Skip to content

March 9th, 2005 Cross Examination of Star Arvizo, Direct Examination of Gavin Arvizo, Part 2 of 2

June 9, 2012

Before I start off, I want to start off by welcoming everyone to Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0! As most of you know by now, due to irreconcilable personal differences between me and the owner of the Vindicate MJ blog, she has decided to shut down the blog and disable all comments. As a result, Lynette and I had no choice but to start this new blog, and we will eventually copy all of our old posts (and their comments) to this blog.

I was in the middle of summarizing the entire 2005 trial when this unfortunate falling out took place, so I will have to pick up exactly where I left off, and (fittingly!) the person who is next in queue to have his testimony analyzed is Gavin Arvizo! What a way to start off the new blog! And with the upcoming Jerry Sandusky child molestation trial, and the inevitable comparisons to the Michael Jackson case, the importance of these trial summaries cannot be overstated! Fortunately, Mesereau has already granted two interviews to Bill O’Reilly and Anderson Cooper, in which he vehemently defended Jackson and refuted the media myth that there are any similarities between the two cases.

Now, let me explain the meaning behind that photo above:

You’ve heard of the old saying “what’s done in the dark will come to light”, correct? Well, Gavin and Star told their lies in the dark (and the media kept those lies hidden in the dark as they suppressed exculpatory evidence throughout the trial), and I am doing my absolute best to bring those lies into the light by summarizing the trial with painstaking attention to detail. As I shine the light on their lies, it will burn a hole into the phony, “goody two shoes” image that the media and prosecution has held the Arvizos in ever since 2003.

So essentially, the painting in that photo represents the image of the Arvizos, and the security guard represents me and the other authors on this blog (and all other MJ bloggers and advocates as well), and the light from the flashlight represents the truth, which is burning a hole into the painting! The phrase “liar, liar, pants on fire” is also applicable to this photo as well! Many thanks to my good friend Karen O’Halloran who designed this GIF image for me!

Now, I would like to illustrate how the prosecution tried to prevent Star and Gavin from having to testify in open court: on January 18th, 2005 (just before the start of jury selection), Sneddon submitted a motion titled “PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THAT THE TESTIMONY OF CHILD WITNESSES BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC”, in which he referred to Penal Code §859.1, a section of the code that relates to minor victims under the age of 16. 

Sneddon tried to argue that because Gavin and Star were both under 16 years of age, they should not be forced to testify in front of an “open” court (i.e. with the media, family members, guests, etc. in the courtroom) due to the fact that he wanted to protect their “anonymity and reputation”.

On January 21st, 2005, Mesereau submitted a motion titled “OPPOSITION TO PROSECUTION’S MOTION TO CLOSE FROM THE PUBLIC THE TESTIMONY OF CHILD WITNESSES”, in which he stated four reasons why Star and Gavin should have to testify in public: 1) Jackson has a Constitutional right to confront his accusers in open court (based on the Sixth Amendment), 2) other teenagers will testify that the Arvizos do not have the fragile and sensitive personalities that the prosecution claims that they have 3) Jackson can only vindicate himself in a public trial where everyone can hear for themselves the testimonies of the accusers, and 4) Jackson is the real victim in this case.

 

On January 24th, 2005, the attorneys for several media conglomerates (NBC Universal, CBS Broadcasting, Fox News, ABC, CNN, Associated Press, New York Times, and the USA Today) also file a motion to oppose Sneddon’s motion to have Gavin and Star testify in a closed court titled “ACCESS PROPONENTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THAT THE TESTIMONY OF CHILD WITNESSES BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC”.  But the media’s motive to oppose Sneddon’s motion had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Jackson’s right to confront his accuser in public and vindicate himself!  They argued that “the District Attorney has failed to meet the standards for closure established by the First Amendment and California law”. Essentially, the media argued that the identities of Gavin and Star were already known and public due to their participation in the Bashir documentary, and – in a twisted piece of irony – “to bar the press and public from this central aspect of the trial would not only be unjustified but would leave a cloud of doubt hanging over the jury’s verdict, no matter what the jury decides, because the public would have been denied the ability to observe the testimony and make credibility determinations based on the witnesses’ demeanor during their testimony”. (This excerpt was taken from page 2.)

In other words, the media argued that if they were barred from hearing Star and Gavin’s testimonies, the public would doubt the jury’s verdict; yet, even after they were allowed to observe their testimony, the public STILL doubted the jury’s verdict because the media slanted their coverage!

For example,  look at how lopsidedly pro-prosecution and salacious this article is! It merely regurgitates the lie that Jackson paraded in front of Gavin in the nude in his bedroom suite!

Michael Jackson – Naked Jackson ‘Grossed Out’ Accuser + His Brother

08 March 2005 03:26

MICHAEL JACKSON “grossed out” his child molestation accuser GAVIN ARVIZO and his younger brother STAR when he paraded around his Neverland Ranch naked one night.

Gavin’s now-14-year-old sibling took the stand in court in Santa Maria, California, yesterday (07MAR05) to testify against the pop superstar.

And the teenager recalled intimate moments with the 46-year-old, when he showed him and his brother internet sex sites, gave them wine, slept in bed with them and appeared naked.

The youngster recalled that he and his brother were “grossed out” when Jackson appeared naked while they were watching a movie, but the singer told the boys it was natural.

Jackson is fighting 10 felony charges of child molestation, administering an intoxicating agent and conspiracy involving allegations of child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion.

 

http://www.contactmusic.com/news-article/naked-jackson-grossed-out-accuser–his-brother

After Judge Melville ruled that Star and Gavin must testify in open court, legal analyst Jonna Spilbor wrote the following column on February 2nd, 2005, in which she argued that Judge Melville made the correct decision:

When the Key Witness Is a Kid: Preparing Prospective Jurors in the Case Against Michael Jackson

In a few weeks, Michael Jackson’s long-anticipated child molestation case will begin. It will be an unusual trial because the defendant is a celebrity. It will also be unusual because the prosecution’s star witness — the closest thing it has to a “smoking gun” — is just a kid.

This boy, who is now fifteen years old, contends that two years ago, Jackson repeatedly sexually assaulted him. Apparently, the prosecution will present him as the only eyewitness to the alleged abuse – and therefore, his testimony could not be more crucial.

Last week, Judge Rodney S. Melville denied prosecutors’ request to bar the public from the courtroom during this testimony. In weeks, then, the accuser will tell his story, in front of Jackson, to a packed courtroom of unfamiliar faces.

Jury selection began on Monday, January 31. The process is expected to continue for several weeks. Doubtless, the fact that the accuser must confront Jackson in court will play a role in defense attorneys’ questions to prospective jurors, and in their choice of which jurors to strike.

Was the judge’s ruling correct? I will argue that it was.

How will the fact that the star witness is a child affect the way defense attorneys question jurors? As a defense attorney whose experience has included child witnesses, I will explain what considerations may be going through the mind of defense lawyers as this process occurs.

Was the Judge Right to Decide Not to Close the Courtroom For The Child’s Testimony?

First, let’s look at the judge’s ruling.

As noted in Jackson’s Opposition, Jackson – like every criminal defendant has a right, under the U.S. Constitution, and the California Constitution, to “confront” his accuser in a public trial. However, the Supreme Court has held that, under some circumstances, this right can be compromised when child sex abuse victims testify, on the ground that they may find it too traumatic and terrifying to face their accuser.

Accordingly, the California Penal Code provides that, in any criminal proceeding in which the defendant is charged with certain sex offenses against a minor under the age of 16 years, “the court shall, upon motion of the prosecuting attorney, conduct a hearing to determine whether the testimony of a minor shall be closed to the public…” And that is exactly what Judge Melville did.

Here, the prosecution said closure was necessary was to “preserve the witness[‘s] anonymity, and allow [him] to testify about sensitive sexual issues without a courtroom packed with reporters, sketch artists, and zealous fans of defendant.” But these arguments are not persuasive.

First, the accuser is no longer truly anonymous. His name can easily be found on the Internet, and through his mother, he agreed to appear in a 2003 documentary entitled “Living with Michael Jackson.” (There, he appeared quite comfortable, resting his head on Jackson’s shoulder, while residing at his Neverland Ranch.)

Second, the suggestion that the witness will be unacceptably traumatized by having to testify in front of strangers is not in line with the facts. He is a teenager, not a young child. And, as the Jackson defense has pointed out, he has testified previously and extensively, before the grand jury, and (also under oath) in depositions.

Moreover, the details of his grand jury testimony were leaked to ABC News and recently disclosed, in part, on a number of its news shows – meaning that the public already knows the essence of his story, and he knows that the public knows.

Under the circumstances, while it likely will still be somewhat traumatic for the accuser to testify in an open courtroom with the public present, the judge still made the right decision to require him to do so.

The accuser’s testimony, if believed beyond a reasonable doubt, will put Jackson in prison for years. Jackson is entitled to ask that the accuser believe in his own claims strongly enough to look Jackson in the eye, and state them publicly, for all the world to hear, and for the jury to consider.

The Defense Is Entitled to Try to “Break” the Prosecution’s Star Witness

District Attorney Tom Sneddon complains, in his filings, that Team Jackson wants to keep the court open so that “‘seasoned’ defense lawyers [can] humiliate and attempt to destroy [the accuser] in public when [he] takes the witness stand.”

By jove, I think he’s got it.

The point is, though, that there is absolutely nothing wrong with that defense strategy.

To win his case, Jackson’s defense must show that the accuser is what they say he is: A “flat out liar” with “no credibility” who has concocted the whole sordid tale, at his mother’s urging, in hopes of extracting millions of dollars. To prove the accuser a liar, Jackson’s attorneys are entitled to – indeed, they must — cross-examine him harshly.

(Notably, there seems to be strong factual support for the claim that the accuser may well be lying: Reportedly, the accuser and his mother made no such claim of sexual abuse until after they spoke with the very attorney who had secured an alleged multi-million dollar settlement in 1993 based on similar accusations.)

They must also tread a fine line, however. Jackson’s accuser – already sympathetic by virtue of his youth – comes with a few added “sympathy” factors as well. Reportedly, he suffered from cancer and endured chemotherapy.

For the accuser, testifying is likely to be terrifying – whether he is lying and thus frightened that he will be found out, or telling the truth and thus recounting very painful experiences. The jury will doubtless see the fear, and feel for the teenager.

For the defense attorney, then, cross-examination will be a minefield. On one hand, the attorney risks incurring the jury’s wrath for browbeating a child if he pushes too hard. On the other hand, he risks letting the child’s testimony seem more credible than it actually is, if he fails to cross-examine him as thoroughly as he possibly can.

What Should the Defense’s Strategy with Prospective Jurors Be?

For this strategy to be successful, prospective jurors must be forewarned. Otherwise, the defense risks having a child who will undoubtedly be struggling on the stand in a packed courtroom racking up sympathy votes from jurors who feel as though counsel is leading a lamb to slaughter.

The first question the pool should be asked by defense counsel, is whether they believe children are capable of lying. Anyone who doesn’t think so, doesn’t belong on Jackson’s jury – and assuredly, that person will be dismissed.

The second question should be directed to any particular juror with children: “Prospective juror number 29, has yourchild ever lied?” If the answer is yes, counsel should determine what punishment was meted out, whether the parent believes lying by children is ever “okay,” and whether the parent feels that humiliating a child who has been caught in a lie is justified or excusable in certain situations.

I would also follow up, as a defense attorney, with a few more questions: “Does the severity of a lie dictate the severity of the punishment?” “When, if ever, would it be justified to punish a child in public for dishonesty?” These questions, too, will help probe to see if jurors will be able to tolerate the cross-examination of the young witness without holding it against the defense.

Jackson’s Defense Can’t Be Expected to Pull Its Punches

As my grandfather used to say, “a thief may rob you, but a liar will hang you.” Conversely, proving one’s accuser a liar can save you from a dire fate. Here, if jurors disbelieve the testimony of the prosecution’s key witness, Jackson will get the acquittal he’s hoping for. If they don’t, he’ll face prison.

With stakes this high, prospective jurors in the case must be made aware that the key witness against Jackson – though he is a child — won’t, and can’t, be handled with kid gloves.

http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/commentary/20050202_spilbor.html

  

Another important bit of information that I want to share with you before proceeding to Star’s testimony is this March 1st, 2005 defense pleading titled “NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF GAVIN ARVIZO AND STAR ARVIZO’S SEXUAL CONDUCT”. Rijo and Simone Jackson, who are the children of Jackson’s cousin Peaches Jackson, both witnessed Star and Gavin Arvizo engaging in destructive behavior at Neverland, and their statements to Susan Yu are included in that pleading on pages 13-24. For example, Rijo witnessed them masturbating and watching pornography in one of the guest units during the time period that they claim that they were “falsely imprisoned” by Jackson. Not only did Rijo witness the Arvizos masturbate themselves, but he was asked to participate and masturbate himself as well, but he declined. Rijo and Simone also stated that they saw the Arvizos stealing money, stealing wine, sneaking into Jackson’s bedroom without his permission, and in once incident Star called Simone a “Fu&$&ing B*%ch” when she wouldn’t take off her swimwear when they were at a swimming pool.

The fact that the Arvizos watched porn and masturbated on their own volition is crucial because they claimed that it was Jackson who “taught” them how to masturbate and “exposed” them to porn!

In addition to Rijo and Simone Jackson’s statements, an acquaintance of the Arvizo family named Carol Lemere provided information about Star’s sexual maturity on pages 26-33. She described Star as a “horny nine year old”, and recounted an incident where he tried to flirt with an adult waitress at a restaurant, and became irate when she refused to give him her phone number.

Also, Lemere recounted the time that in 2000, Davellin told her that Jackson would buy her family a big house. Here is the excerpt from page 27, and you can see for yourself just how long Janet had been conspiring to accuse Jackson of improprieties against her children!

At the time, Davellin told Lamere that Michael was going to buy her family a big house. After questioning Davellin about what she meant, Lemere figured out that Davellin was implying that Janet was going to blackmail Jackson into buy them a house. The plan was to accuse the client of showing the children how to log on to adult websites. Davellin acted as ifhe did not know how to use the internet until she met the client. Lamere became upset and told Davellin that it was wrong to falsely accuse someone of wrongdoing. Davellin became flutstered and scared and then said she was joking. Shortly thereafter, Lemere called Evi Tavaschi and told her to “get Michael away from the Arvizo kids.”

On top of all of that, Davellin also told Lemere that Janet made her tell people that her father David had molested her, when in fact it wasn’t true at all!

On March 7th, 2005, Sneddon filed a motion titled “PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF SEXUAL CONDUCT BY GAVIN AND STAR ARVIZO”, in which he argued that the sexual activities of Gavin and Star should not be admitted into court because, technically, the fact that they masturbated themselves doesn’t in and of itself prove that Jackson was innocent.

On March 9th, 2005, the defense filed a motion titled “REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF GAVIN ARVIZO AND STAR ARVIZO’S SEXUAL CONDUCT”, in which they offered the following four reasons why Gavin and Star’s sexual misconduct should be considered admissible: 1), Rijo and Simone gave an accurate timeline of when the misconduct was witnessed (February/March 2003), 2) it proves that the Arvizos are not the “innocent little lambs” that the prosecution  has made them out to be, 3) it disproves the allegation that Jackson “taught” them to masturbate because they masturbated themselves, and 4) they were not “too embarrassed” to accuse Jackson of masturbating them, so they will not be embarrassed to have their own masturbation disclosed in court.

Lastly, March 25th, 2005 defense pleading titled “SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF SUSAN YU RE DATE THE MALE WITNESS OBSERVED GAVIN ARVIZO AND STAR ARVIZO’S SEXUAL CONDUCT”, which contains the declarations of Rijo and Simone Jackson.

(On a final note, Simone Jackson testified on May 17th, 2005, and Rijo Jackson testified on May 18th, 2005. I will summarize their testimonies later on in this series.)

Additionally, Neverland employee Julio Avila and Prudence Brando (the daughter of Miko and Karen Brando) gave interviews to the police and  Mesereau’s investigator, respectively, about the misbehavior of Gavin and Star that they both witnessed. They are compiled in Sneddon’s motion titled “MOTION TO EXCLUDE OR LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES JULIO AVILA AND PRUDENCE BARNDO”. Sneddon argued that their testimony should be excluded because it was irrelevant and prejudicial.

For example, Gavin and Star spit at Neverland employees, threw candles and their shoes from the top of a Ferris Wheel in an attempt to hit the park personnel, started the Wave Swinger ride by themselves without permission, vandalized property by writing obscene language such as “You suck dick” on the walls, brought pornographic magazines to the amusement park, and intentionally crashed golf carts.

However, Judge Melville rejected Sneddon’s motion and Prudence Brando and Julio Avila testified on May 24th, 2005.

So now that we see how Sneddon tried and failed to protect his star witnesses, let’s see what they had to say on the witness stand!

 

Sneddon started off his direct examination of Gavin Arvizo by asking him to describe his background, his family, etc. Here is where Gavin described the physical abuse that he witnessed in his household:

Q. Now, during the time that you were living on

Soto Street in your — well, let me ask it this way:

At some point did your father leave?

A. Yeah.

Q. Do you remember that?

A. I was at my grandmother’s house when it

happened. But my mom told me that something

happened where he wanted him to take — she wanted

to take my — my sister and my brother to go to,1481

like, a park or something, and he got angry and he

left.

Q. Now, did you ever see your father after

that?

A. No.

Q. During the time that your mother and father

lived together and you lived with your mother and

your father – okay? —

A. Uh-huh.

Q. — how would you describe the nature of

their relationship?

A. Well, like, they would fight every day,

about where we lived and, like, bills and whatever.

Q. You got to lean in there.

A. They would fight about bills, and his

family, and our family. Well, the — like my mom’s

mother and father, and their cousins and my — they

would fight about his family; you know what I mean?

Q. Did you ever see any physical abuse?

A. Yeah.

Q. By whom?

A. My dad would hit my mom sometimes. Like I

saw him one time grab a fire hydrant and my mom

tripped over a cart — or those — it was like a

black cart that was like about that tall.

Q. What did you use the cart for?

A. Used it for grocery shopping. It broke

really easy, though. And my mom tripped over it 1482

because my dad was about to hit her with a fire

hydrant.

Q. Do you mean — a fire hydrant; do you mean

like —

A. It was a fire — oh, it was a fire hydrant

about that big, about that tall. They had them in

our apartment.

Q. Okay. Were you ever struck by your father?

A. Yeah.

Q. How many times were you struck?

A. Well, I was not hit as much as my mom was,

but I got hit sometimes.

Q. How about your brothers and sisters?

A. I saw him hit my brother a lot, like in his

head. He — and my sister sometimes, too, he

slapped her.

Here is where Gavin describes the first time that he realized that he was ill:

Q. At some point in time, you learned — you

became ill, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you became ill, what was the first

thing that you realized that something wasn’t right

with your body?

A. Well, my stomach was hurting a lot, like it

felt like there was a knife in your stomach. And I

couldn’t sleep at night. I would put my pillow in

my stomach, because it really hurt. And then I

looked at myself in the mirror and lifted up my

shirt, and I saw there was a big bump, like my lower

left torso.

Q. Okay.

A. And my grandmother came, and she saw it, and

she told my parents. And a couple days later we

went to the hospital, and they told me — the

doctors were saying, like, it’s an inflamed spleen

or it’s this and that. They weren’t really saying

it was cancer yet.

Q. When you went to the hospital for the first

time and they examined you, did they put you in the

hospital on that date? 1485

A. Yeah. And then I had a surgery that same

week on Thursday. So we went there on Monday, I

think, and then surgery was on Thursday.

Q. When did you personally learn that you had

cancer?

A. Um, it was before my surgery. They were

very open. They would — didn’t try to hide it from

me that I had cancer. The surgeons came in and they

talked about it, and they said what the cancer was.

And they said how they were going to take it out,

and they were going to need to take out this —

they’re going to need to remove the cancer. And

then Thursday they did the surgery. And they had —

they didn’t just have to take out the cancer, they

had to take out my spleen and my left kidney,

because the cancer was eating away at the — my

spleen and my kidney.

Q. Now, after you came out of surgery, and

you — did you remain in the hospital for some

period of time?

A. Yes.

Q. How long; do you remember?

A. A few weeks, I guess.

In this excerpt, Sneddon tried to contradict the defense’s assertion that the Arvizo family were grifters by asking Gavin if his family ever asked anyone for money during benefits that were thrown in their honor at the Laugh Factory, and Gavin denied it:

Q. Did you ever have a picture taken with Mr.

Bryant?

A. Yeah.

Q. Where was that picture taken at?

A. That was at my first benefit.

Q. At where?

A. At The Laugh Factory.

Q. Now, at any of these benefits — there were

two benefits; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. I don’t want to put words in your mouth.

Were there more than two, or is that —

A. No, I’m pretty sure there was only two. 1495

Q. And where was the second benefit?

A. At The Laugh Factory.

Q. And do you remember how much time elapsed

between the first benefit and the second benefit?

A. Probably a month maybe.

Q. At the first benefit — or at the second

benefit — let’s just go to the second benefit for a

second. Just tell me what members of your family

were at that benefit.

A. I don’t know. Maybe — I guess my dad would

be there.

Q. Why?

A. Because he was the one that was always with

me.

Q. At either of these benefits, did you ever

hear your mother ask for any money?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever hear your father ask for any

money at these benefits?

A. I wouldn’t really see him asking for money,

but I knew he would be the one getting the money.

Q. How do you know that?

A. Because he would be the one talking to Jamie

about that stuff.

Here is where Gavin describes how comedian Louise Palanker gave his family money to renovate a room inside of his grandmother’s home so that he could stay there as he recovered from his illness. What the Arvizo’s did with the money that was given to them to pay for the renovations is at the heart of the defense’s claim that they are grifters:

Q. During the time that you had cancer, was it

necessary for the members of your family to do

something to — with regard to where you stayed when

you were not in the hospital? 1496

A. Yeah.

Q. What was that?

A. Well, they didn’t want me to stay at the

apartment anymore. And they wanted to also make me

happy, and they knew I loved my grandma, so they had

me go live with my grandma.

But the problem was, I couldn’t go to my

grandma’s house, because they didn’t have a room

that I could stay in that was clean, because I had

to stay in a clean room.

So Louise Palanker gave us some money so

that we could fix up a room at my grandma’s house.

And they gave us money so I could get, like, a —

linoleum tile floors, and — because I couldn’t have

carpet because it would be too dusty and bacteria

could be there. And I didn’t have a spleen, and I

had, like, no white blood cells, so I could get

sick, really sick, and get fevers and have to go to

the hospital and stuff. That’s why they had to put

down linoleum floors. And then they painted the

rooms all, like, this green color. And then they

painted white because it was a different color.

They got me a better bed and then they also found me

a T.V. in my room.

Q. Do you remember, how big was the T.V.?

A. It was probably about that big (indicating).

Q. Okay. I’m a bad judge of distance there.

About three feet? 1497

A. I don’t know.

MR. SNEDDON: Counsel, three feet?

Q. Depending whether they’re Shaq’s or not, I

guess, huh?

Okay. That’s good.

In this excerpt, Gavin describes the first time that he spoke with Jackson, the first time he went to Neverland, and the fun he had during his first visit:

 

Q. Gavin, at some point in time, did you have

some contact with the defendant in this case, Mr.

Jackson?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of

the jury how that happened?

A. I’m not sure who exactly got Michael to call

me. But he — one night — it was either Jamie or

this lady named Carol Lamir. One day when I was in

the hospital, Michael called me up — well, someone

called me up, and I was like, “Who is this?”

Q. Lean into the microphone, please.

A. Someone called me in my hospital room, and I

asked who was this? And then they said they were

Michael Jackson.

Q. And did you believe them?

A. Well, yeah.

Q. And how long did the conversation last? 1500

A. That was a pretty short conversation. It

was only about, like, five minutes long.

Q. Now, did you have other conversations with

Mr. Jackson?

A. Yeah.

Q. How many do you think you had — let me ask

you this. Let’s do it this way: At some point in

time, were you invited to go to Mr. Jackson’s ranch

at Neverland Valley Ranch?

A. Yeah.

Q. Between the time you received the first

telephone call from the person identifying

themselves as Michael Jackson until you went to the

ranch, how many calls did you think you had between

you and Mr. Jackson?

A. That was — there was only one call, because

the first time that he called me, he invited me up

to the ranch, said he wanted me to come down.

Q. Were you undergoing chemotherapy at this

time?

A. Yes, I was in the middle of a round of

chemotherapy.

Q. During this conversation with Mr. Jackson,

was a date set for you folks to go there, or how was

it that the date was set for you to go?

A. He just said that he wanted me to come down.

And then I’m not sure how it got set up, but he was

telling me like — about, like, my cancer, and 1501

talked to me about — that he wanted me to go to his

ranch and stuff like that.

I don’t know how it got set up to go up

there. I think they talked to my parents or

something.

Q. During the time that you had cancer, did you

have other telephone calls with Mr. Jackson?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you give us an estimate of how many

calls that you had from him?

A. I don’t know. Like 20 maybe. 20 calls.

Q. Were some of them quite lengthy?

A. Yeah.

Q. Were they all in the hospital?

A. No.

Q. Where were you when you had other calls with

Mr. Jackson?

A. My grandma’s house.

Q. Now, you said that you were invited by Mr.

Jackson to go up to his ranch?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And had you ever heard of Mr. Jackson’s

ranch prior to that?

A. No. After when he, like, called me and said

“ranch,” I thought it was like a ranch with horses.

Q. So how did you get up to the ranch?

A. There was a limousine that came to my

grandma’s house and then we went up in a limousine. 1502

Q. And who went up there?

A. It was me, my mom, my biological father, my

sister, my brother and me.

Q. And do you remember about — like, was it

daylight or was it dark when you got there?

A. It was daylight.

Q. And do you remember what happened when you

first got there?

A. Um, yeah, I think — I guess they told

Michael we were up there already. And he had a bib

on, because he was eating. And then he ran out and

he greeted us and he had, like, a red shirt on, a

black tie.

Q. All right. Did you have any conversation

with Mr. Jackson at that time, during the greetings?

A. Well, he just said hi to us, because he had

to go do something.

Q. So where did you go after Mr. Jackson went

to do something?

A. I think we ate.

Q. All right.

A. I guess.

Q. What did you do after that?

A. We went and saw the unit that he put us in.

And then they were afraid — like, my dad was kind

of afraid of putting me on rides, because he thought

maybe, because of my surgery, I might, like, rupture

something or whatever. And then — but I eventually 1503

talked him into letting me go on rides, and we

started going on rides and stuff.

Q. At the amusement park?

A. Yeah, at the ranch.

Gavin then is asked by Sneddon to describe the incident of domestic violence between his parents during their stay at Neverland:

Q. Do you remember any incident while you were

at Neverland Ranch on this first visit involving

your mother and your father? 1504

A. Yeah.

Q. What happened?

A. They kind of got in a fight again, and my

mom had makeup on and my dad made fun of her and

said she looked like a clown, and then my dad got a

cup of soda and threw it in her face.

Here is where Gavin describes how he was allegedly asked by Jackson to ask his parents for permission to sleep in his room. I will compare his testimony to that of his brother and sister, which contradicted Gavin’s version of events:

Q. All right. When you were at Neverland

Ranch, was there ever an occasion where you slept in

Mr. Jackson’s room with Mr. Jackson?

A. Yeah.

Q. Would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of

the jury how it came about that you ended up

sleeping with Mr. Jackson in his bedroom?

A. I think we were in his office. We were all

talking.

Q. Who’s “we”?

A. Me, my brother and Michael. We were all in

his office, and we were talking. And then Michael

said we should sleep in his room. And then I was

like — I was, like, “Okay, yeah,” because we were,

like, wanted to sleep in his room, too. And then he

told us to ask in front of our parents if we could

sleep in his room.

So I think it was like at dinner, we had

asked her — we asked our parents if we could sleep

in Michael’s room, and then so we did. And then my

parents said yeah, it was okay. 1506

Q. So when you say “we,” who else went with

you?

A. My brother.

Q. Now, at some point that night, then, you go

into Mr. Jackson’s bedroom?

A. Yes.

Q. What were you doing in there; do you recall?

A. Well, it started out, like, we were going to

watch some Disney cartoons, and a bunch of these

videotapes of the Simpsons. And then Frank had —

Frank Tyson had a computer — I don’t remember

whether it was my computer or his computer — in

there.

Q. Okay. Tell us what happened.

A. And then he set up the computer. And then

Frank started doing this — doing stuff on the

Internet. And then they started looking up, like,

adult material sites.

Q. Where — was Mr. Jackson there?

A. Yeah.

Q. Was Mr. Jackson involved in that?

A. Yes.

Q. And in what way?

A. Well, we were — he was, like, pointing out

girls. Like, “Oh, I like her.” And then — but, I

mean, he wasn’t typing. Frank was typing.

Q. So how long do you think — how many

different sites do you think you went to? 1507

A. Maybe, like, seven sites. We didn’t go to

that many sites.

Q. And how long do you think you were doing

this?

A. I don’t know. Maybe, like, 15, 30 minutes.

Something like that.

Q. I couldn’t hear you.

A. I think maybe, like, 15, 30 minutes or

something.

Q. And you described it as adult materials.

Can you tell us whether it was male or female?

A. It was female.

Q. Can you tell us about the age — in your

estimation, the age of the females that you saw?

A. Maybe, like, 15 to, like, 25 years old.

Q. So between that range?

A. Yeah.

Q. Now, during the time that you were on the —

you were seeing the —

The bailiff tells me that I’m to ask you to

scoot closer to the microphone. And we all do what

the bailiff says. Okay?

A. All right.

Q. So lean into it and talk into it just like I

am. Okay?

A. All right.

Q. Perfect.

Now, during the time that you were in the 1508

room going through these sites on the computer, did

Mr. Jackson say anything?

A. Yeah.

Q. Tell the jury what he said.

A. Like one time we were, like, looking at the

site, and there was this girl with her shirt up.

And Michael says — like, it was all quiet and

stuff, and Michael was like, “Got milk?” And we

started laughing because he said that.

Q. Okay. Did he say anything else?

A. Like, Paris and Prince were sleeping in his

bed. And then Michael leaned over to Prince in his

ear and he said, “Prince, you’re missing all the

p-u-s-s-y.”

Q. Did he spell it?

A. No.

Here is an interview from Frank Cascio, taken from the David Gest documentary “The Life of an Icon”, in which Cascio explains that it was Gavin who requested to sleep in Jackson’s bedroom on his own volition:

During his opening statement, Sneddon said that only Jackson and Gavin  were in his office, which is a stark contrast to Gavin’s assertion that Star was with him in Jackson’s office! Here’s an excerpt from Sneddon’s opening statement:

10 Now, on the night before the last day that

11 they were to leave, Michael Jackson, the defendant

12 in this case, takes Gavin aside, and he says to

13 Gavin, “Gavin, why don’t you ask your parents if you

14 can spend the night in my bedroom, at the dinner

15 table tonight.”

16 Well, obviously here’s a little kid who’s in

17 the midst of a life-threatening disease —

18 MR. MESEREAU: Objection.

19 MR. SNEDDON: — a chance to spend the

20 night —

21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection.

22 THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.

23 MR. SNEDDON: — the chance to spend the

24 night with one of his idols. Gavin obliges. Gavin

25 asks his parents at dinner, “Can I spend the night

26 with Michael Jackson in his bedroom.”

27 And the parents say, “Yes”; they agree. And

28 it’s agreed that Star will go along with them. 38

During his grand jury testimony on March 29th, 2004, Star testified that Jackson asked HIM to ask his parents to sleep in Jackson’s room!

And here is where Star denied under cross examination the conversation at the dinner table about where he and Gavin would sleep that night:

Q. Okay. When your father was with you at

Neverland, did you ever sleep in Michael Jackson’s

room?

A. Yes.

Q. How many times?

A. Once.

Q. That was the first time you visited

Neverland, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And every other time your father was there,

you didn’t sleep in Michael’s room, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. But you’re saying the first time you visited

Neverland, your father let you sleep in Michael’s

room?

A. Yes.

Q. Was your mother there on that trip?

A. Yes.

Q. Did your mother let you sleep in Michael’s

room?

A. She was probably with my sister. We just

asked our dad.1413

Q. Well, you all had dinner in the main house

that night, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Was there a discussion at the dinner table

about whether or not you and Gavin could sleep in

Michael Jackson’s room?

A. No.

And here is Davellin’s recollection of that conversation at the dinner table:

21 Q. Okay. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, did you

22 tell the jury that the first day you arrived at

23 Neverland, you all had dinner in the main house.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And your father, your mother, Star, Gavin

26 and you had dinner in the main dining room in that

27 main house, right.

28 A. Yes. 844

1 Q. And was Michael Jackson there.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Was anyone else there.

4 A. Not that I remember.

5 Q. There was certainly kitchen help around,

6 right.

7 A. Well, they would come in and out.

8 Q. Right. And that was the first time your

9 family ever had dinner with Michael Jackson, right.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And without going into what anyone said, did

12 you tell the jury yesterday that the first time you

13 had dinner with Michael Jackson and the family, you

14 discussed whether Gavin was going to stay in the

15 main house.

16 A. Yeah. At that dinner, yes.

17 Q. The first time you ever had dinner with him.

18 A. Yes.

12 Now, you told the jury that the first night

13 you and your family were at Neverland, you had

14 dinner in the main dining room and discussed whether

15 or not Gavin was going to sleep in Michael Jackson’s

16 bedroom, right.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Now, that was the first day you’d ever met

19 Michael Jackson, right.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. You had arrived in the afternoon, right.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. You said you had played at Neverland with

24 your brothers that afternoon, right.

25 A. I don’t remember what we did. All I

26 remember is me meeting him, and the rooms, and that

27 we ate dinner that day.

28 Q. So would you say you were there a couple of 852

1 hours before you had dinner.

2 A. Yeah.

3 Q. Okay. Was your mother in the dining room.

4 A. Yes, we were all in the dining room.

5 Q. And the subject at dinner came up, “Will

6 Gavin sleep in Michael’s bedroom,” the first dinner.

7 A. Yes, Gavin brought it up in the dining room,

8 yes.

9 Q. Okay. To your knowledge, did your father

10 approve.

11 A. I don’t remember. I think he did.

12 Q. To your knowledge, did your mother approve.

13 A. Yeah, I think she did.

14 Q. Okay. When you met with the social workers,

15 did you tell them that your father and mother had

16 approved Gavin sleeping in Michael Jackson’s bedroom

17 the first time you were at Neverland.

18 A. If they had asked me, I probably would have

19 said, “Yes.”

20 Q. Because you would have told them the truth

21 that day.

22 A. Yes, well, on certain things. Because —

23 Q. You would have told them the truth about

24 certain things, but not other things, right.

25 A. Well, yeah, because you already kind of knew

26 not to say what went on at Neverland.

27 Q. So you would have lied about some things and

28 not lied about other things, depending on what you 853

1 were asked, right.

2 A. Yeah.

Gavin stated that he didn’t remember if the computer was his or Franks’, but Star seemed pretty certain that it was the computer that Jackson had given to Gavin! Here’s an excerpt from his direct examination:

27 Q. Now, when you got upstairs and you’re in the

28 room, what happened then. 1037

1 A. They were asleep on the bed, and Frank had a

2 computer. It was a computer that Michael gave him

3 the first time.

4 Q. Gave who.

5 A. Gave Gavin.

6 Q. Okay.

7 A. And this time it already had Internet

8 access, so Frank did something and the Internet was

9 on, and we started going on sites.

10 Q. Going on sites.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. What kind of sides.

13 A. Pornography sites.

14 Q. And where was Mr. Jackson during this time.

15 A. He was sitting right next to us.

  

Here, Gavin inadvertently defends Jackson by confirming to Sneddon that Jackson called many children nicknames such as “doo-doo head”, “Apple head”, etc. The prosecution and media insinuated that Jackson only applied those names to the young boys that he abused!

Q. During the time that you became acquainted

with Mr. Jackson, did you have a nickname that he

used?

A. Well, it wasn’t really a nickname just for

me. Like, he would call all the kids that came to

his ranch that. It was either like “Doo-Doo Head”

or “Apple Head.”

Q. So he would call you either one of those two

things?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you recall whether he had a nickname

for your brother? 1509

A. Yeah. Like, we were trying to make up

nicknames one time. He has a video library. And

then we made up one for my brother, “Blow Hole.”

In this excerpt, Gavin tried to diminish the influence that Jackson had on him throughout his cancer battle by saying that Jackson wasn’t around that much during many of his visits to Neverland, and he also described his anger when he found out that Jackson was on the ranch after he had been told that Jackson wasn’t there. This excerpt is very important because this is the moment when Gavin realized that he was being slowly exiled out of Jackson’s life, and during his cross examination the only time he showed any emotion was when he described his anger at this incident:

Q. During the time from when — the first time

you went to the ranch that you’ve described to us to

the time that you went there with Mr. Tucker –

okay? – during that, I think you said seven times,

how many of those times was Mr. Jackson actually

present on the ranch?

A. Maybe twice.

Q. And on those occasions when Mr. Jackson was

on the ranch, did you have any contact with him?

A. Those two occasions, yeah. But, I mean,

like, sometimes I would go up to the ranch and he

would say that he’s not there, and then he would be

there.

Q. What do you mean by that?

A. Like, when I would have cancer. I don’t

know what happened, but Michael, like, kind of

stopped talking to me and stuff, right in the middle

of my cancer.

And, like, I would go up there, and I would 1512

see, like, Prince and Paris playing there, and I

would think that Michael was there, and they would

tell me that Michael wasn’t there. And then, like,

I would see him somewhere, and — I don’t know.

Q. Was there one occasion when you actually ran

into him by accident?

A. Yeah.

Q. Tell the jury about that.

A. Well, I was playing with Prince and Paris

outside, like in the back of the house near where

the arcade was. And then we were walking into

the — into the main house. And I knew the code,

because they would give me the codes. And then I

walked in the door with Prince in my hand and Paris

in my other hand, and — we were holding hands. And

then we walked into the house and there I saw

Michael walking, like, toward me. But I guess he

didn’t see me turn the corner. And then he acted as

if, “Oh, crap,” you know what I mean? Like, he saw

me. And then — then he just played it off and,

like, acted like, “Oh, hi, Doo-Doo Head.” You know,

at the time I — I was kind of hypnotized and, like,

he’s my —

MR. MESEREAU: Objection; calls for a

narrative and nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Okay.

A. And then, like –1513

Q. That’s all right. I’ll give you a question.

So in any case, you bumped into him?

A. Yeah. And I was — because of —

Q. That’s okay. How much more contact did you

have with him on that time when you bumped into him?

How much time did the contact last?

A. I didn’t really see him through my cancer a

lot.

Q. I mean, you told the ladies and gentlemen of

the jury there was an occasion where you were there

when you kind of bumped into him by accident?

A. Yeah.

Q. When you actually made contact with him –

okay? – how long did that last? Just — how long

was the conversation between the two of you?

A. Maybe, like, five minutes. When — that

time we bumped into each other, and then we just

talked about — and stuff, and he said he had to go

somewhere.

During a seminar at the Cumberland School of Law in the Spring of 2007, Mesereau described this excerpt to the law students who were in attendance. According to legal analyst Laurie Levenson, this is what won the case for Jackson!

There is a law professor in Los Angeles who is a good friend of mine. Her name is Laurie Levenson and she teaches at Loyola Law School. She is a frequent television commentator on legal issues and a former United States attorney. I am sure some of you have seen her. 

Laurie is very highly respected in my city and I was recently privileged to address her criminal procedure class. When she introduced me, she commented on my cross-examination of the thirteen-year-old accuser in the Jackson case. She commented on my cross-examination question that she felt had won the case for the defense. That question was “why?” 

I had studied this child accuser as he responded to the district attorney’s questions in direct examination. I thought I had a pretty good feel for this witness. To me, he was a thirteen-year-old boy “going on thirty.” In my opinion, this witness was clever, dishonest, deceitful, cool and with an obvious agenda. He had taken acting lessons and appeared to like being in the spotlight. I sensed this the moment he appeared in the witness box. 

I believed that this child accuser was angry at Michael Jackson, but not because he had ever been molested. I believed he and his family had hustled celebrities like Chris Tucker, George Lopez and others and that his family thought they had “hit Lotto” when they met Michael Jackson. This was a low-income family whom Michael let move to Neverland at various periods. Because the thirteen-year-old boy suffered from cancer, Michael took them on trips, had a blood-drive and did all sorts of wonderful things for the family. 

The accuser’s brother was one year older and wanted to be a producer. Michael helped him produce a video at Neverland and was constantly doing nice things to assist this family. But then, Michael got sick of them. He got tired of them leaning on him and began to pull away. The children started calling Michael “daddy.” The mother started calling him “daddy.” I believed that these false molestation claims began when the family realized they were on the way out. 

As clever as this thirteen-year-old boy was, he was not smart enough. He had lied previously in a civil deposition where his mother made false claims that she was molested by security guards at JC Penny stores. In my cross-examination, I spent a lot of time trying to reveal to the jury who this thirteen-year-old really was. I could not have done so if I confined him to “yes” or “no” answers. You only learn who people really are when they talk and reveal themselves. I believed self-revelation was worth the price of relinquishing witness control. 

I warmed up this witness for the key question. My questions went something like this: 

“You and your family wanted to stay at Neverland, correct?” 

“You wanted to take trips with Michael Jackson and did so, right?” 

“You went on amusement rides with Michael Jackson, didn’t you?” 

“Michael Jackson introduced you to people you could only dream about actually meeting, right?” 

“And at some point you became very angry at Michael Jackson, didn’t you?” 

“Why?” 

This child accuser began to ramble about how Michael had abandoned him and his family. He never mentioned anything about child molestation! 

Of course, I am not saying that any of you should copy this approach. Just think about it.

Next, Sneddon questions Gavin about his introduction to Martin Bashir, what Jackson said to him to prepare him for the interview, and what his true feelings were about Jackson at that point in time:

Q. Okay. Let’s talk a little bit about Martin

Bashir.

Were you introduced to a person by the name

of Martin Bashir?

A. Yes.

Q. And where were you introduced to the person

by the name of Martin Bashir?

A. In Michael’s living room, in his main house.

Q. And who introduced you to Mr. Bashir?

A. Michael.

Q. Now, how did you get to the ranch?

A. Um, I think Chris drove me up that time.

And then — in his bus.

Q. And did any other members of your family go

with you?

A. It was only me, my sister and my brother.

Q. And did you know why you were going to the

ranch?

A. Michael wanted me to go up there, and then I

think I called Chris. Because I would always tell

him that we never went up there, like together.

We’d never been at the ranch together with Chris.

He would go up there one time, and I would be at

home. And then I would go up, and he would be home. 1517

So we said that we’d all go there together. So we

all went up there, and Chris took us up there.

Q. Do you — when you got there — let me go

back in point in time.

Did you have a conversation with Mr. Jackson

before you went up to the ranch for the Bashir

thing – meaning Mr. Bashir – within, let’s say, days

of that?

A. Michael told me that he wanted me to go up

to the ranch, but — that’s when he wanted me to go

with — well, that’s when it was set up with Chris,

but I mean before that, I didn’t talk to him in a

very, very long time.

Q. So when you said Mr. Jackson told you he

wanted you to go up to the ranch, how did that

communication occur between you and Mr. Jackson?

A. I don’t know. He called my house. And he

kind of said he was trying to find me or something.

Q. All right. So you go up to the ranch and

you meet Mr. Bashir. When you got to the ranch,

what was the first thing that happened?

A. Well, he put our bags away. And then I

had — and I went into the main house. And —

Michael took me to the main house.

Q. Who did?

A. Michael.

Q. The defendant?

A. Yes. 1518

Q. Okay.

A. And then introduced me to Martin Bashir.

Q. All right. What happened then?

A. He told me —

Q. Who’s “he”?

A. No, actually, I don’t think that’s the first

thing that happened. I think — he started talking

to me about what was going to happen and stuff.

Like, he was pointing — he was telling me about

another young man that was a burn victim. And he

was telling me about how he helped him or whatever.

Q. Who’s this? Who’s the “he”?

A. I don’t know.

Q. No, who was talking to you?

A. Michael.

Q. Okay.

A. And then —

Q. Where were you when you had this

conversation?

A. I think we were driving in one of the carts.

And then he was telling me that he was filming

something or something like that.

Q. All right. Did — did you at some point go

inside?

A. Yeah.

Q. Did you have any other conversations with

Mr. Jackson?

A. Yeah, that’s when he introduced me to Martin1519

Bashir.

Q. Any other conversation with Mr. Jackson?

A. Yeah. Like, he introduced me to Martin

Bashir, and then he took me — I think it was in the

library where he took me. And then he was telling

me, “Hey, you want to be an actor, right? And I was

like, “Yeah. I want to be comedian though.” And

then he was like, “But you can act too, right?” And

then I was like, “Yeah.”

“Well, I’m going to put you in the movies.

And this is your audition. Okay?”

And I was like, “Oh, all right.”

And he told me, “Okay. I want you to go in

and then tell them about how I helped you.” And he

told me to, like, make sure — tell them about,

like, this and that, and about “that you call me

dad,” or “Daddy,” or —

MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Nonresponsive;

calls for a narrative.

MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, this is the

conversation.

THE COURT: Well, it is narrative, though.

MR. SNEDDON: All right.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Was there anything else

said during the conversation?

A. He told me that he wanted me to say certain

things on the videotape.1520

Q. What did he tell you to say on the

videotape?

A. He told me to say that he helped me, and

that he — he pretty much cured me of cancer.

Q. Did you do that?

A. Um —

Q. On the video?

A. Yeah.

Q. Was it true?

A. Not really, because he — during my cancer,

he wasn’t really even there. I mean, the real

people — I mean, it’s, like, the real people who

were there were George Lopez, because he would

always visit me in the hospital like every day, and

he would bring me shirts and stuff. Chris Tucker

would always visit me in the hospital. Louise

Palanker would come and we’d make jokes because,

like, I wasn’t good at smelling stuff. Chemotherapy

would clear out everything. And then Fritz Coleman,

would always come with Louise and talk to me, and —

Q. At this point in time, when you went up to

the Bashir video —

A. Yeah.

Q. — to the Bashir interview, okay? —

A. Uh-huh.

Q. — did you have — did you admire Mr.

Jackson?

A. Yeah. I was like –1521

Q. What was your attitude towards Mr. Jackson

at this point in time?

A. I thought, like, he was the coolest guy in

the world. He was like my best friend ever. Do you

know what I mean?

Q. So you had a genuine affection for Mr.

Jackson at this time?

A. Yeah, I really liked him. He was like — I

don’t know, he was just — like — I —

Q. So during the course of the interview with

Mr. Bashir – okay? – after that interview was

completed, all right?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Tell us what happened after the interview

was completed. Was there any other filming that

went on that day?

A. No, I don’t think so.

Q. Do you know whether or not your brother and

sister ever got their picture taken in the filming?

A. Well, yeah. Well, there was one time that I

saw on the tape that they filmed us. I didn’t even

know the camera was on. And they were inside of the

kitchen and my sister and brother were there. And

me and my brother were showing Michael a marching

cadence from one of the programs that we were in

that we had learned.

Q. Now, did you know at the time that Mr.

Bashir was interviewing you with Mr. Jackson, the

defendant in this case, did you know that that video

was going to be shown around the world?

A. No, not at all. I thought it was another

thing like — like he had filmed before, like him

carrying me across the bridge, that video. I

thought it was going to be another thing like that,

like he was going to, like, put it away somewhere

and keep it just for himself.

Q. Had there been other instances on the ranch

where you had been filmed with Mr. Jackson, other

than the one with him carrying you across the

bridge, and the one with Mr. Bashir, that you

recall? 1523

A. No.

Q. Now, after the filming was over, do you

recall seeing Mr. Jackson at all, after that?

A. After the film? After the Martin Bashir

thing?

Q. Yes.

A. Well, I think he left, like, the next day.

And me and my brother and my sister, like, stood up

there, and we were, like, swimming and stuff.

Q. Did you have any contact with Mr. Jackson

after the filming?

A. No. Like, the same thing happened. Like,

the phone number they gave me while I was up there

wasn’t working no more.

Q. It’s a bad question on my part.

While you were at the ranch for the Mr.

Bashir filming and after the filming was over with

but before you and your brother or your sister left,

did you have any contact with Mr. Jackson at all?

A. No. A day after the filming, he left the

ranch and went somewhere.

Q. So where did you spend the night after the

Bashir film?

A. In our unit that they gave us.

There’s one itty bitty piece of information that Gavin excluded from his testimony concerning his conversations with Bashir prior to shooting his scene with Jackson: Bashir told Gavin to lean his head on Jackson’s shoulder and hold Jackson’s hand in order to give the general public the impression that they were lovers! This was confirmed to journalist Aphrodite Jones by Thomas Mesereau and Brian Oxman; she stated this to blogger Raven Woods in August 2010. Here is an excerpt of her interview with Woods:

One of the questions I had was where she had gotten the information that Marin Bashir had intentionally set up the scene in his documentary of Gavin holding Michael’s hand and laying his head on his shoulder.

 

“Where did you hear that?” I asked.

 

“That came from two of the attorneys who represented him {Michael}. (Later, in her Q&A, she added their names with an aside wink-”Thomas Mesereau and Brian Oxman”).

And here are a few excerpts from radio interviews she gave in 2010 where he also confirmed that it was Bashir’s idea!

 

 

That completes the first day of Gavin’s direct testimony. In closing, here is the video that Gavin referred to, where Jackson wheeled him over a bridge at Neverland:

Gavin’s direct testimony will continue in the next post; open this link to continue https://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/2012/06/11/march-10th-2005-direct-and-cross-examination-of-gavin-arvizo-and-sgt-steve-robel-part-1-of-3/

Advertisements
47 Comments leave one →
  1. Jan permalink
    July 15, 2012 3:05 pm

    MSN will not let me post a rebuttal on this site for some reason:

    http://music.uk.msn.com/features/misha-b-michael-jackson-is-my-number-one-inspiration-of-all-time

  2. stacy permalink
    July 15, 2012 11:29 am

    Where can i get trial transcripts?

  3. stacy permalink
    July 13, 2012 5:18 pm

    I like the quote from Geraldo:

    “All of the charges are subsequent to Martin Bashir’s damning documentary. Tom Sneddon would have us believe that Martin Bashir does this documentary that alleges Michael Jackson is a pedophile, Michael Jackson watches it on TV and says “Hey what a great idea. I’m gonna go out and molest a kid.” And then from there, from February 6th on, he starts these allegations. I think that it is preposturous… “

    • Rodrigo permalink
      July 13, 2012 8:02 pm

      I can’t help but laugh it all.

      During a time a crucial time of his life when all eyes were on him and the kid, Michael was busy molesting Gavin, licking his head in public places to be spotted, then planning on sending him and his family into space by means of hot air balloon? And hoping nobody would get wise? If haters say MJ was a criminal genius for that plan, then I as a supporter will say he was a ******* idiot! lol

      Also, at a time when they were supposed to keep the Arvizo’s happy, Frank Cascio makes a death threat?
      At a very distressing time in her life, being held against her will, Janet Arvizo reacted by going on shopping sprees?

      Honest to God…just, WTF?

    • stacy permalink
      July 13, 2012 8:53 pm

      @Rodrigo

      If people would use their common sense then they will see that the man was innocent and was falsely accused. The allegations came only AFTER the Bashir documentary aired, which leads me to believe that the film was the motive behind the allegations. Maybe this kid’s parents wanted some type of compensation for him being thrust into the public spotlight. What we have to remember is that Michael never obtained parental consent before included this child in this film, which I think was poor judgement. Why did he allow Bashir to interview him without his mom’s permission? This is why the prosecution accused him of exploiting Gavin for his own personal gain.

    • lynande51 permalink*
      July 14, 2012 9:58 am

      I know it does seem preporterous but if you think the story is bad now wait until I show you a few of the motions that these prosecutors wrote. Yes they use Janet’s story which is the really sad part. When you read that summarized you just have to ask if they read it too or what?

    • Rodrigo permalink
      July 14, 2012 11:01 am

      So they actually did all they could to support her insanity, just for the hope that she and her kids could send Michael down?
      They were desperate weren’t they?! lol

      And I would have loved to have seen their faces when Larry Feldman said they would have to enter a criminal trial instead of conveniently going in for a civil suit to get money!
      Good thing for them Sneddon had a vendetta against Michael, cause any sane DA would have locked Janet up in a madhouse on the spot and sent her kids to Juvie hall, where they all rightfully belonged.

      I’d like to see what they wrote, Lynette. I need a good laugh! 😀

    • nannorris permalink
      July 14, 2012 5:15 pm

      Why didnt the prosecutors ask Bashir why he would exploit a cancer victim ,who he is leading people to believe was a victim of criminal activity?
      Why didnt they ask him why he didnt call childrens services , instead he puts this kid on tv
      Because he knew this kid being abused by MJ in any way.
      These police never look at anyone but MJ.
      Never even consider looking at it in any other way..
      They were totally obsessed with MJ for years
      Bashir team was running the camera, they would know they needed this kids parents permission to film him more so them MJ would know..Janet Arviso must have known they would be filmed and that was why they were going to Neverland..
      They wanted money from MJ who was also a victim of Bashir.
      Why not go sue Bashir?
      Granada probably didnt care about a lawsuit because they were going to make so much money off this hit piece..
      But MJ had deep pockets and they figured it was like taking candy from a baby.
      Sneddon, Feldman, Bashir, Arvizo..they all make me sick

  4. stacy permalink
    July 13, 2012 6:36 am

    It’s really sad what these kids put him through. They totally ruined his life and made it a living hell. He lived his last years shunned by many as a child molester and was moving all over the place and couldn’t find his mark. First he lived in Bahrain, then Ireland, then Las Vegas. I read somewhere that when he moved to Las Vegas near an elementary school, all the parents were scared of him, and wanted him to leave, so he moved back to California. He would still be alive today living at neverland if it wasn’t for these evil people and their horrible lies.

    • Rodrigo permalink
      July 13, 2012 9:37 am

      God, I never knew that. I can’t begin to imagine what he must of felt like.

      But we can’t really blame the kids. Jordan was used by Evan. Gavin, while a cocky little ****, was used by Janet. Scheming parents taking advantage of Michael and his ways, taking advantage of their children’s friendships, and all of them saying –
      “Don’t worry, the money will help us feel better”

      • lynande51 permalink*
        July 13, 2012 12:41 pm

        Yes they were used as children but they are not children anymore. If the part of them that was that jealous child,the one that didn’t want other kids to be around Michael was not there in the first place it never would have happened. The thing is what Nan says is right. Until they take personal responsibility for what they did they will continue to be the criminals that their parents made them. They have had ample opportunity to come forward over the years and haven’t. Jordan could have even gone to court but never did. He joined his father in that second lawsuit so that tells you all you need to know about them.

    • nannorris permalink
      July 13, 2012 11:47 am

      That is how Jordan Chandler gets through life , spending the millions he extorted by ruining MJ life..
      He blames his parents.He hated them for what they did , but he managed to keep holding on to the loot they robbed..
      There comes a time when you have to take responsibility for your part in his destruction, and JC hasnt done that..
      Until he does , he is just as guilty as the rest.
      Notice none of the Chandlers started any foundation to aid child victims or anyone for that matter..
      June just bought herself a bigger house and nicer wardrobe..
      JC flies his plane around and goes sking
      Jason Francia has his motorcycles and pretends he made money in the stock market.
      And Gavin ….the only thing standing between him and his next con game is Ron Zonen trying to keep him out of trouble for his own selfish purposes.
      Must be a full time job trying to keep those con artists out of trouble..

    • lynande51 permalink*
      July 13, 2012 12:24 pm

      Stacy I have often wondered just how much that piece of land called Neverland figured into what happened to Michael. There was a dentist,Thambiah Sundaram, from the area that was going to be called to testify in the trial if he was needed. He was also a victim of Sneddon’s type of prosecution because Sneddon did not approve of him opening a free dental clinic. That is not what he was going to testify about. His testimony was going to be about a conversation at a local business group meeting where he overheard Sneddon and then friend Brooks Firestone talking about how to “get rid of the Michael Jackson problem”.
      Brooks Firestone was once a California State Assemblyman and local vineyard and winery owner. It was rumored at the time that Michael bought Neverland Brooks Firestone wanted to buy it to expand his business which was a multibillion dollar business. Michael outbid Firestone for Neverland and that did not sit well with him, so a lot of things that happened to Michael could be attributed to that if you look at some of the smaller unknown facts.
      If Michael had been found guilty of one of the counts there was a special sentencing guideline attached to the charges that would have required him to register as a sex offender. If he had been found guilty he would have automatically lost Neverland because he could not live there because of the registration. Directly across the road from Neverland was an elementary school and the border to the south was a Prep school for boys. Does anyone wonder where the idea came from to make it seem like he was male preferential? That is it.

    • Rodrigo permalink
      July 13, 2012 1:45 pm

      I agree. They should have come forward. But Zonen is doing all he can to keep the Arvizo’s sweet, using bribes. Jordan, he was always too scared to admit the truth. He was bricking it with Dr. Gardener, saying he feared the cross examination…what kind of child molestation victim would be scared of that? Unless, like Evan, he knew he would be found out.

      They won’t do the right thing now. The Arvizo’s have tainted minds anyway, no remorse or anything. Jason Francia is basically an idiot. And Jordan…well, maybe when the fear and shame of telling the truth passes, and his blood money runs, he’ll do it.

      But I suspect, he’ll be thinking to this day, back from 1993 when he last saw Michael-
      “I’m the one who destroyed his life”

      So instead of him being the big man, shown in 2005 when he refused to testify, he’s nothing but a lying coward, who can’t face up to what he did. He just runs away from it all.

    • sanemjfan permalink
      July 14, 2012 1:24 am

      @Stacy
      Yes, unfortunately a few parents complained that MJ had moved so close to a school in Vegas in 2008, but that’s not the reason that he moved back to Cali; he moved back to rehearse for the This Is It concerts. Here are a few articles:

      http://www.azcentral.com/ent/celeb/articles/2008/10/22/20081022mjackson.html

      Michael Jackson’s move opposite school prompts complaints

      Michael Jackson has moved into a mansion opposite a school, prompting complaints from parents.

      Jackson, who was acquitted of child molestation charges in 2005, is set to face a backlash from disgruntled parents who have children attending Las Vegas� Wasden Elementary School for four to 13 year olds.

      One concerned mother said: “Of all the residences he could stay at why choose one across from an elementary school? But I understand he was never convicted of anything and can live wherever he wants.”

      Jackson, 50, moved to Las Vegas with his children Prince Michael, 11, Paris, 10 and Prince Michael II, six, last year. Locals say he has not visited the school.

      He is believed to have been housed by casino and hotel owner Steve Wynn, who wants to persuade Jackson to appear in a comeback show at his luxury resort the Wynn.

      Although rumors of a Las Vegas residency have been abound for some time, details are yet to have emerged.

      Here’s another one, posted on a forum: http://www.noeman.org/gsm/free-discussion-%5Boff-topic%5D/67494-michael-jackson-settles-near-school-parents-complain.html

  5. kaarin22 permalink
    June 19, 2012 8:40 am

    There is no need to post haters comments,they have basically two lines of attack that all already know. Read some comments by Syzy,Nan and VMJ some days ago.They were about V.G. and that he stopped working( I take it you meant employment) in 1986. After that time he did much work nestling himself in with as many of Michaels staff as possible fishing for anything useful for his interests.And selling info, modified if need be, to tabloids and was he not also advisor to Martin Bashir?Certainly he got involved with uncle Ray and possibly also Evan at some point. What is really incredible that prosecutors and D.A. act as if they never heard or knew about him.Too bad the court could not ask for a psychiatric exam. of Evan.Legally they probably could not and anyway no intrest.Of course V.G. got a hefty fine (hefty for him) after he had asked for 60 mln from Michael.For prosecution it paid to be naive.

    • lynande51 permalink*
      June 19, 2012 10:48 am

      First let me start by saying that we are not posting the comments form haters. It is only one and the same one that used to do it on VMJ using multiple names and a proxy server.
      VG did work in LA at a Spanish newspaper, which one I don’t know. His primary job however was as a tabloid broker. That meant he would take people to the tabloid shows and the tabloid and if their story was purchased he would get a percentage of that for a finders fee. That is why he was in the courtroom in Santa Maria with the Neverland Five. He was there with them and their lawyer selling their “story” to Splash News ( Kevin Smith and Gary Morgan).They in turn sold it to all the tabloid outlets for a larger fee and that is how tabloids work.He went seeking Evan because he knew the ins and outs of the tabloid business and from there they could make sure that the story went public. If you watch the Frontline piece on MJ Truth Now it has a very good explanation of it.

  6. nannorris permalink
    June 15, 2012 10:34 am

    I know people who are reading along but not commenting because they dont know that much about the trial to give an opinion..
    Plus things that you might want to comment on from the older posts on the other blog ….you cant ..I guess.
    This has nothing to do with the transcripts but I was reading an interview with LMP daughter Riley Keough who has a new movie out and they asked her about MJ .She said her recollections are of him driving her to school. going swimming with her , and indulging her in candy at Neverland from the ages of 6 to 11.
    I would have put that on the old blog regarding Ron Zonen saying LMP was never with him Neverland ranch, because it directly goes against the assumptions he made from employees who gave tabloid stories… .It also verifies what Lyande said about him staying at LMP house because her daughter was school age, but there isnt a category for that yet here.Once things get alittle more put together , I am sure people will be commenting

  7. Linda permalink
    June 15, 2012 12:51 am

    Wow, what’s going on? No new comments for 3 days now. Seems pretty quiet around here.

    Anyway, a little off track here, but I haven’t heard anything from Mona for a while. She was a regular poster. Anybody hearing from her?

    • sanemjfan permalink
      June 15, 2012 1:46 am

      @Linda
      Yeah, it’s been pretty quiet, and I think it’s because these trial summaries are very long and tedious, and it takes people a while to read them. And unfortunately, there are some who really aren’t interested in reading them because they don’t have the time or desire to read them, or whatever other reason they come up with. 😦 This is why I wanted Helena to come back to the VMJ blog and finish doing her posts, but she wanted to close the blog and so we were forced to create this new blog.

      Mona is now an author of the blog, and we will soon import her AEG post to the blog. Hopefully she’ll start commenting soon again.

    • Linda permalink
      June 17, 2012 11:42 pm

      Linda PERMALINK
      June 15, 2012 12:51 am
      Wow, what’s going on? No new comments for 3 days now. Seems pretty quiet around here.

      I made that comment in jest. It didn’t look quiet at all here and still doesn’t. I always click on the box that says notify me of follow up comments via email when I comment on here. My e-mail has been bombarded with follow up comments by several aliases that are really nasty. I figure they are all the same person, because he/she can’t spell or punctuate, and can’t write intelligibly.

      Funny thing, when I come back on here, I don’t see any of those comments that I get in my e-mail. Are you deleting them from the posts? I don’t blame you if you are, since they are a waste of space and clearly from a hater. Probably from a young teen or pre-teen from the spelling and style of writing. Looking at my e-mail, sounds like you’re under attack, or maybe someone got my e-mail address and attacking just me. Copying from your post and adding stupid comments for my benefit. I don’t know, but I’m just not seeing all those nasty comments when I come back in here.

      I have a habit of ignoring the real hater’s, since they aren’t looking for truth and you can’t really talk to them because they don’t listen. That’s why I said it’s been quiet around here. The only thing I was getting was from this hater with no follow up comments. It’s all good, life is sweet.

      L.O.V.E.

      • sanemjfan permalink
        June 17, 2012 11:58 pm

        @Linda
        Yes, they are being deleted. I won’t tolerate those emails here, as they are only meant to distract us and start an argument amongst us.

        • Linda permalink
          June 18, 2012 11:12 pm

          sanemjfan PERMALINK*
          June 17, 2012 11:58 pm
          @Linda
          Yes, they are being deleted. I won’t tolerate those emails here, as they are only meant to distract us and start an argument amongst us.

          Good for you, and I agree. We don’t have the time to waste on that nonsense and I don’t have the energy. Some people just have too much time on their hands. Too bad they don’t put it to good use like you are.

          Peace

  8. June 14, 2012 12:46 pm

    “Still hasn’t read the transcripts.” LMAO, who are you trying to convince?

    • Rodrigo permalink
      June 17, 2012 8:46 am

      Sorry, after discovering all the truly sick and perverted things haters make up last night, I cannot take anything you guys say seriously.
      I was really quite shocked and sickened at how far you all go to poison people’s minds.

      When I think of all that time you and the rest of them just spend sitting around and concocting these terrible things up in your heads, it makes my blood run cold.

    • Rodrigo permalink
      June 17, 2012 9:17 am

      And for the record. You may think I’m a crazy, rabid fan or something, and I don’t like haters because they don’t like Michael? Well, you’d be wrong.

      I come from a pretty tolerable background, I let bygones be bygones, I let people go by their own business. I let them have their opinions. But you know what changed me?

      When I was on Youtube just after Michael had died, and I saw a hater tell a little girl to go and die, because she was a fan…And he couldn’t see any wrong with it, and told me to go die of AIDS cause I said he should be ashamed of himself…

      So you see why, I have a bit of trouble of with haters? Not because they hate Michael, but because they are pure evil…each and every one, and it’s pitiful, cause they don’t even know it.

  9. Rodrigo permalink
    June 14, 2012 10:16 am

    Dear God, not this again.

    Why can’t you go scream at the creeps at NAMBLA? Instead of harassing people that want to vindicate an innocent man and expose the liars and frauds?

    You’d be doing some real good if you did, cause this? It’s getting you nowhere.

  10. Julie permalink
    June 14, 2012 5:46 am

    It will never cease to amaze me that people such as yourself are in such denial that you actually post your nonsense on this site as well as others. Nothing you can ever say or ever do or post will ever change the fact that Michael Jackson was innocent, that Michael Jackson was vindicated in a court of law, that Michael Jackson is one of the most beloved entertainers and human beings on the planet. Nothing! It’s truly pathetic that you waste your time trying. Surely your life could be better spent doing something that helps people rather than what you’re doing.

  11. Linda permalink
    June 12, 2012 11:40 pm

    @ sanemjfan

    Thanks for the link. I know this site but was never able to download the scripts before. Seems to be working now. Gonna keep trying to find that other site and will let you know when I find it, and I will want your opinion when I do.

  12. Linda permalink
    June 11, 2012 11:00 pm

    @lynande51

    That was the Dear Gavin Arvizo website. Maybe part of this blogshould be to post all of the testimony in a library for reference.

    Thanks but, “Dear Gavin Arvizo” didn’t find that site back for me either. These people’s testimonies sounded pretty bad there, but even worse here. I think I’m still missing some of this. That other blog, where ever it is seemed to have most of the testimonies, but I just didn’t see a lot of what I’m seeing here. I think Azja Pryor’s letter was on there too, but not sure.

    It would be great to have all of those testimonies in one place, if possible.

  13. nannorris permalink
    June 11, 2012 9:57 am

    I dont think Gavin really cares what Chris Tucker thinks ..Because he has no shot whatsoever of ever being part of that celebrity world ever again.That ship sailed a long time ago, even before they concocted these accusations against MJ….They jumped on board with the prosecutors and continues to this day with this crap..
    The prosecutors treated these kids like heroes because they were telling them exactly what they wanted to hear.
    In a way , I am glad Zonen is stuck with them for life , trying to prop these two up..Sooner or later , they will show their true colors , no matter what kind of leash ,Zonen is keeping them on..So this is like a full time job for him trying to keep them on the right side of the law..
    It is so obvious to me that Zonens motives are selfish, more about protecting his own reputation then anything..Where is Davellin ?? Where is the tragic mother who had some kind of supposed battered wife syndrome? Why isnt he concerned about them?
    Because none of those people say they witnessed molestation, and that is the only thing he cares about..Is leaving some kind of doubt in the publics mind , so that they would have had some excuse for bringing the BS case to fruition..
    They are all stuck in the same boat…living this lie

  14. lynande51 permalink*
    June 10, 2012 10:44 am

    Does anyone ever wonder what Chris Tucker thinks of this family now?I think of that alot. Most people have heard what Azja Pryor thinks of them because of the open letter she wrote and read on televison but I just have to ask if the Arvizo’s ever consider what Chris Tucker thinks of them. Azja and Chris actually spent New Years Eve in Gavin’s hospital room with him. His mother did not! Azja testified that she never met Janet until the cancer treatment was all over. Do they ever wonder what Chris thinks about when he thinks of them? Chris and Azja were very, very good to this family and they know what the truth is. How does Gavin reconcile that in his mind now that he is grown, because he did not just hurt Michael he hurt many others that were good to him when he went along with his mothers plan.

  15. lynande51 permalink*
    June 10, 2012 12:47 am

    That was the Dear Gavin Arvizo website. Maybe part of this blogshould be to post all of the testimony in a library for reference. David and I are in the process of purchasing the grand jury transcripts too. When they were leaked they were selectively leaked by Cynthia McFadden of ABC news and given to TSG to post on their site. There are many grand jury testimonies that did not appear there and the ones that were are pro prosecution and pro conviction. They were leaked just a few days prior to jury selection for the trial and when they were leaked the way they were it is obvious that the media had a conviction agenda. They left out many grand jury witnesses that would have shown a more full picture of what the up and coming trial would be about and we think that it is time everyone is able to see see them for themselves.It’s called full disclosure and that is what we are going to do here hopefully.

    • June 14, 2012 12:43 pm

      Why don’t you make your arguments based on FACT? If he is a p*do, you should be able to prove that without making personal attacks against the people on this blog. And if there is “no vindication” then you wouldn’t feel threatened enough to actually come on here.

  16. Linda permalink
    June 10, 2012 12:26 am

    Sad about the split between you guys and vindicatemj, but at least I’ve found both of your websites. Funny thing is, I can’t bookmark either one of you. What’s with that? I also had a site on my old computer before it crashed with the court transcripts. I read through all of them, but I don’t remember those testimonies sounding like the ones I’m reading here. I can’t find that other site again. Any idea’s?

    • June 14, 2012 12:50 pm

      You still haven’t learned to use punctuation correctly? Tsk, tsk.

    • June 15, 2012 11:47 pm

      Please don’t think that previous comment was directed towards you. It was towards the hater who’s comments have been deleted.

      • sanemjfan permalink
        June 15, 2012 11:48 pm

        @Hillary
        That’s ok, we know it wasn’t towards any of us! 🙂

  17. lynande51 permalink*
    June 9, 2012 7:14 pm

    I know I have said that same thing a thousand times before about Gavins cancer. I will say it again. He had what is known as a Wilms Tumor. It is a rare cancer of the adrenal gland. The demographic it is found in most commonly are males age 8-12 and Gavin was right in that range. It is a totally encased tumor and can be removed but the surgeon will have to remove the kidney and in this case the spleen because it must not break open during the surgery or then it will metastasize to other organs. He would have had to have about a six month long series of chemo for prophilactic purposes and then it would be over.
    That is why he is still cancer free today fortunately for him. But that is just more evidence that Janet liked to “embellish” the truth as Tom Sneddon put it in a post trial interview.When you add more to a story to make it a different story if your name is Janet Arvizo it is not a lie, it is an embellishment. Go figure.
    I wonder would it be okay for one of us to go into a courtroom and embellish the truth the way the Arvizo family and the Neverland Five did? I bet not! I bet you anything it would be called perjury if we did it.

    • June 14, 2012 12:45 pm

      “Stalking Gavin.” Yup, quoting someone’s testimony in a PUBLIC trial, posting photos that can be found on a PUBLIC blog/facebook is all illegal. Call the cops, won’t you?

  18. nannorris permalink
    June 9, 2012 3:46 pm

    Thanks David ..This is great..First thing I notice is this line of testimony from Gavin regarding his cancer:
    ” The surgeons came in and they

    talked about it, and they said what the cancer was.”
    Didnt Janet tell everyone it was a mysterious form of cancer and they were sending biopsies all over the country to try and get it diagnosed.That he was at deaths door..
    Seems , from what Gavin is saying , the doctors had a diagnosis and game plan right away..

    Aside from the obvious lies…how do the prosecutors, explain the alleged victim being hurt and angry because Michael Jackson appears to be avoiding him like the plague , even before the Bashir documentary, and yet when the police and the entire world are watching every move he makes , he just cant keep his hands off this kid he has been avoiding..
    Michael was letting the kid come up there against his better judgement because he knew his mother was a schemer , but he pitied this kid..
    I wish he had trusted his instincts regarding these grifters..

Trackbacks

  1. March 9th, 2005 Cross Examination of Star Arvizo, Direct Examination of Gavin Arvizo, Part 1 of 2 « Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: