favorite color! Also, whatever Gavin liked, MJ liked as well. Janet claimed it was a process to get him to tell her these things. Except of course she claims he told her in March/April.

      She claimed that right then during these interviews she lived in that small bachelor apartment – is that the place she used in order to scam people by thinking she was poor and to cash her cheques? She claimed MJ stole all her furniture because she’d discovered the notes MJ had sent Gavin, which we would find out were harmless and every celebrity they knew would be written to/respond in the same way. The idiot claims MJ’s interest in moving the furniture only came about because she’d realized she had the notes, so what, MJ was psychic and suddenly thought “Shit, she knows, must hide the evidence by putting all her items in a storage locker, these people won’t suspect a thing!” Yeah, that’s normal. We’d find out she had signed off the storage herself.

      She claims MJ’s people told her the kids going back to school would be dangerous as they were being followed, yet she checked with the school officials and the kids were not being followed. I thought it had been their original claim that they were being followed by Jackson’s people to school?

      On November 8th 2003 she met with Sneddon to go over some more things with him… and to sign up to apply for “victims’ compensation fund.”

      Do we know if the Arvizo’s ever received money from this fund?

      • lynande51 permalink*
        February 8, 2013 9:17 pm

        I believe they did. I think they were compensated for the “cost” of retrieving their belongings believe it or not. Brad Miller paid for 2 storage units for them. When it came to getting the stuff back Steve Robel and Paul Zellis paid for it ( yes I Know), Vinnie paid their last months rent on that apartment plus the deposit. ON the night of the taping of the rebuttal video hamid gave her 1200 dollars and that was nothing compared to everything that was paid for during their “false imprisonment” at the Calabasas Inn and Suites. I will find the link for the doc with Evvy’s Declaration because that is where the information about how Michael tried to get the tapes from Bashir was.

    • stacy2 permalink
      February 9, 2013 7:53 am

      “She claims the original telephone conversations MJ and Gavin had made her suspicious, because after, Gavin’s favorite color was the same as MJ’s favorite color! Also, whatever Gavin liked, MJ liked as well. Janet claimed it was a process to get him to tell her these things. Except of course she claims he told her in March/April.”

      This sounds very much like statements that were made by June Chandler about MJ liking everything that her son liked and how their phone conversations made her suspicious. Looks like these scheming grifters were reading transcripts from the 1993 case. Didn’t Gavin have Jordie’s declaration saved on his computer? The more I read about this immoral family and how they ruined MJ’s life, the more i get sick to my stomach.

    • February 9, 2013 12:41 pm

      Yeah, Robel, etc paid because they hoped to find the letters Janet claimed were in there, except of course they had mysteriously vanished! I haven’t read through the whole document yet but I’m guessing this is the reason they raided Miller’s office, even though he was a PI for MJ’s lawyer and therefore it violated client privileges. I would’ve imagined they were super disappointed on reading what those letters/cards really were, and seeing all the same ones from all the other celebrities they’d lured in.

    • lynande51 permalink*
      February 9, 2013 3:24 pm

      The pill turned out to be a Nyquill Gel Cap and the cops got it from Feldman because Star had saved it until he gave it to him. I know, I know.
      So then doesn’t it seem like Feldman lied on the stand when he said that they came to him to get their belongings back. I mean why would he suddenly give Feldman a Nyquil Gel cap ( just one was offered supposedly which is not strong enough to put Star out at the weight he was at the time) if they weren’t there to make other allegations? Then there is the you can ge tthem anywhere factor that comes into play there.
      Really that sotry was so ridiculous it is amazong to me that some people actually use it to say that Michael was a child molester.
      By the way here is the link to the Evvy declaration about Bashir

      Click to access 042605lodgeddocsevvy.pdf

    • February 10, 2013 9:55 pm

      They don’t mention any Nyquil or sleeping tablets in Star’s court testimony though, do they?

      BTW with Jordan Chandler’s declaration, it was only the document itself that was posted online February 6th 2003, but the details from it had already been known since 1993, right? Like what Jordan’s supposed to have said?

  4. sanemjfan permalink
    June 2, 2012 9:04 pm

    I have added a compilation of the media’s coverage of MJ’s arrest; I’m sorry that I forgot to include it in the first place!

  5. mjjyo permalink
    May 31, 2012 7:16 pm

    vindicatemj – L.O.V.E.,
    Thenk You for Your Great Work.
    And I Alreadey Feel The Beginning Of JUSTICE FOR MICHAEL.

  6. sanemjfan permalink
    May 24, 2012 10:54 pm

    I’ve added some new info to this post: I summarized Mesereau’s Motion to Set Aside the Indictment, the examples of the most common types of objections, and Mesereau’s explanation from the Frozen in Time seminar as to why he thought the prosecution added the conspiracy charges when they indicted MJ.

  7. Hilary permalink
    May 17, 2012 8:31 am

    @Rodrigo GET OUT! WTF! That makes Orth’s Voodoo cow thing sound believable. I’m actually laughing at this (literally), but seriously I can’t believe we live in a world where innocent people can be totally trashed like that…Michael’s voice singing “Heal the world we live in/Save it for our children” just automatically popped into my head…

  8. Rodrigo permalink
    May 17, 2012 7:18 am


    We’ve also had tales of children’s skeletons being uncovered in the Neverland grounds! It’s mentioned in that slimeball Gutierrez’s book.

    I’m surprised there hasn’t been a story that claims Michael was behind the Kennedy assassination! 😀

  9. Hilary permalink
    May 17, 2012 6:54 am

    @lynande51 @nannoris Thanks for explaining things guys! I’m only 19 so I’m new to Michael (although I do remember watching the Bashir interview when it first came on TV) & all this legal stuff. On the post “Michael Jackson’s enemies are literally one big happy family” Star arvizo said in the e-mail that they didn’t do what they did for money, so I wanted to find a way to rebut that, which is why I wondered about the civil suit. So thanks for clearing that up! Honestly, before I looked into the Michael trial, I didn’t know jack$h*t about the law, so you’ll be happy to know that this site really is helping future generations. 🙂

    Speaking of death threats (and other crazy allegations) did you guys hear about the woman who tried to sue Michael for murdering her mother? I was surprised that wasn’t mentioned on here anywhere.

    • sanemjfan permalink
      May 17, 2012 6:57 am

      Thank you Hilary! I’ve heard about that frivolous lawsuit before, although I don’t know if it was dismissed or settled, but unfortunately MJ was a magnet for greedy people who wanted to make him a scapegoat for everything.

  10. sanemjfan permalink
    May 17, 2012 6:54 am

    I’ve added updates to this post that include a bio of all of the attorneys, the meaning of certain legal terms, and proof of the authenticity of the transcripts that I possess.

  11. nannorris permalink
    May 17, 2012 6:37 am

    I was interested in finding out what pro bono work Larry Feldman does and this award came up for helping the aclu..
    I noticed they laud the fact that he won a huge settlement for someone as one of his contributions, however I am sure he took a contingency fee for it ..

  12. nannorris permalink
    May 17, 2012 6:10 am

    Regarding The Arvizo and a civil case ..I doubt, after what came out in the criminal case , Feldman would have bothered.
    Maybe that is why the Arvizo decided they would settle for MJ jacket and watch back..ugh.
    Feldman let Sneddon do all the bull work because he knew this family was shady,
    He let Sneddon risk his reputation on going forward with this garbage , instead of his own..
    He also doesnt strike me as a lawyer who lets someone come in for a free consult, unless I suppose because the other lawyer that referred them mentioned MJ and he smelt money again..
    I think he did the bare minimal to get it on Sneddons desk and was willing to do a little pro bono to keep Mesereau from getting into Janets mothers bank accts where she was funneling her welfare checks
    Other then that , I dont think he would bother..Time is money
    I do wonder if he went forward with the lawsuit regarding childrens services leaking the Arvizo kids name ..
    I thought that was another lawsuit he was pursing on Gavins behalf..

  13. lynande51 permalink*
    May 16, 2012 7:40 am

    Yes and they still like the attention. From what I understand the man from Ontario was making email death threats about killing Michael. He was given probation I believe and he was mentally ill if I remember right. If you Google it you will find various article about it on the internet. Here is the only one that I could find about it here in the US.,,831532,00.html

  14. Hilary permalink
    May 16, 2012 7:27 am

    I just read what Sneddon had to say. But like he said, that law is irrelevant to the Arvizo case because Gavin was more than willing to testify. These kids loved attention, after all.

  15. Hilary permalink
    May 16, 2012 7:10 am

    @lynande51 Thanks for pointing me to that site! I never thought of using the webarchive. Unfortunately, I ended up reading the WRONG press conferences. LOL. But while I did, i found something interesting.

    I was wondering about the man from Cambridge, ON that was arrested in connection to the MJ case, according to this:
    I live in ON, so I am honestly shocked someone up here was involved in the MJ trial. Is there a blog post about that on here? I couldn’t find one. Or do you know what that was about? He sent a death threat to the SBPD regarding MJ?

  16. lynande51 permalink*
    May 15, 2012 10:14 pm

    As for that law change how about if I just let Tom Sneddon explain that to you would that be okay?

    If the exact press release doesn’t show up just go to DA press releases on the left and open the one for November 20th, 2003. You might as well read them all while you’re there because they are all interesting and a good read.It is particularly interesting to read what he has to say about the Martin Bashir Interview.

  17. lynande51 permalink*
    May 15, 2012 9:31 pm

    The answer as to why they didn’t pursue a civil case has many different reasons. One in a civil case if it goes to trial the verdict is not unanimous and is based on a preponderance of the evidence or in other words if the jury just thinks there is enough in his testimony to prove it. Secondly Michael could have sued them and I am sure would have sued them for slander and defamation and all he would have had to present to the civil court was his 14 not guilty verdicts as proof that they lied about him.It’s a little more complicated than that but that’s close. Michael and others could have sued her for money that she solicited/accepted from them during that time.Not just the shopping trips but in one 24 hour perior she got Vinnie to pay 2 months rent on her apartment value of $750, Hamid Moselhi gave her $2000, Brad Miller gave her a check for $3000, paid her storage and moving fees, and Ajza Pryor gave them $1000 dollars all because they felt sorry for her.She was also asking for a car from Chris Tucker and Azja Pryor in that same time frame.Chris Tucker also gave them $2000 in that same time frame and an exact money figure is not available for what she got from Jamie Masada. Jamie Masada also helped set up a meeting with her on Febraury 21st with his attorney William Dickerman who would send multiple letters of demand to Mark Geragos beginning on 3/26/03 for her belongings to be returned to her along with all video, audio, photos, letters, legal documents, passports, visas and clothing that was lost on a flight from Miami.All of those are because people felt sorry for her and her kids because according to her they were so poor. Then of course is the cost of the shopping trips, hotel stays and expenses for food,clothing and toiletries that were part of her kidnapping at the Calabasas Inn and Suites and the fees for her passports and visas to be kidnapped to Brazil for the Carnival.
    Another reason is that Janet and her family were no longer together. The boys went to live in another state and Jay Jackson was in Iraq on active duty whether or not they are still married I don’t know or care. Janet had to stay in California to face charges of fraud because of her falsifying her public assistance financial papers. It is entirely possible that with their continued connection to Ron Zonen and Louise Palanker and others from the trial that there is some kind of quid pro quo going on there. I think so just because Zonen doesn’t show pictures of himself with the family of the murdered boy from the Jesse James Hollywood case so what was so important about the Arvizo case?

  18. Hilary permalink
    May 15, 2012 9:12 pm

    Oh I should have included this in my other comment, but I have another question: Why do you guys think, from a legal perspective, the Arvizos never filed a civil suit against Michael even after the acquittal? Mesereau said it was still possible on Larry King, and if this family was after money all along, shouldn’t they have?

  19. Hilary permalink
    May 15, 2012 9:07 pm

    @sanemjfan Thank you! It irritates me even more now that people will still go on to say the description of the genitals matched when the fact is that the mismatch prevented Michael from being arrested!

    “Sneddon was able to meet the probable cause requirement; how? I have no idea!” That’s what confused me about the arrest/indictment in the first place. The 2003 allegations were totally bogus compared to the Chandlers’, where Michael and the kid at least slept together. Michael and the Arvizos, based on my reserach, had only met each other a handful of times before the bashir documentary.

    @lynande51 Thanks for the info! So Sneddon changed the law so that the victim could be forced to testify? But I heard that he had the law changed so that a criminal trial had to come to court before a civil suit and that the opposite was true in 1993. So exactly how many laws did he change? (I read this on the following site. Scroll down to #7:

  20. lynande51 permalink*
    May 15, 2012 8:31 pm

    @ Hilary,
    What happened in 1993 was that they had an arrest warrant ready but was only to be executed in 2 certain circumstances. Because of the description that Jordan Chandler gave to ADA Lauren Weiss they were looking for corroborating evidence in the event of a match. The search was to gather the evidence. The second instance would have been if Michael refused to be photographed he would have been arrested because the Search warrant actually stated that he had no right to refuse, refusal would be seen as consciousness of guilt on his part. He was not arrested that day because his genitalia did not match the description. Following that and the settlement Jordan refused to cooperate with the investigation. He would not testify and he refused to be questioned again by police or Tom Sneddon and Sneddon was advised of this through Jordan’s attorney. That was his right under California law in 1993. He had the right to take the money and not go through a criminal trial.
    Tom Sneddon had that law changed in 1995 just because of the Michael Jackson “case” as he called it. In 2003 they could charge Michael just based on the word of Gavin Arvizo because they had their corroborating witness because Gavin was willing to testify in criminal court. In August of 2003 Sneddon met with the Arvizos and it was at that time that he informed them that they could not sue Michael without going through the criminal trial first. It is also important to know that Janet Arvizo has an AS degree in Criminal Justice.
    Knowing these circumstances how can he begin to say that they didn’t want money when he had to tell them that they couldn’t get it until after the criminal trial?
    After the search of Neverland and Michael’s arrest a couple of things were in play. Sneddon met with Mark Geragos in LA on December 14th, 2003 to discuss the case. He was informed of the exculpatory evidence that he had taken during the search on Brad Millers office. Michael was formally charged on December 18th, 2003 and arraigned on January 16th, 2004. He entered a plea of not guilty on all 9 charges. Then they set a meet and confer for the setting of the preliminary hearing. Michael had to sign a couple of documents that waived his right to a speedy trial and he submitted one for many of the early court proceedings so he would not have to attend court. At a hearing that was to schedule the beginning of the preliminary hearing Sneddon asked for a continuance for the beginning of the preliminary. It was then that he asked a judge to assemble a secret Grand Jury to seek an indictment instead of going through the preliminary hearing.
    The difference between a Grand Jury and a Preliminary is with a Grand Jury you have lay people to weigh the evidence presented by the prosecution, the defense does not present evidence at a Grand Jury and the witnesses are not cross examined. With a Preliminary hearing both sides present evidence and the Court (the judge) weighs the evidence to see if there is enough to go to trial.With a Grand Jury Indictment it must go to trial.
    Sneddon couldn’t risk the court seeing the exculpatory evidence that Michael had against the Arvizos and that is why he took it to a Grand Jury instead of a preliminary hearing. If the court had seen the evidence against them there may have never been trial. The exculpatory evidence that they had was also eliminated with the Grand Jury Indictment because that is when they dropped a couple of the molestation charges to change the timeline, and added the conspiracy charge to eliminate the exculpatory witnesses by adding them as unindicted co-conspirators. That also tied up some of the video and audio evidence that they had against the Arivzos because there were also unnamed unindicted co- conspirators in the conspiracy charge. I am currently writing a post about that and it is almost finished.

  21. May 15, 2012 8:42 am

    Brilliant job researching and compiling all this information here. Thank you for all your hard work in helping to educate current and future MJ fans. Aphrodite Jones’ Conspiracy was one of the first books I read about the 2005 trial. The only thing Michael Jackson was guilty of was being innocent and naive when it came to certain people. Our legal system was able to swoop in on MJ’s home with 70 police officers, raid and then prosecute an innocent person. Anyone who takes the time to read Conspiracy or the court transcripts knows that Michael was innocent and Tom Sneddon’s vendetta began with the 1993 allegations. What happened to Michael Jackson was a travesty of justice in 1993 and again with the 2005 trial. Between Evan Chandler, Martin Bashir, Diane Dimond, Nancy Grace, Gloria Allred, Victor Gutierriez, the Me-Too Arvizos and Tom Sneddon, Michael never stood a chance of justice and even though completely innocent, the media drove the nails into his coffin.The only real predator in these cases was Tom Sneddon. Like David, I have been researching Michael Jackson for nearly three years and I am grateful to him for doing this exhaustive research. Thank you David. This is truly a labor of love.

  22. Hilary permalink
    May 15, 2012 8:41 am

    As I’m reading all these trial analyses, I am puzzled by one thing. Sneddon was not able to charge/arrest Jackson with a crime in 1993, but he took the case before grand juries. But in 2003, he charged Michael and THEN took the case before a grand jury. Can someone explain this in layman’s terms? Sandusky was indicted and THEN arrested.

    • sanemjfan permalink
      May 15, 2012 12:04 pm

      I’m not a lawyer, but I’ll try my best to answer your question:

      In 1993, due to the inaccurate description, Sneddon couldn’t arrest MJ on criminal charges charges because he needed an accurate description to meet the probable cause requirement. However, a person doesn’t have to be arrested to be indicted for a crime, and Sneddon and Garcetti tried to get indictments but failed.

      In 2003, somehow, someway Sneddon was able to get an arrest warrant along with Neverland search warrant, and had MJ been there he would have arrested MJ. Sneddon was able to meet the probable cause requirement; how? I have no idea!

      This website explains the difference between an indictment and an arrest. One important distinction is that an individual can be arrested and not be charged. If a police has probable cause, they can arrest you, but of course you can be freed without being charged.

      One of our authors is a lawyer, so I can ask her and give you her answer. She can explain it much better than I can!

  23. Hilary permalink
    May 15, 2012 8:25 am

    OMG I LOVE that “confession”. Some impersonator should make a Youtube video and say that with the title “Michael Jackson’s confession” just to attract haters and expose teh truth in a funny but completely factual way.

    And it put things into a perspective I didn’t really think about before. If Michael really was trying to “silence” the Chandlers, he would have paid them off BEFORE the allegations. DUH!

  24. kaarin22 permalink
    May 15, 2012 4:13 am

    Thank you sanemjfan for the great post.I especially enjyed your poignant satire on ”
    the most selective p…”,it truely brought out the total insanity of the prosecution and you know who.And many thanks to 2 brave women,Linda and Raven for telling their story.

  25. lynande51 permalink*
    May 15, 2012 1:33 am

    Yes it is odd but following the trial according to one article that I found it was because of us Jackson fans and all of our death threats that no one knows anything about him.I have a link to the CBS show that you were talking about here
    Then there is the time worn excuse for his loss that it was because of Michael’s celebrity. The trouble with saying that the jury was biased in favor of him because of his celebrity and blaming much of it on Janet Arvizo is that she testified in front of the Grand Jury as well and they indicted Michael on conspiracy,in spite of his celebrity. Maybe someone can explain that little contradiction for me?

  26. aldebaran permalink
    May 14, 2012 11:00 pm

    I find it odd there is so little info out there about Sneddon. This seems strange for a man who was a prominent law breaker for 30 some years, and DA of SB for 22 years. He had 9 kids–don’t any of them give info about him? The only info is that he went to school somewhere in CA, went to Vietnam, was a boxer, went to Notre Dame, went to law school in NY (where he met his wife), and then got hired by SB. The only comment I found of interest re why he had this Captain Ahab fixation on MJ was from an SB newspaper editor, who said that Sneddon thinks in terms of black and white–good guys vs. bad guys, and he sees himself as one of the good guys. In other words he is morally rigid and has no awareness of his own deep moral failings. How come the press never started to explore Sneddon and investigate him? They never turned over this rock.

  27. TatumMarie permalink
    May 14, 2012 6:13 pm

    Ofcourse it doesn’t exonerate Oprah either but I would give that reasoning to her before Sneddon. Like you said, he needs to be in jail.

  28. Susanne permalink
    May 14, 2012 11:24 am

    I like these positive replies to the Sprout article, especially the one of Aldo, it’s wonderful that he stood up vor Michael publicly in 2005. In fact, Eddie and Frank Cascio have a younger brother whose name is Aldo. So I think it’s not Eddie who wrote it, but Aldo.

  29. aldebaran permalink
    May 14, 2012 9:00 am

    Thanks for the comments on my ‘wild thought’ about Sneddon–just thought it might have been a factor, although I agree it would not exonerate him even if he had been abused (and it does not exonerate Oprah either) but it might help to understand his motivation. I mean he had 2 grand juries and the fbi refuse to charge MJ, so why did he go so far on so little? Maybe it was just hubris. Or sheer stupidity. Or racism or jealousy or all of them.

    It was clearly prosecutorial abuse and he should be in jail and not enjoying a no doubt well paid retirement for destroying one of the greatest, innocent human beings who ever lived.

  30. Linda permalink
    May 14, 2012 8:54 am


    I’m anxious to get to the Arvizos, especially Janet. If it wasn’t so sad, it would be funny, but I think she is a really sick individual that was taken advantage of by Sneddon.

    I do think Sneddons angle was racist, not just because Michael was black, but because he was rich, famous AND black. That was too much for him to handle. And even if he had been molested himself, I don’t think would have pushed him to that extent.

    After I found out my daughter was molested by her father, everywhere I went and saw a father carrying his little girl or holding her hand, my first thought was is he doing that to her? It made me very insecure about men, especially when I started dating again. But I was only guarded. I didn’t distrust men in general, I was just slow to trust. I didn’t go on a vendetta to destroy all men in my path.

    If Sneddon was serious about going after real child molesters, he would have investigated Corey Feldman’s claim, but he showed no interest in that. I don’t know who his molester was, but I’m betting he wasn’t black, rich, and not as famous as Michael.

    Sneddon had tunnel vision. At that point in his life, all he saw was Michael and how to pin something on him. But to use the Arviso’s was so totally insane, and I think with his experience he had to know that.

    So, one of two things: He was either so desperate in his vendetta, he became deranged and wasn’t thinking straight, or (my opinion) he knew he didn’t have a case, but he knew with the help of the media, who loved to bash Michael every chance they got, he could destroy his image in the public eye, thus breaking him financially, emotionally and eventually physically. In that case he was actually successful.

    Luckily, Michael had, and is still getting new die hard fans that are willing to search out the truth, and are bringing out that truth to the public. Long live the King!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: