Skip to content

March 15th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Gavin Arvizo’s Testimony (Cross Examination), Terry Flaa, Jeff Klapakis, and Steve Robel (Direct & Cross Examination), Part 4 of 4

July 5, 2012

Sanger continued to ask Sgt. Robel about his recollections of the books that he saw all throughout Neverland, and stated that Jackson owned many copies of multiple books, and that they were oftentimes sent to him unsolicited. Sanger then asked Sgt. Robel about a particular book by Bruce Weber called “The Chop Suey Club”. Mr. Weber is a photographer who photographed the Jackson 5 and many other famous people, so by establishing that fact, it enabled the defense to impress upon the jury the fact that Mr. Weber’s previous relationship with Jackson was motivating factor for him to send Jackson his book. None of the Arvizos claimed that they were shown that particular book, or any of the other books that Sgt. Robel identified earlier.

2 Q. All right. Now, you saw all of this on

3 November the 18th, 2003, correct.

4 A. Correct.

5 Q. So you don’t know what exactly was there in

6 February or March; is that correct.

7 A. That’s a true statement.

8 Q. All right. Now, having talked about all

9 those books, among the books as you went through,

10 did you notice from time to time there might be more

11 than one copy of the same book.

12 A. Me, no, did not notice that.

13 Q. Did you notice that it appeared that a

14 publisher or an author had sent books to Mr.

15 Jackson.

16 A. I am unaware of that.

17 Q. All right. Now, this particular book,

18 Mr. Weber, who’s up there, Bruce Weber, The Chop

19 Suey Club, were you aware that Mr. Weber sent this

20 to Mr. Jackson unsolicited.

21 A. No, I’m not.

22 Q. Were you aware that Mr. Weber was a

23 photographer who had photographed The Jackson 5.

24 A. No.

25 Q. Photographed other people, Nelson Mandela

26 and a lot of other people.

27 A. No.

28 Q. Inside that very book, there’s an actual 2184

1 photograph of Elizabeth Taylor; is that correct.

2 A. It’s been a while since I’ve looked at that

3 book, so I couldn’t say for sure.

4 Q. Okay. And if I didn’t specifically ask you

5 on that, this, there was no witness that said they

6 were shown this book or saw this book, is that

7 correct, other than you and the officer that booked

8 it into evidence.

9 A. To the best of my knowledge, yes.

After going through the exact timeline of events with Sgt. Robel, Sanger asked him about a meeting that he had with the Arvizos on January 19th, 2004, where the detectives played for them the rebuttal tape that was confiscated from the home of Hamid Mosehli, the person who filmed it:

25 Q. Was there a tape-recorded interview on

26 January the 19th, 2004.

27 A. I don’t recall. I don’t have that report.

28 Who’s the author of that. Me. Or — 2195

1 Q. Well, I have the transcript here, and I’ll

2 have to find the report. But while I’m doing that,

3 or before I do that, let me see if I can refresh

4 your recollection a little bit.

5 Do you recall a meeting with the Arvizo

6 children during which, or preceding which, they were

7 played the rebuttal video.

8 A. I do remember that.

9 Q. And after the rebuttal video was played for

10 them, then you interviewed the various children one

11 by one; is that correct.

12 A. Yeah, but I was not involved in the

13 interview process of that. I was there, in and out.

14 That would be Detective Zelis that was the author of

15 that report. And he participated with the

16 attorneys.

17 Q. Okay. And when you say “the attorneys,” who

18 was there.

19 A. I believe it was Mr. Zonen and Mr. Sneddon.

20 Q. All right. Mr. Zonen and Mr. Sneddon

21 actually engaged in asking questions and making

22 remarks during those interviews, correct.

23 A. I do recall, yes.

24 Q. Okay. All right. So, could you —

25 A. Mr. Sanger.

26 Q. Yes.

27 A. No, it was — I stand corrected on that. It

28 was Mr. Zonen that was in there conducting that. 2196

1 Mr. Sneddon was with me outside the room. I mean,

2 we watched the videos together, but then when it

3 came to questioning the kids, we both stepped out,

4 and it was Mr. Zonen and Detective Zelis that

5 handled that.

6 Q. Okay. Let me see if I can refresh your

7 recollection in that regard.

8 May I approach.


10 Q. BY MR. SANGER: I’m showing you a

11 transcript. And you’re welcome to look at the whole

12 thing. The introduction and subsequent pages where

13 there’s some references, does that refresh your

14 recollection that —

15 A. Yes, it does.

16 Q. Okay. Was Mr. Sneddon there and did he

17 actually participate in part of the interview.

18 A. Yes, he did.

19 Q. All right. Okay. So having said that, can

20 you put on your chart — let me take the book back.

21 Thank you.

22 Put on your chart a reference for this

23 interview, which is January 19, 2004, or series of

24 interviews.

25 A. Okay.


The reason that they prosecutors completely changed the dates of the alleged abuse, as well as adding and subtracting charges (primarily the addition of the conspiracy charge) is because once they learned of the exculpatory statements that the Arvizo family willingly said about Jackson on the rebuttal tape, they needed to come up with a way to explain why the family would make such statements, especially since Gavin initially stated that the abuse occurred before the tape was filmed. So Sneddon rearranged the start date of the alleged abuse from February 7th to February 20th (the day the video was shot), the ending date of the abuse from March 10th to March 12th, and added the conspiracy charge to allege that Jackson forced the family to stay at Neverland and make the video against their will, and had planned on flying them to Brazil to escape the media onslaught.

This is what Mesereau had to say about the changing timeline on the first day of  his opening statement:

7 Two days later, on February 6th, 2003, the

8 Bashir program aired in the United States, and

9 Prosecutor Sneddon began an investigation. And Mr.

10 Jackson knew that. Of course, the allegations now

11 are a few weeks after the media frenzy, and the D.A.

12 investigation, and the DCFS investigation, and

13 Michael suddenly starts molesting Gavin.

14 By the way, we’re going to prove something

15 else. Initially when the prosecutors charged Mr.

16 Jackson, they said the molestation began in early

17 February. Later on, they learned that during a DCFS

18 interview, Department of Children & Family Services,

19 the family had all said Mr. Jackson did nothing but

20 help them. Never hurt them. Never did anything

21 wrong.

22 They later learned that on that video which

23 the prosecutor referred to where he says they had

24 essentially a gun to their head, or words to that

25 effect, and they also praised Mike Jackson and said

26 nothing bad was done, ever, and guess what. That

27 Complaint went by the wayside. An Indictment was

28 returned that changed the dates of the alleged 167

1 molestation to begin after those statements. And

2 that’s a fact.

3 And incidentally, we will prove to you that

4 after learning how important those statements could

5 be, where you’re recorded twice, actually more than

6 twice, you’re recorded over three times saying

7 Michael never did a thing wrong, never molested,

8 never touched, never did anything like that, Gavin

9 changed his story as well. Suddenly it all started

10 later on after the statements made to the Department

11 of Children & Family Services.


And here is what Mesereau said about it on the second day of opening statements:

18 I also indicated to you that the prosecutors

19 initially had filed a Complaint against Mr. Jackson

20 alleging that molestation had occurred, based on

21 what the Arvizos told them before the Arvizos did

22 the rebuttal tape praising Michael Jackson saying he

23 never did anything wrong. And you’ll see it in the

24 trial. And also before they were interviewed by the

25 Los Angeles Department of Children & Family Services

26 where they repeated their absolute denials that he’d

27 ever done anything wrong. They did nothing but

28 praise him to the hilt. 181

1 And what I said to you was after the reality

2 of those statements set in, the prosecutors changed

3 the dates of the alleged molestation and now they’re

4 supposed to have occurred after those interviews.

5 And as I said to you, this is a time when

6 the media and Mr. Sneddon’s investigating, and

7 everybody is talking about this Bashir documentary,

8 and the networks are coming out to see if they can

9 vie for the ability to do a rebuttal tape. This is

10 when they’re claiming these acts of molestation

11 occurred. They didn’t.

And here is Mesereau’s explanation of the trumped-up conspiracy charges; this excerpt is from the Frozen in Time legal seminar from September 2010:

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 were 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 ey’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. 


After Sgt. Robel finished summarizing his timeline, Sanger asked him to state it to the jury:

24 Q. Okay. Can we go through, just really

25 quickly with the pointer there, so you can tell us

26 what you wrote.

27 A. Okay. On February the 7th, that’s when the

28 family returned back from Miami. 2198

1 March the 12th, that’s when the Arvizos left

2 the ranch for good.

3 On June 13th, 2003, we received a call from

4 Attorney Feldman. And then on June 13th, Dr. Katz

5 was interviewed.

6 And July 7th was the first interview with

7 the Arvizo children.

8 August 13th was a follow-up interview with

9 the kids.

10 November 25th is when I met with Star and

11 Gavin for the bucchal swabs.

12 And November 18th is when we served the

13 search warrant at Neverland.

14 January 19th, 2004, that’s when the family

15 was interviewed regarding the rebuttal tape.

16 And then end of March through April of 2004,

17 the grand jury.

18 Q. Okay. Thank you.

Next, Sanger questions Sgt. Robel about the process of conducting searches, and specifically about the raids on the home of Hamid Mosheli and the office of Bradley Miller. Sgt. Robel admits that prior to the raids on November 18th, 2003, none of the Arvizo children ever mentioned that they had filmed the rebuttal video on February 20th, 2003 (although Janet mentioned it, albeit briefly, in one of her interviews):

21 Q. Okay. Now, if we look at — we have July

22 the 7th is the first set of interviews, right, that

23 are on tape.

24 A. That’s correct.

25 Q. And then August 13th, right.

26 A. Correct.

27 Q. Up to that point, you have not really

28 gathered much in the way of physical evidence in 2200

1 this case; is that correct.

2 A. That is correct.

3 Q. November 18th, you told us that you had

4 conducted a search at Neverland Ranch, right.

5 A. That’s correct.

6 Q. And that’s where you had quite a number of

7 officers and you were there all day, correct.

8 A. Right.

9 Q. And you’ve told us some of the things that

10 your department retrieved as a result of this

11 search, correct.

12 A. That’s correct.

13 Q. There was certainly quite a number of other

14 items that were retrieved, were seized, as a result

15 of that search; is that right.

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. In addition to that, two other locations

18 were searched on that same day, on November the

19 18th, correct.

20 A. That’s correct.

21 Q. One of the locations was Hamid Moslehi’s

22 house; is that right.

23 A. That’s correct.

24 Q. And the other location was the office of

25 Brad Miller.

26 A. Correct.

27 Q. Okay. Now, with regard to all of these

28 searches, you were responsible for the briefing of 2201

1 the officers before they went out to do the

2 searches; is that right.

3 A. I was one of the personnel that was involved

4 in that, yes.

5 Q. All right. And, of course, as the lead

6 investigator, you knew that all this was going on,

7 right.

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. All right. And after the searches were

10 completed, you were eventually briefed on what was

11 retrieved from the various searches; is that right.

12 THE COURT: Can we turn on the light again

13 or — are you through with that.

14 MR. SANGER: We could for a couple minutes.

15 In fact, what I’ll try to do is see if I can avoid

16 coming back to it before the next break.

17 Q. Okay. So just give us an idea of how much,

18 quantity-wise, was seized from the Neverland Ranch

19 search.

20 A. Are you taking about the various items,

21 Mr. Sanger. I mean, quantity —

22 Q. There were —

23 A. There was — there was a lot. I mean, there

24 was hundreds, yes, of items that we took.

25 Q. And of the hundreds of items that you took,

26 you were not able to evaluate all of them in the

27 field; is that correct.

28 A. Evaluate them to — their description. Or 2202

1 just to see what — if they fall within, what, the

2 search warrant.

3 Q. No. We’re not talking about that.

4 A. Okay. I just — I didn’t understand.

5 Q. You seized things. That’s a legal issue.

6 That’s fine. We’re here — I’m not worried about

7 that.

8 Let’s put it this way: When you seize

9 certain items at any search, quite often you have to

10 go back to the office, you have to look at them,

11 evaluate them, try to figure out how they fit into

12 the puzzle. Sometimes, if it’s a tape, you got to

13 watch it. If it’s a computer, you have to download

14 it and look at it, right.

15 A. That is correct.

16 Q. Okay. So the fact that you searched things

17 on November 18th doesn’t mean that you necessarily

18 are going to know the contents and significance of

19 everything that you seized as of the end of the day;

20 is that right.

21 A. That’s a true statement, yes.

22 Q. And with regard to Mr. Moslehi, he was —

23 his residence was in the Los Angeles area; is that

24 correct.

25 A. Yeah, San Fernando Valley, I believe.

26 Q. And the material had been taken from there

27 and brought up to Santa Barbara; is that correct.

28 A. That’s correct. 2203

1 Q. And then people had to look through it and

2 try to figure out what it was, what it meant.

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. And among other things, there were a number

5 of tapes, either videotapes or CDs or some medium,

6 but there was a number of recorded items that were

7 taken from Mr. Moslehi’s house; is that right.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And you understood that he was a

10 professional videographer; is that right.

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. Okay. And so consequently, he had a lot of

13 videos, I suppose, right.

14 A. Right.

15 Q. And then Mr. Miller, Brad Miller, was a

16 licensed private investigator; is that correct.

17 A. That is correct.

18 Q. Or I should say “is,” I suppose. But at the

19 time he was as well, right.

20 A. Right.

21 Q. And in the — as the lead investigator,

22 you’re aware that what was seized from his office

23 included some video and audio tapes; is that right.

24 A. That is correct.

25 Q. All right. So it took some time for the

26 investigators in the case — well, let me back up

27 just a little bit and withdraw that.

28 When you do a search like this, you bring a 2204

1 lot of people in to assist who are not going to be

2 permanently on the team investigating the case; is

3 that right.

4 A. That is correct.

5 Q. So you may detail people from another

6 division or another unit whose duties have nothing

7 to do with this case or even a case like this; is

8 that right.

9 A. That’s correct.

10 Q. And once they do their job, once they’ve

11 completed the detail, they have finished doing the

12 search, they bring the stuff back and book it into

13 your sheriff’s evidence locker, they go on and do

14 something else, right.

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. And they may not be involved in the case

17 again unless they’re called in to testify as to what

18 they did, right.

19 A. Right.

20 Q. Okay. So you have the scribes and the

21 seizers, and they bring the evidence back, and then

22 it may be that somebody totally different is going

23 to be assigned to actually evaluate it and

24 understand it and figure out how it fits into the

25 case, right.

26 A. That is correct.

27 Q. All right.

28 So I was going to try to get to the break 2205

1 without asking the lights go off one more time, but

2 let’s do it, if we can, please.

3 Thank you, Your Honor.

4 So, up to this point, November 18th, you

5 were not aware, as of that point, that there had

6 been a tape-recording by Bradley Miller of this

7 family; is that correct.

8 A. Only — yeah, you are correct.

9 Q. And as of November 18th, you were not aware

10 that there had actually been a film made of this

11 family, which later became known as “the rebuttal

12 film”; is that correct.

13 A. I believe that — and I’m not — because I

14 haven’t reviewed that statement, but I believe that

15 Mrs. Arvizo was explaining to us in her interview

16 that that had taken place.

17 Q. Well, we weren’t talking about Mrs. Arvizo,

18 because she hasn’t testified yet.

19 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to

20 object to that. He’s asking what the officer was

21 aware of. This isn’t a segregation.

22 MR. SANGER: No, this —

23 MR. SNEDDON: I apologize.

24 I object. Assumes facts not in evidence,

25 And it’s argumentative.

26 MR. SANGER: I apologize, because I said

27 something, but I will withdraw the question. How’s

28 that. 2206

1 THE COURT: I’m looking for a break, but —

2 rephrase your question.

3 MR. SANGER: Yes, Your Honor.

4 Q. That’s true, I am asking for your awareness,

5 but I was trying to avoid — I don’t want to get

6 into hearsay that’s not admissible because we

7 haven’t had the people testify yet, okay.

8 So it’s your belief that Janet Arvizo said

9 something about doing a film.

10 A. That is correct.

11 Q. Before November 18th.

12 A. That is correct.

13 Q. Okay. None of the children mentioned doing

14 the film before November 18th, though, correct.

15 A. To the best of my knowledge, that is

16 correct.

17 Q. And after the search, the searches on

18 November 18th, you eventually — well, you got

19 November 18th and November 25th all in kind of the

20 same place.

21 But after the searches on November 18th, you

22 became aware that there were actual copies of

23 videos; is that correct.

24 A. There were videos that we had seized. Is

25 that what you’re —

26 Q. Yes. But as of the 25th, you hadn’t

27 actually watched the — what turned out to be called

28 “the rebuttal video”; is that correct. 2207

1 A. I — I can’t say for sure if I did or not,

2 Mr. Sanger, because like I said, I had other guys

3 assigned going through that, because I was doing

4 other things at that point. But I was pulled in to

5 watch different things at various times, but I can’t

6 say for sure when I actually saw the rebuttal film.

7 Q. All right. But the first time you ever saw

8 the rebuttal film was sometime after November 18th;

9 is that correct.

10 A. That would be a correct statement, yes.

11 Q. And then January the 19th, 2004, was the

12 date that you assembled the Arvizo children to watch

13 the video; is that right.

14 A. That is correct.

15 Q. And they all watched it together, correct.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And then you conducted additional interviews

18 of each of the children; is that right.

19 A. Correct.

20 THE COURT: All right. We’ll take our

21 break.

22 MR. SANGER: Thank you.

23 (Recess taken.)

Sneddon’s raid on the office of Bradley Miller was controversial because he knew that Miller was an employee of Mark Geragos, and the raid violated Jackson’s attorney/client privilege, which also extended to Miller because he was working for Geragos. There was a possibility that Judge Melville could have deemed the raid illegal and, at worst, could have had Sneddon recused from prosecuting Jackson, but as we all know that didn’t happen!

Legal analyst Jonna Spilbor explains how Sneddon SHOULD have known that Miller was protected by attorney/client privilege in this article from July 20th, 2004:  

Looking for Clues in All the Wrong Places: Why the D.A.’s Search of Michael Jackson’s P.I.’s Office Was Unlawful, And What the Court Should Do About That

Tom Sneddon, Santa Barbara’s top prosecutor, has ended up a witness in a case which he himself is litigating. In what’s being touted as “an unusual move,” the judge in the Michael Jackson case has ordered Sneddon to testify at an upcoming hearing slated for next month.

In November 2003 — just hours before Michael Jackson was arrested on charges of committing lewd acts upon a child — sheriff’s deputies raided the Beverly Hills offices of private investigator Bradley Miller. Miller was working closely with Jackson’s then-attorney Mark Geragos on the Jackson case.

The subject of the hearing centers around whether Sneddon – who authorized the search warrant application, as well as the subsequent search, and reportedly conducted his own personal surveillance on Miller’s office building a couple of weeks prior – knew that Miller had been hired to assist in Jackson’s defense. Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville has explained that the court is “very concerned about the factual issue, whether or not the district attorney…knew that Mr. Miller had been retained by Geragos.”

If Sneddon did know, then why were obvious attorney-client privilege issues ignored? After all, Sneddon was authorizing a search of an employee of the defendant’s attorney. Imagine if he’d tried, instead, to ransack the office of one of Geragos’ paralegals! The illegality would be even more plain.

In this column, I will discuss why, exactly, the search of the private investigator’s premises was unlawful, and what the court should do about it.

California Law on Attorney-Client Privilege Can Extend to P.I.s

The attorney-client privilege preserves the confidentiality of communications between an attorney and his client. Its purpose is to encourage the honest, unfettered exchange of information between attorney and client during the course of legal representation.

In California, Evidence Code sections 950 – 954 define the attorney-client privilege broadly. Under California law, the privilege encompasses virtually any information — whether oral, written, photographic or otherwise — conveyed by a client to his attorney during the course of their professional relationship.

In addition, Evidence Code section 954 makes clear that the privilege applies not only to lawyers but to those third parties “who are present to further the interest of the client in the consultation, or to accomplish the purpose for which the lawyer is consulted.” (Emphasis added.) These third parties are best thought of as “necessary agents” – the persons the attorney needs to consult with to do his job.

Typically, such agents include experts, paralegals, secretaries, and, as in this case, private investigators retained by a party’s counsel. Thus, once it has been established that the investigator was retained by legal counsel to represent a suspect, the investigator cannot be forced to reveal the product of his investigation.

The law in this regard is quite clear. So what was Sneddon thinking when he authorized the warrant application relating to Bradley Miller’s offices?

The Prosecution’s Claim of Ignorance Of the Geragos-Miller Link Is Implausible

Thus far, the prosecution is claiming simple ignorance: Sneddon says he did not know of Miller’s relationship to Jackson’s defense camp.

But that seems highly improbable at best. After all, consider what the prosecution did know at the time – both specifically about Geragos, Jackson and Miller, and more generally about the case.

First, let’s look at the specific knowledge the prosecution had:The prosecution knew Geragos represented Jackson. (Indeed, they were dialoguing with Geragos in an effort to negotiate Jackson’s voluntary surrender before literally busting down the door to Miller’s office.) It plainly knew Jackson or his attorney had hired Miller, or why search his office in the first place? It knew enough about Miller’s relationship with Jackson to include an affidavit of probable cause sufficient to convince a judge to issue a search warrant.

Second, let’s look at the general knowledge the prosecution had. Remember, this search happened just hours before Jackson’s arrest – and the arrest warrant was issued before the searches. This was not a prosecutor’s office acting in the initial investigation of a case – it was an office on the verge of arresting the defendant. Its investigation, it seems, was mostly or entirely finished. Yet the Miller/Geragos link had never been revealed?

Also, this search apparently was one of three separate, simultaneous searches between Santa Barbara and Beverly Hills, all at precisely the same moment in time. The Neverland Ranch search alone involved seventy police and prosecutors. With such a knowledgeable battalion working on the case, is it possible it occurred to not a single officer or prosecutor that Jackson’s lawyer and his P.I. were working together?

For all these reasons, Sneddon’s claim that the Geragos/Miller relationship was news to him and his office is highly incredible.

A Search With An Accompanying Special Master Would Have Been Legal

Ironically, prosecutors in the case could have conducted a legal search of Miller’s office. California Penal Code section 1524 is not a wholesale prohibition on the DA’s ability to search a premises where the privilege is likely to be asserted. Instead, it allows such a search, but sets out a specific procedure to be followed:

When the warrant is issued, the court must appoint a “special master” – that is, an independent person not associated with police or prosecutors – to oversee service of the warrant on the person in possession of the premises (here, Miller). Then, if that person (here, Miller) states that documents are privileged, they must be sealed by the special master and taken to court for a hearing.

Why didn’t Sneddon play by these rules? It’s hard to say for sure, but it’s possible that the special master procedure was intentionally ignored because it would have undermined Sneddon’s “sneak attack” strategy.

Sneddon plainly saw an advantage in ensuring that the three searches were done simultaneously at different locations, without advance notice to Jackson’s defense team. And of course, the defense couldn’t be present at three locations at the same time, to observe.

If the Court Deems the P.I. Office Search Illegal, What Sanction Should It Impose?

First and foremost – and assuming the search of Miller’s office revealed evidence useful to the prosecution – the judge has the power to deem the illegally seized evidence from Miller’s office inadmissible as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” But here, the judge should do more.

There is a fine line between zealous prosecution and prosecutorial misconduct – and it’s a line this district attorney may be dangerously close to crossing. As prior columns for this site by myself and others have discussed, Sneddon’s apparent vendetta against Jackson has caused him to act improperly in the past, as well.

Suppressing evidence is not enough of a sanction when serious prosecutorial misconduct is at issue – as seems to be the case here. Only additional sanctions will properly punish and deter.

Unfortunately, however our system of justice is not exactly set up to mete out punishment to those who are supposed to be trusted officers of the court. Imposing fines against the attorneys themselves is always an option. Another possible (though rarely-used) remedy for prosecutorial misconduct, as I discussed in a prior column, would be to recuse the individual offending attorney — or the entire District Attorney’s office.

This remedy can be proper if the court is convinced that the district attorney’s office has employed its discretionary powers to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Did that happen here? Certainly, there is a strong argument that it did – based on the blatant violation of warrant procedures and the resulting seizure of potentially privileged material.

Finally, in the most serious of cases, there is but one remedy that both ensures a just resolution for an accused, and punishes prosecutors who fail to play by the rules: Dismissal of the charges. But it does so at a potentially great cost to the victim when the defendant is indeed guilty of the crime charged. Here, however, the evidence of the defendant’s guilt is tenuous at best – and what evidence exists, may be less than credible.

In this case, then, dismissal might not be too extreme a sanction. The critical import, however, is that suppression of evidence is not enough when misconduct is as grave as occurred here.

Mesereau filed a motion titled “Mr. Jackson’s Response To Plaintiff’s Memorandum RE: A Limit To Cross-Examination of Jane Doe”, in which he asserted that Janet Arvizo told Sneddon that Bradley Miller was an employee of Mark Geragos, and therefore Sneddon had firsthand knowledge of his attorney/client privilege, yet raided Miller’s office anyway, and this information should be subject to cross-examination.

In this article from MJEOL, Miller’s attorney John Dolan stated that Sneddon lied to Judge Melville when he told him that he didn’t know that Miller was working for Geragos, and Joe Tacopina (Frank Cascio’s attorney) stated that Sneddon was taped giving a speech, during which he violated the court’s gag order and bragged about subpoenaing people so that they could not defend Jackson on television!

Sneddon Admits He Knew Raid Was Illegal? Bullet #178

Written by Administrator. Posted in MJEOL BULLET

Sneddon Admits he Knew Raid was Illegal? – MJEOL Bullet #178 There is word of breaking news today of two new pieces of information surrounding current district attorney Tom Sneddon and prosecutorial misconduct. Sources say that Sneddon, after initially lying about it, admitted to knowing a private investigator was hired by then-Jackson attorney Mark Geragos.

Further, we have also learned that even after they “found out” (the second time) that Miller was a part of the defense team, they lied again to get a second search warrant.


Appearing on Fox News Live today (Aug 15 2004), defense attorney John Dolan told Fox that the Jackson “case” is a train wreck waiting to happen because of the misconduct of current lead prosecutor and DA Tom Sneddon. Dolan says that prosecutors initially lied to Judge Rodney Melville when they first claimed they didn’t know Miller was working for Geragos in written papers. Dolan tells Fox News:


In the written papers filed with the court, Sneddon and his offices say they didn’t know Brad Miller was hired by Mr. Geragos. But in a telephone conference call with the defense and with some prosecutors, he admitted that he did know, before this investigation and before this entry by sledgehammer into Brad Miller’s office, that Miller was working for Geragos” (:camera see FoxNewsLive: Sneddon Admitted to Knowing Miller worked for Geragos Aug 15 2004 ).

Dolan says that this extraordinary set of circumstances could cause the attorney general to have to become involved in this case once again if Sneddon is made to step down from this case. “That’s a train wreck because then the attorney general comes in to take over the case,” Dolan says. He continues:

The same attorney general that probably has to investigate the district attorney’s office about what they did in this search warrant. It’s a real mess.”

Also discussed was what police may have been looking for in Miller’s office. Reportedly, the story goes, the family told prosecutors that Miller may be in possession of some letters Jackson wrote to the accuser. Most observers don’t seem to understand why Miller would have those alleged letters. Even though they had a search warrant, police still sledge-hammered their way into Miller’s office. These alleged letters were supposed to have been inside a storage box of some kind. Dolan said a storage locker was discovered during the police’s initial search. Evidently they didn’t find any letters because Dolan reports that after they were told (again) that Miller was working for Geragos and after Miller’s attorney showed up at the scene during the initial raid they obtained a second search warrant. This second warrant was obtained, again, without mention that Miller was a part of the defense team:

And that storage locker, by the way, was discovered during the initial search. And then a second search warrant was obtained compounding the problem because they again didn’t mention that Brad Miller was Mark Geragos’s investigator. And Brad Miller was there and told them that before they went and got the second search warrant.”

So all of this illegal searching and prosecutors may have still come up empty-handed with regards to any incriminating evidence. The only report about any “evidence” prosecutors want to use is actually exonerating material: a video of the family on tape saying nothing happened and professing how good a person Jackson is. Believe it or not, prosecutors are actually trying to claim that this shows a “conspiracy” and that the family was made to say those things. Yeah right. This new information comes on the heels of other information about Sneddon breaking the gag order he, himself, requested. And then lying to the media about not breaking it. Attorney Joe Tacopina, who represents one of the prosecution-alleged co-conspirators” told Fox News’s Geraldo Rivera (August 14 2004) that someone taped the speech Sneddon made in which Sneddon breaks the gag order by discussing this “case”. Not only that, Sneddon is supposedly caught saying that he subpoenaed certain people to keep them off TV and from defending Jackson:

He said this at a speech that someone taped. So yes, he’s gonna admit he did that. And he said he did that” (:camera see Rivera: Joe Tacopina talking about Sneddon testifying Aug 14 2004 ).

This is more of that “special treatment” again. Tacopina says that if this situation had been overseen by an unbiased prosecutor, this “case” never would have been brought. He says that there is massive amounts of baggage” that’s going to come out about the family. “

The inconsistencies are gonna be enormous,” Tacopina says. He also says that all the credible evidence in this case is overwhelmingly in Jackson’s favor. Stay tuned. -MJEOL

We will dedicate an entire post to Sneddon’s illegal and unethical raid of Bradley Miller’s office in the near future, so stay tuned!

After returning from recess, Sanger grilled Sgt. Robel about how the prosecution and detectives reacted to viewing the rebuttal tape for the first time, and what they said in their interview of the Arvizo family about the video on January 19th, 2004. Sgt. Robel claimed that the reason for the interview was to “clarify issues that they were saying on the tape”. None of the Arvizo children had ever mentioned, or been asked about, the rebuttal video or their interview with Bradley Miller in previous police interviews:

24 THE COURT: All right. You may proceed.

25 MR. SANGER: Thank you, Your Honor.

26 Q. All right. We’ve established this timeline

27 now — is that on. Yes.

28 We’ve established the timeline, and let’s 2208

1 just start with Davellin. The first time that

2 Davellin said anything to you about the rebuttal

3 video was in the January 19th, 2004, interview,

4 correct.

5 A. I believe that’s correct, yes.

6 Q. Now, when you had these interviews, this was

7 a pretty big event in the investigation, was it not,

8 the interviews of January 19th.

9 A. A big event in what respect.

10 Q. Big event in the respect that you — you,

11 meaning you and Mr. Sneddon and Mr. Zonen and

12 perhaps other law enforcement officers, had seen the

13 rebuttal video, and you were calling the family in

14 to ask them how they could do that video.

15 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I object. Assumes

16 facts not in evidence.

17 MR. SANGER: Well, it was compound probably.

18 Let me break it down.

19 Q. You had seen the video by January 19th,

20 correct.

21 A. That’s correct.

22 Q. And to your knowledge, had Mr. Sneddon seen

23 the video by January 19th.

24 A. I don’t recall that.

25 Q. Before he commenced or before you all

26 commenced the interviews with the kids on January

27 19th, Mr. Sneddon saw the video, correct.

28 A. I can’t answer that. I’m not sure of that. 2209

1 I know that I — a portion of that video I did see,

2 because one of my investigators showed it to me on

3 the computer.

4 Q. All right.

5 A. I can’t answer for Mr. Sneddon. I believe

6 that was the first time I saw it. I’m not positive,

7 though.

8 Q. Okay. My question may not have been clear.

9 What I was talking about is, at the very least, he

10 showed the video before you started doing the

11 interview with the kids, correct.

12 A. Yes, that’s correct.

13 Q. And when you showed the video to the kids,

14 Mr. Sneddon watched it, correct.

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. Mr. Zonen watched it, correct.

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. You watched it.

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. And were there any other people there. Was

21 Detective Zelis there.

22 A. Detective Zelis.

23 Q. He watched it.

24 A. That’s correct. And I think Lieutenant

25 Klapakis watched it.

26 Q. All right. Now, the reason for the meeting,

27 as it were, was to ask this family how they could do

28 a rebuttal video like that if they maintained these 2210

1 allegations; is that correct.

2 MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to object to that

3 question as argumentative. It’s just — that’s like

4 testifying.

5 THE COURT: Overruled.

6 MR. SANGER: Do you have the question in

7 mind.

8 THE WITNESS: Why don’t you repeat your

9 question.

10 THE COURT: I’ll have the court reporter do

11 it.

12 (Record read.)

13 THE WITNESS: That is incorrect. It was to

14 clarify regarding my previous interview with them,

15 to clarify issues that they were saying on the tape.

16 Q. BY MR. SANGER: All right. As of the

17 previous interviews, none of the Arvizo children had

18 been asked about the rebuttal video, correct.

19 A. That is correct.

20 Q. And none of them had been asked about the

21 Miller interview; is that correct.

22 A. I believe that’s correct.

23 Q. In fact, due to whatever factors, you were

24 not able to actually listen to the Miller video

25 until sometime in February, I believe, of 2004; is

26 that correct.

27 MR. SNEDDON: I think counsel misspoke about

28 a video. 2211

1 MR. SANGER: What did I say. I said “listen

2 to a video.” I meant “listen to an audiotape,”

3 you’re correct.

4 May I rephrase.

5 THE COURT: Rephrase, yes.

6 MR. SANGER: Towards the end of the day. I

7 didn’t have pizza, but I’m — maybe because I

8 didn’t, I’m fading here. Okay. Let’s try that

9 again.

10 Q. The Miller tape, which now we’ve found is an

11 audiotape; is that correct.

12 A. That is correct.

13 Q. And that audiotape apparently was made about

14 March the 16th, I believe, is that correct, of 2003.

15 A. That sounds about right.

16 Q. So that tape was not found at all by law

17 enforcement before November 18, correct.

18 A. That’s correct.

19 Q. And in other words, when I say “found,”

20 nobody gave you a copy. You didn’t have a copy of

21 it, correct.

22 A. Correct.

23 Q. And nobody told you about it before November

24 18th, did they.

25 A. Yeah. Meaning nobody told me about the

26 interview or about the tape.

27 Q. That there was a tape-recorded interview

28 with Brad Miller. 2212

1 A. I cannot say for sure because I haven’t gone

2 over my report, my interview with Mrs. Arvizo. But

3 I believe she mentioned something in her interview

4 regarding that.

5 Q. Your belief right now as you’re sitting

6 there —

7 A. I believe so. I’m not positive, but I

8 believe it was mentioned during that interview.

9 Q. We’ll come back to that. As far as the kids

10 are concerned, the kids never mentioned anything

11 about being tape-recorded.

12 A. I don’t believe they did.

13 Q. And they were never asked anything about

14 being tape-recorded, were they.

15 A. That is correct.

16 Q. Does that help refresh your recollection

17 that you didn’t know about it.

18 A. Right. We didn’t know, right.

19 Q. Now, that tape, that audiotape of Brad

20 Miller doing the interview with the Arvizo family,

21 was seized on November 18th from Brad Miller’s

22 office, correct.

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. Due to reasons beyond your control, you were

25 not able to actually listen to that tape until

26 sometime in February of 2004; is that correct.

27 A. I’m not sure of the date, but it was right

28 around that — it was 2004, somewhere in there. 2213

1 Q. And it was after the January 19th interview.

2 A. I believe it was.

Here is where Sgt. Robel describes what Davellin Arvizo said during her July 7th, 2003 interview. In it, she claimed that although she never witnessed any acts of abuse, she was told by Gavin and Star that Jackson had talked to them about masturbation, had simulated having sex with his mannequin, and that Gavin and Star were almost always together when they told her their stories of abuse.  

Also, Sgt. Robel testified that he didn’t become aware of any explanation of the video from the Arvizo children until after the January 19th meeting, when they claimed they were forced to say nice things about Jackson by Dieter Wiesner.

3 Q. All right. So when you interviewed Davellin

4 on January 19th, 2004, you asked her why she said

5 “father,” and why they were talking about “father”

6 and “father figure” and all that; is that correct.

7 A. Okay. You’re getting into the interview

8 portion of it, and I — to the best of my

9 recollection, I don’t recall me being the one that

10 interviewed her regarding that video. That would

11 have been Detective Zelis.

12 Q. You were in and out of the room.

13 A. Yes, I was.

14 Q. Okay. When you were in the room, you don’t

15 recall ever talking about Dieter telling her she had

16 to say that sort of thing.

17 A. Like I said, I’d have to go on ahead and —

18 if you have the transcripts to that, to let me

19 recall my memory, that would be great.

20 Q. I do have the transcripts.

21 A. I cannot remember what portions that I was

22 in, and a majority of those I was not in.

23 MR. SANGER: May I approach, Your Honor.

24 THE COURT: Yes.

25 Q. BY MR. SANGER: The transcript of that

26 particular interview is a few pages. I’ve given you

27 the whole notebook.

28 A. This has the D.A. and then it has her. It 2214

1 doesn’t have us.

2 Q. If you — I’m sorry. What I did – I was

3 going to explain – I gave it to you open to the page

4 that I had it open to.

5 A. Right.

6 Q. If you go back, you’ll see where it starts

7 there. And you’re welcome to look at the whole

8 thing.

9 Either you were there or you weren’t. If

10 you weren’t there, that’s okay. You can just tell

11 me, and we’ll —

12 A. I don’t recall being in — sitting in on

13 this particular interview, is what I’m saying. And

14 even with the boys and so forth, because I was out

15 doing other things. I watched the video that day.

16 I did watch that.

17 Q. I’ll come get it in a second.

18 You’ve reviewed the transcript that I’ve

19 showed you, of Davellin’s interview of January the

20 19th, 2004, and it doesn’t refresh your recollection

21 as to anything that might have been said in your

22 presence.

23 A. It doesn’t.

24 Q. Okay. All right.

25 May I approach.

26 THE COURT: Yes.

27 MR. SANGER: Thank you.

28 Q. As the lead investigator in this case, did 2215

1 you become aware after the January 19th interviews

2 that essentially the three children had an

3 explanation for how they could give that interview

4 that was shown on the rebuttal and still maintain

5 their allegations.

6 A. That is correct.

7 Q. And, in essence, they were claiming that

8 Dieter told them to say much of what was said on

9 that tape.

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. All right. Well, while we’re on Davellin —

12 and then we’ll go back to the others and see how far

13 we get with them.

14 And, Your Honor, if you wanted to hit the

15 lights —

16 THE COURT: Okay.

17 MR. SANGER: — that would be fine.

18 Q. With regard to Davellin, you first

19 interviewed her on July 7th, ‘03. We talked about

20 that, right.

21 A. Correct.

22 Q. And that was the interview where she gave

23 you a tremendous amount of detail about what

24 happened to her brothers, allegedly, right.

25 A. “Detail” meaning — regarding what.

26 Q. Well, we could go through it.

27 A. I have transcripts of her interview up here.

28 Q. All right. Davellin told you some things 2216

1 that she claimed to have observed herself, correct.

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. And none of those things involved

4 allegations of child molest; is that correct.

5 A. Right.

6 Q. That she observed herself.

7 A. I believe you’re correct, yes.

8 Q. However, she gave you details as to what

9 allegedly happened to Gavin and allegedly what Star

10 claimed to have seen; is that right.

11 A. I recall her giving me details regarding

12 drinking alcohol, things to that effect, but not

13 regarding the actual act of molestation, no.

14 Q. She told you — well, let’s do it this way.

15 Your Honor, the bailiff indicated I was

16 supposed to alert if we were going to get into

17 sexually explicit —

18 THE COURT: No, just the photographs.

19 MR. SANGER: Just photographs, okay.

20 Q. She told you — and I’m talking about July

21 7th, 2003. She told you that —

22 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor —

23 Go ahead. I’m sorry.

24 MR. SANGER: Let me start again.

25 Q. I’m talking about the July 7th, 2003,

26 interview. She told you that Gavin and Star told

27 her that Michael Jackson talked to them about

28 masturbation. Is that correct. 2217

1 A. Okay, that does — yes.

2 Q. And she told you that the conversation

3 involved the question of whether or not white stuff

4 came out; is that correct.

5 A. Correct.

6 Q. She told you that Gavin and Star talked

7 about other particular claims like the mannequin

8 incident, right.

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. And there are a number of others; is that

11 right. A number of other details.

12 A. Correct.

13 Q. All right. And she told you that the way

14 she learned those details is that Gavin would tell

15 her and Star would stand there and listen and agree

16 with what Gavin was saying.

17 A. I don’t recall that.

18 Q. Okay. I’ll come back to that in one second.

19 She also told you that her mother had told

20 her certain things about this; is that correct.

21 A. Just — I don’t know what certain things

22 you’re talking about, Mr. Sanger.

23 Q. Well, for instance, that the mother had told

24 her the story about the urine bottle —

25 A. Okay. Yes.

26 Q. — is that right.

27 Now, on the other one there, I’m going to

28 refer you to page 24. 2218

1 A. Okay. I’m there.

2 Q. Would it refresh your recollection as to

3 what you were told at that time.

4 A. Do you mean the whole page, is what you’re

5 asking, or —

6 Q. I’m sorry. If you start at about line 13,

7 or line 11.

8 A. Yes, it does.

9 Q. And, in fact, Davellin told you that Gavin

10 and Star told her the stories, correct.

11 A. Yes. That’s correct.

12 Q. And that she said, “Yeah, it’s like one

13 tells me and the other one agrees to it.” Is that a

14 quote as to what she said to you at that time.

15 A. I — it’s in the transcripts. I don’t

16 recall her saying that, but it’s there, so it must

17 be correct.

18 Q. Well, I don’t want you to agree with

19 something reluctantly.

20 A. I mean, I don’t recall her saying that.

21 Q. Would it help you to listen to the tape to

22 refresh your recollection.

23 A. That probably would.

24 Q. All right. Would you be able to do that at

25 the break this evening and come back tomorrow. I

26 don’t want to do it here in court, if we can avoid

27 it.

28 A. Sure. 2219

1 Q. Okay. You have a copy of the tape you can

2 listen to.

3 A. I think I can get a copy of that, sure.

4 Q. All right. Do you recall her saying — let

5 me withdraw that. Do you recall Detective Zelis

6 asking her, “So they” — “So are they together” —

7 I’m sorry. Let me try it again.

8 “So are they together when they tell you

9 this.”

10 And Davellin saying, “Yeah, most of the

11 time.”

12 Detective Zelis: “Most of the time. Okay.”

13 Do you recall that, or do you need to listen

14 to the tape to refresh —

15 A. Well, the interview was quite a while ago,

16 so, I mean, I need to listen to that as well.

17 Q. This was a transcript that was actually

18 prepared by a certified court reporter —

19 A. Uh-huh.

20 Q. — is that correct.

21 A. Correct.

22 Q. And it was prepared at the request of the

23 sheriff’s department, or the D.A.; is that correct.

24 A. Correct.

25 Q. All right. So you don’t have any reason to

26 believe that the transcript is inaccurate. You just

27 want to be careful and —

28 A. Correct. That is correct. 2220

1 Q. All right. Now, do you recall Davellin

2 telling you on — during this interview of July the

3 7th, that Gavin was a loving little boy, and that he

4 started acting out after these events.

5 A. Yes, I do.

6 Q. Do you recall the next interview on August

7 13, 2003, where she said Gavin was becoming violent

8 and argumentative as a result of these events.

9 A. That is correct.

10 Q. All right. Now, there was an interview —

11 let me just be sure I’ve got the right one here.

12 Excuse me.

13 Did you interview Davellin on November the

14 25th.

15 A. No. I believe, to the best of my

16 recollection, it was only the boys.

17 Q. Only the boys. Okay.

18 At some point, did Davellin tell you in one

19 of the interviews that she was always by herself at

20 the ranch and she was not allowed to be with her

21 mom.

22 A. I’d have to review that.

23 Q. All right. I’ll ask you if you could do

24 that. And I’ll find you the page number for that —

25 A. Okay.

Next, Sanger questions Sgt. Robel about Gavin’s allegation from earlier in the trial where he attributed a statement about “men having to masturbate or else they may get to a point where they might go ahead and rape a woman” to Jackson, when he initially attributed that statement to his grandmother during all of his police interviews and grand jury testimony. Sgt. Robel stated that Gavin never ever attributed that statement to Jackson during his police interviews and grand jury testimony. Sanger then questioned Gavin’s statement from his January 19th, 2004 interview that “99.9%” of everything that he said on the rebuttal tape was true, and Gavin’s inconsistent statement regarding whether he called Jackson or vice versa during Jackson’s visit to the Universal Hotel.

Sanger challenged Sgt. Robel about a conclusion that was reached by his investigators that Gavin could not have been abused on five different occasions (Gavin initially claimed to have been abused five times during his July 7th and August 13th, 2003 interviews, but that amount changed to seven in December 2003 when the initial complaint was filed, and then dropped down to four when Jackson was indicted in April 2004). However, Sgt. Robel denied that that conclusion had been reached.

During his November 25th, 2003 interview, Gavin claimed that he was abused both before AND after the DCFS interview, but during his January 19th, 2004 interview Gavin stated that he wasn’t sure of the exact dates when the abuse occurred, and said that investigators probably would know the dates. Finally, Sgt. Robel admitted that after Gavin testified to the grand jury that the abuse began between March 2nd and 12th, after his trip to Neverland from the Calabasas hotel, he determined that Jackson was not on the ranch at all during two or three days in that time span!

27 All right. Let’s take a look at — at Gavin

28 Arvizo’s. Now, Gavin Arvizo, on August 13, 2003 — 2221

1 let me withdraw that, before we get to this.

2 This pertains to the story or the claims

3 about masturbation. You were sitting here when

4 Gavin Arvizo testified on the stand during this

5 trial, correct.

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. And he said that Michael Jackson told him,

8 “If men don’t masturbate, they get to a level where

9 they can — might rape a girl.” Do you remember

10 that.

11 A. I do.

12 Q. Okay. That was the first time you ever

13 heard Gavin Arvizo attribute that statement to

14 Michael Jackson, was it not, sir.

15 A. I believe so.

16 Q. And, in fact, Gavin Arvizo told you on

17 August 13, 2003, that it was his grandmother who

18 told him, “If men don’t do it, men might get to a

19 point where they might go ahead and rape a woman.”

20 Is that correct.

21 Page 28, if you want to take a look at it.

22 A. I’d like to do that.

23 Q. August 13th.

24 A. Is that 28 you said.

25 Q. Yes. 28, line 4, starts, “My grandma

26 explained it to me.”

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. And you remember him saying that because, in 2222

1 fact, you testified before the grand jury on April

2 14th that — of 2004, that Gavin, in fact, told you

3 that his grandmother said that; is that correct,

4 sir.

5 A. That’s correct.

6 Q. And, in fact, in the August 13, 2003,

7 interview, Gavin said, “My grandma explained it to

8 me. She told me that — that you’re — the only

9 reason — because like if — if men don’t do it, men

10 might get to a point where they might go ahead and

11 rape a woman. So instead of having to do that, so

12 they don’t — so they don’t get wanting to go do

13 that.” Did he say that.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. All right. Now, do you have a recollection

16 of Gavin’s interview of January — January 19th of

17 2004.

18 A. That’s going to fall under the same category

19 as Davellin.

20 Q. Okay. As far as you know, though, from your

21 investigation, that was the first time — the

22 January 19, 2004, interview was the first time that

23 the kids were confronted with the rebuttal video and

24 asked to explain why they said what they said.

25 A. That’s correct.

26 Q. Did you become aware that Gavin Arvizo in

27 that January 19, 2004 interview said that 99.9

28 percent of the things on the rebuttal tape were not 2223

1 true.

2 A. I don’t recall that, but I’d have to review

3 that as well.

4 Q. And were you in general – and I’ll get off

5 it here – were you, in general, aware that he had

6 said that Dieter told them to say what they said.

7 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I should have

8 objected earlier. I object to the fact that this

9 officer is not established as even in the room when

10 those statements were made. Lack of foundation.

11 THE COURT: Well, I’ll sustain the objection.

12 More importantly, the question, “in general,” calls

13 for a conclusion on his part.

14 MR. SANGER: All right.

15 Q. Well, I’ll just ask you to review that tape

16 as well, or the transcript again, to see if it

17 refreshes your recollection if you were there. If

18 you were, that’s fine. And if you weren’t, that’s

19 okay, too.

20 Were there inconsistencies — besides the

21 one we just talked about, were there

22 inconsistencies —

23 MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to object to that

24 kind of talk from counsel. It’s a conclusion on his

25 part.

26 MR. SANGER: “That kind of talk”.

27 I object to the objection as not being

28 proper. Let me withdraw it, Your Honor. 2224

1 THE COURT: There’s no question there, so go

2 ahead and make a — do a question.

3 Q. BY MR. SANGER: You talked about the

4 inconsistency between the statement about

5 masturbation on the stand versus prior statements.

6 And other than that, were there other

7 inconsistencies in Gavin Arvizo’s statements that he

8 gave over the period of time.

9 A. Can you direct me to what —

10 Q. Did you notice that there were any.

11 A. Both times regarding —

12 Q. Regarding anything. Other inconsistencies.

13 You can say “yes” or “no.”

14 A. I don’t believe so.

15 Q. All right. On July 7, 2003, Gavin said that

16 he called Michael Jackson at the Universal Hilton,

17 correct.

18 A. That’s correct.

19 Q. And in August, he said Michael Jackson

20 called him to invite him over, is that right.

21 Page 18 of the August 13 interview.

22 A. Yes, down here, that he “thinks he called

23 me.” It’s not a definite, but he says, “I think he

24 called me.” I see that.

25 Q. It goes on, does it not. He says — on

26 page 18, when he’s asked why did he meet with

27 Michael at the Hilton, he says, “I just wanted —

28 because he wanted me to come.” 2225

1 He says, “Did he call you or did you call

2 him.”

3 He says, “I think he called me. And then we

4 were talking, and he told me that he was at the

5 Hilton, at the Universal Hilton, and we started

6 talking about me visiting, so I just came to visit.”

7 A. I see that.

8 Q. Now —

9 MR. SNEDDON: Excuse me, Counsel. Will you

10 read the rest of the statement.

11 MR. SANGER: I can read whatever you want.

12 Let me see here.

13 MR. SNEDDON: Well, the last four lines of

14 the statement I think —

15 MR. SANGER: Well, then there’s a question.

16 Or do you want the next — I don’t have to do this,

17 but I will. All right.

18 There’s a question: “Did he say, ‘Hey, why

19 don’t you come over and visit’. Is that what he

20 asked.”

21 Answer: “I don’t remember how it happened.

22 But I remember I came over.”

23 Okay. The point of this is that Gavin’s

24 current statements in court and his statement on the

25 7th of July, 2003, were to the effect that he had

26 found out that Michael was at the Hilton and he

27 called him, and Michael Jackson picked up, and

28 that’s how he got ahold of him; isn’t that right. 2226

1 A. According to his statement, that’s a correct

2 statement.

3 Q. All right. Now, let’s talk about something

4 a little more substantive here. On January — I’m

5 sorry. On July 7th, 2003, Gavin said that he was

6 masturbated by Michael Jackson five times or so, did

7 he not.

8 A. Yes, he did.

9 Q. And then on 8-13-03, he said he was

10 masturbated five times and he ejaculated all five

11 times, right.

12 A. Correct.

13 Q. Now, we’ll hold on to that. And let’s go to

14 another issue.

15 As far as the timing of the incidents was

16 concerned, you already answered some questions on

17 direct on this. On — I keep doing that. On July

18 7th, 2003, Gavin Arvizo said that the masturbation

19 incidents occurred on “one of the last days that I

20 was staying at Neverland.” Correct.

21 A. I recall it as being towards his last days

22 of staying at Neverland.

23 Q. Okay.

24 A. So it was towards — towards before he left

25 for good, yes. That’s the way I understand it.

26 Q. All right. If you look at page 30, the

27 question is, “He said one of the last days, like

28 towards the last days I was staying at Neverland”; 2227

1 is that a fair statement.

2 A. You’re talking about August, correct. The

3 August interview.

4 Q. No, this is July.

5 A. Oh.

6 Q. The first interview.

7 July 7th, 2003. Page 30.

8 A. I have it.

9 Q. Lines 20 and 21.

10 A. I just read it.

11 Q. Mr. Sneddon just indicated somebody was

12 confused. I don’t know who he was referring to

13 here, so we’re okay. He said, “In fact, one of the

14 last days, like towards the last days when I was

15 staying at Neverland”; is that correct.

16 A. That is correct.

17 Q. Your investigation eventually disclosed that

18 during the last days they stayed at Neverland, there

19 wouldn’t have been five occasions when molest could

20 have occurred; is that correct.

21 A. Can you repeat that.

22 MR. SANGER: No.

23 THE COURT: Would you like that read back.


25 (Record read.)

26 THE WITNESS: No. That’s not correct.

27 Q. BY MR. SANGER: All right. Now, in August

28 of — in the August interview, Gavin told you, on 2228

1 pages 38 to 41 —

2 A. Okay. I’m there.

3 Q. He starts out talking about the DCFS

4 interview, correct. And —

5 A. Just a second. What line are you.

6 Q. Well, I’m just — hang on one second. I’m

7 not asking for a quote here. I’m just trying to put

8 it in context.

9 On page 38, they’re talking about the DCFS

10 interview. Put it in context. You’re welcome to

11 read the whole thing, too. Whatever you want so you

12 feel comfortable with it.

13 A. Okay.

14 Q. And if you read that whole segment, it

15 appears that he is saying that the molest occurred

16 before, started before the DCFS interview.

17 A. That’s not the way I understand that.

18 Q. Well, because he is saying, is he not, that

19 the purpose of the interview is to — let me

20 withdraw it.

21 Let’s put it this way: That’s not your

22 impression.

23 A. That’s not my impression.

24 Q. Okay. All right. Let’s come back to that.

25 Now, if you go to the 11-25-03 interview,

26 look at page two and three, he says that the acts

27 that Michael engaged in, Michael Jackson engaged in,

28 occurred both before and after the DCFS interview, 2229

1 right.

2 A. Well, he initially states that they occurred

3 after the DCFS interview. And then he thought

4 further, and he said some of the acts, that he

5 believes they occurred before and after.

6 Q. Right. And the investigator asked, “It was

7 both. Are you pretty sure.”

8 Answer: “Yeah.”

9 A. Okay.

10 Q. And then it goes on, “Because I think you

11 said it happened about five times, and what you’re

12 saying is that you’re thinking it happened before

13 and after that.”

14 Answer: “Yeah.”

15 “Both times.

16 “Yeah.

17 “Okay. Okay. That’s all I need to know.”

18 Right.

19 A. Right.

20 Q. And that pretty much ended the interview.

21 The investigator — was that you asking

22 those questions.

23 A. That was me. Yes.

24 Q. Okay. That was what you were trying to

25 discern in this tape-recorded interview, correct.

26 A. Correct.

27 Q. Now, in January — on January 19, ‘04 –

28 again, you don’t remember the exact interview. And 2230

1 you’re going to review that and see if you recall

2 more of it later – but did you become aware, as the

3 lead investigator in this case, that Gavin Arvizo

4 then told you he wasn’t sure when these events

5 occurred, and that you guys would probably know the

6 dates.

7 A. I would have to read — was that said during

8 that interview.

9 Q. Yes.

10 A. Okay. I don’t recall that. I’d have to

11 review that as well.

12 Q. Were you advised that was now an issue.

13 A. No.

14 Q. Okay. And you’re aware of his grand jury

15 testimony; is that correct.

16 A. Portions of it, yes.

17 Q. And in the grand jury he went back to saying

18 it was after the Calabasas trip from March 2 through

19 March 12th; is that correct.

20 A. I believe that is correct.

21 Q. And you determined, did you not, that

22 Michael Jackson was not at the ranch during that

23 entire period of time, did you not.

24 A. Which period of time are you talking.

25 Q. From March 2 through March 12th.

26 A. Yes.

27 Wait. Wait. I’m sorry. That he was not

28 there or that he was there. 2231

1 Q. Was he there the entire time, every day.

2 Did you determine whether he was or he wasn’t.

3 A. Not — from March 2nd through the 12th.

4 Q. Yes.

5 A. There were some — a couple of days, two or

6 three days, that he was not there.

7 Q. All right. There were two, three days that

8 you were able to establish he was somewhere else.

9 A. Showing that he was off the ranch.

Finally, Sanger wraps up the day’s testimony by asking Sgt. Robel about Star’s interview statements, including the following: the fact that Star never mentioned the interview with Bradley Miller or the rebuttal video, inconsistencies in the attire that Gavin was wearing when Star allegedly saw him abused by Jackson (In May 2003, Star told Dr. Katz that Gavin was wearing boxers, but he  told Sgt. Robel on July 7th, 2003 that Gavin was wearing pajamas), and Star’s claim during his November 25th, 2003 interview that he first witnessed Jackson abusing Gavin “five days or a week after February 20th”, which contradicts Gavin’s claim that he was abused “a few days” before leaving Neverland (before he changed his story to a “few weeks” before leaving).

Also, Sanger challenged Sgt. Robel about the blatant lack of professionalism and objectivity that he displayed in his interviews with the Arvizo children by telling them “We’re going to try our best to make this case work”, and Sgt. Robel rationalized his statement by saying it was said to reassure the family because they were “terrified” about coming forward. Sanger then ended the day’s cross-examination by sarcastically asking Sgt. Robel if, from the very beginning, he had made a concerted effort to make the Arvizo case work, and Sgt. Robel snidely replied “Yep. I did.”

That quote speaks volumes about this case! Police are not supposed to make any case “work”!!

10 Q. Right. Now, let’s take Star — again, Star

11 did not mention the rebuttal video or the interview

12 by Bradley Miller before the search; is that

13 correct.

14 A. I don’t believe he did. That is correct.

15 Q. Star was more detailed in his description of

16 things than Gavin was; is that correct.

17 A. There were two different acts. I — he saw

18 things going on and Gavin was actually having it

19 happen to him. So, I mean, I thought that they both

20 described them very clearly.

21 Q. Okay. Well, there was — there were

22 conflicts in what they described. For instance,

23 Gavin described his brother as wearing boxers,

24 whereas his brother described that he was wearing

25 pajamas, right.

26 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to

27 object. It’s vague in terms of what incidents he’s

28 talking about. 2232

1 THE COURT: Sustained.

2 MR. SANGER: All right.

3 Q. Well, when you interviewed — I’m sorry.

4 When you interviewed Star, he had already been

5 interviewed by Stan Katz; is that correct.

6 A. That is correct.

7 Q. And you said, in essence, what Stan Katz had

8 said all of the kids had said to him; is that right.

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. When Star described — on July 7th, Star

11 described walking up the stairs and he described his

12 brother having pajamas on; is that correct.

13 A. I believe you’re right.

14 Q. But then he said that he saw that Mr.

15 Jackson had his hand in Gavin’s underwear; is that

16 correct.

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. Okay. And you were aware that he had told

19 Stan Katz that the incident occurred while Gavin was

20 wearing boxers.

21 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to

22 object again with regard to the fact that there are

23 two incidents described by this witness.

24 MR. SANGER: And I object to a speaking

25 objection, because —

26 THE COURT: Sustained, both of you.

27 MR. SANGER: It’s a fair trade-off. Okay.

28 Q. In Mr. Katz’, or Dr. Katz’s interview, there 2233

1 was reference to a first incident and a second

2 incident, correct.

3 A. I don’t have — I don’t believe I have Dr.

4 Katz’ interview with me here.

5 MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to object. I

6 object.

7 MR. SANGER: We’ll go back to it. We’ll

8 just stick with what you have.

9 Q. So on the first interview — I mean, on the

10 first incident, the first incident on July 7th,

11 there’s discussion of sleeping — Gavin sleeping in

12 pajamas, but then Michael Jackson reaching into

13 Gavin’s underwear, right.

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. On August 13, Star says Michael Jackson put

16 his hand into Gavin’s boxers; is that correct.

17 A. I believe that’s correct.

18 Q. And on November 25th, 2003, Gavin said —

19 I mean, Star said that Gavin was wearing underwear,

20 specifically because Michael Jackson told him to

21 sleep in his underwear, right.

22 A. I’m looking over it. You’re talking about

23 the interview on the 25th, correct.

24 Q. On November the 25th.

25 A. With Star.

26 Q. Yes.

27 A. Okay.

28 Q. And he said — he said that; is that right. 2234

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. And then he said that Michael Jackson had

3 his hand in Gavin’s underwear, correct.

4 A. Correct.

5 Q. And he also said that this incident occurred

6 five days or a week after February 20th; is that

7 right.

8 A. Are we on the same interview.

9 Q. Yes.

10 A. That is correct.

11 Q. And that this was — no incident of

12 masturbation occurred before this.

13 A. Before the —

14 Q. Before this one that he just described as

15 being five days to a week after February 20.

16 A. Right.

17 Q. Okay. Now, in the Stan Katz interview with

18 Paul Zelis, what Paul Zelis told you about his

19 interview with Stan Katz, there was no mention of a

20 second incident of masturbation.

21 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to

22 object. It’s double — triple hearsay.

23 THE COURT: Sustained.

24 MR. SANGER: Okay.

25 Q. And on July 7th, Star told you that there

26 was a second incident of masturbation; is that

27 correct.

28 A. That is correct. 2235

1 Q. Now, on the 13th, it wasn’t clear from the

2 interview as to what incident he was talking about,

3 it wasn’t clearly delineated between two incidents;

4 is that right.

5 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to

6 object to that, too. That’s a statement of counsel

7 testifying.

8 MR. SANGER: I’m asking the witness who

9 conducted the interview

10 THE WITNESS: If it was —

11 THE COURT: Just a moment.

12 I’ll overrule the objection.

13 Do you want the question read back.

14 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

15 (Record read.)

16 THE WITNESS: To the best of my knowledge,

17 during that interview, he was — as I understood it,

18 he was very clear on both incidences that he saw.

19 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Well, he said that Gavin was

20 wearing boxers during an incident which may or may

21 not be the first or the second incident or both.

22 A. Okay. So you’re —

23 Q. I’m asking you. Did he say he was wearing

24 boxers. Did he tell you box — Gavin was wearing

25 anything other than boxers when he described the

26 incidents on August 13th.

27 A. I believe he said pajamas.

28 Q. Okay. The second incident he said pajamas. 2236

1 A. I’m going to look at that.

2 Q. All right.

3 A. What page are you on. That’s July 7th.

4 Q. No, this is August 13.

5 A. What page are you on.

6 Q. I’m trying to find it for you here.

7 Your recollection — what we’re looking

8 for — your recollection is that he talked about

9 wearing pajamas on August 13th for the second

10 incident.

11 A. Well, I need to look at it.

12 Q. Okay. I’m looking at page 17.

13 A. Okay.

14 Q. It says “boxers,” right.

15 A. Yes, down at the bottom, it does. “His

16 brother’s boxers.” Are you talking about line 23.

17 Q. Right. So once again, with Star, you’d have

18 to review the January 19th tape and/or transcript to

19 tell me whether or not you recall what he said

20 specifically about the video.

21 A. That is correct.

22 Q. But you do know from your investigation that

23 essentially he said Dieter made them memorize lines

24 and say things like “father” and “humble” and so on;

25 is that correct.

26 A. To the best of my recollection, yes.

27 Q. Okay. Just as a follow-up on something

28 here. I had asked you about Mr. Sneddon going down 2237

1 to Los Angeles and interviewing Janet Arvizo, I

2 believe, okay. Your answer was you don’t recall

3 that happening or you don’t recall when it happened.

4 A. No, I did recall him going down there. And

5 I don’t recall the date that that occurred. And it

6 wasn’t for an interview. It was for forms to be

7 signed.

8 Q. All right. It was sometime before — before

9 the 18th.

10 Okay. Now, you’ve been — I think you told

11 us you’ve been a sheriff for a long time, 20-some

12 years, right.

13 A. Yes. Approximately 22.

14 Q. And you were not personally — or were you

15 personally involved in investigating Mr. Jackson

16 anytime prior to the time that you — you commenced

17 your investigation in — whenever you told us,

18 June 20 or so.

19 A. No, that was the first time.

20 Q. All right. So June 20, you had information

21 that had been obtained from Dr. Katz, and July 7th,

22 you proceed to interview the kids, right.

23 A. That is correct.

24 Q. And on that date, you indicated that, “We’re

25 going to try our best to make this case work”; is

26 that correct.

27 A. Let me refer to that.

28 Q. You can look at — it’s in Davellin’s 2238

1 interview, page 33.

2 A. Okay. I’m on page 33.

3 There was quite a bit more where that — in

4 addition to what I said in regards to that.

5 Q. Well, we can read the whole thing.

6 A. Okay. I already read the whole thing.

7 Q. All right. So you said to Davellin at

8 the — towards the end of her interview, “Okay.

9 Okay. One thing I wanted to say and emphasize to

10 you is that you guys are doing the right thing here.

11 You know what, I know it’s scary, and I realize —

12 really realize that you guys are going through a lot

13 and you’ve been through a lot as a family. They’re

14 the ones that have done wrong, not you. And trust

15 me in this, and trust Detective Zelis, we’re law

16 enforcement. We’re going to try our best to make

17 this case work. I can’t guarantee it, where it’s

18 going to go from here, but that’s why we’re

19 interviewing everybody involved. I don’t care how

20 much money they have” – do you want me to keep

21 going. – “who he is, what — but he’s done wrong.

22 You guys are the victims. Your family is. He is

23 wrong in what he’s done. We’re going to try our

24 best. Can’t guarantee it. We’re going to try our

25 best to bring him to justice.”

26 Did you say that.

27 A. I definitely said that.

28 Q. Okay. So that’s not the statement of 2239

1 somebody who has an open mind who’s looking to see

2 whether or not these people are telling the truth,

3 is it.

4 A. That statement, Mr. Sanger, is what —

5 through my courses that I’ve had — and you have

6 victims that are terrified in coming forward to law

7 enforcement. That is to reassure them that they are

8 not the suspects or they are the victims in the

9 case.

10 And I was reassuring them through that and

11 letting them know that they are doing the right

12 thing, because they were terrified when they came

13 forward. And it took us about two weeks to get them

14 to come forward and up here to be interviewed.

15 Q. Okay. Now, when you say that the technique

16 that you’re taught is to reassure people that if

17 they’re telling the truth and coming forward and

18 being honest that they have nothing to fear, right.

19 It’s not to tell them that they’re right and

20 somebody else is wrong and you’re going to get them.

21 That’s your — that’s your version of the speech,

22 isn’t it.

23 A. That — my version of the speech is what I

24 just explained.

25 Q. It is.

26 A. And they were concerned about coming forward

27 to law enforcement, and they were concerned about

28 whether they were going to make the case or not. 2240

1 And I told them we would try our best.

2 Q. And from the beginning, you have made a

3 concerted effort to make this case work, have you

4 not.

5 A. Yep. I did.

6 Q. All right.

7 Now, we have three minutes. But Detective

8 Robel does need to look at the materials. And I

9 don’t — I could ask three minutes of silly

10 questions, but I’ll spare you that, Your Honor.

11 I don’t have another question for him until he does

12 that.

13 THE COURT: You’re threatening me with silly

14 questions.

15 MR. SANGER: Yes.

16 THE COURT: All right. I don’t think you’re

17 bluffing, so we’ll call it.

18 (Laughter.)

19 (The proceedings adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)

I want to take the opportunity to tell you about what is called a “tainted interview”, which is oftentimes a precursor to false allegations of child abuse. This occurs when law enforcement questions children suspected of being victims of child abuse with a preconceived notion that they ARE victims, and they try to coerce a confession by asking leading questions, vilifying the alleged perpetrator, etc. Based on Sgt. Robel’s gleeful acknowledgement of how he tried to make the Jackson case “work”, it’s clearly obvious that his interview with the Arvizos was tainted due to his bias against Jackson! Here are a list of factors that are common in a tainted interview, from an article titled “The Fallibility of Forensic Interviewing”, pages 11-12:

The Analysis of Child Interviews

The New Jersey Supreme Court found nine factors sufficient to justify a pretrial taint hearing:


(a) Absence of spontaneous recall;


(b) Interviewer bias against defendant – a preconceived idea of what the child should be disclosing;


(c) Repeated leading questions;


(d) Multiple interviews;


(e) Incessant questioning;


(f) Vilification of defendant;


(g) Ongoing contact with peers and references to their statements;


(h) Use of threats, bribes and cajoling; and


(i) Failure to videotape or otherwise document the initial interview sessions.


The above factors were to be considered, if a hearing is held, in determining whether a child’s testimony is tainted and should be suppressed. Other indicators of faulty interviewing not only exist, but they can be quantified – allowing for an objective analysis.

All of those factors were present during the interviews with the Arvizos, except for (i), because Gavin’s initial interview was videotaped and showed the jury as a last ditch attempt by Sneddon to prejudice them into convicting Jackson, but it obviously didn’t work!

In 1993, the police also tried to make cases for Corey Feldman and Jason Francia “work”, and they failed with miserably with Feldman (who stood his ground and steadfastly denied any abuse by Jackson), but they were successful with Francia (who eventually capitulated and accused Jackson of abuse, and subsequently extorted $2.4 million dollars from Jackson by threatening to file a lawsuit).  In fact, the police were so focused on nailing Jackson that they completely dismissed Feldman when he named the person who really did sexually abuse him!

For more information about the tainted interviews of Feldman and Francia, please read this post.

To be continued….

33 Comments leave one →
  1. stacy permalink
    July 10, 2012 4:09 pm

    Michael Jackson had many “special friends”. Why would he cry over just one?

  2. shellywebstere permalink
    July 8, 2012 6:28 pm


    You said that

    “Lisa Marie’s lawyers complained that Evan had been contacting the press when she went to give a deposition, so they could take photos of her arriving and leaving.”

    Do you have a link?

    • July 8, 2012 7:10 pm

      Shelly, do you have an email address?

      • sanemjfan permalink
        July 8, 2012 7:17 pm

        I’ll email you Shelley’s email address so that she won’t have to post it in public.

    • differentkindofree permalink
      July 8, 2012 10:40 pm

      Hi Lacienga, i sent you an email with the title “This is Alicia” in case it’s in your spam folder. 🙂

  3. shellywebstere permalink
    July 8, 2012 10:36 am

    “If you read some of the handwriting of the Special Agents in the FBI file you will see that one of them were contacted by Johnnie Cochran and he said it was extortion.”

    Do you have a link for that?

  4. stacy2 permalink
    July 8, 2012 10:26 am

    My favorite part of Star’s testimony was when he told jurors that he was a compulsive stair counter.

  5. July 8, 2012 6:37 am

    A comment on that article shows how misinformed people are

    The idea that Michael’s insurance would only settle out of guilt, that it was $25 million, and that the Chandler’s wanted to keep this private are all provable lies.

    What’s funny is before people believed Michael was guilty because they believed it was his own money he’d paid out, I guess they needed a new story when the insurance thing became too known.

    • lynande51 permalink*
      July 8, 2012 9:43 am

      You know I tried to leave a reply but it was put into moderation. I think I can give some solid rebuttal answers to the insurance settlement that few people know about.
      The first thing that people need to realize is that it was the tour promoters that would have filed the claim for the insurance the minute that Michael had cancelled the rest of his tour in 1993. If you put together a time frame you will see that I am right. They carried the insurance on Michael preforming because that is where there money was. They were the ones that started the settlement ball rolling because of the loss of revenue that the allegations caused when Michael left the tour.
      That is how it got settled by an insurance company and that is who the business people were that recommended it to Michael. How much was he sued for after the tour ended? Nothing.Not by the promoters and they could have if it hadn’t been covered by insurance.It was all about a loss of revenue to them. IF anyone remembers Evan did say the Michael would not be going on tour or at least that was part of his threat in the phone call to Dave Schwartz.
      So you see it was out of Michael’s hands and they can stop using that one for an excuse for Evan Chandler’s extortion.
      If you read some of the handwriting of the Special Agents in the FBI file you will see that one of them were contacted by Johnnie Cochran and he said it was extortion. The FBI knew more and had more about Michael than they released so someone needs to convince the FBI to open all the pages of his file.

    • July 8, 2012 2:33 pm

      It seems to be someone who is a fan of Diane Dimond’s work.

      They ignore what Evan Chandler says on that tape, how he wants it to be as public as possible, and ignore the book right after the settlement, and ignore the 1996-2000 Evan Chandler lawsuit. The Chandler’s were apparently very private people and only wanted to get money from Michael to maintain their privacy.

      And now Sneddon was begging for the photos of MJ’s penis/description to be entered into court, but that begging only began 2 weeks before the trial ended, why hold back on such crucial evidence…

    • shellywebstere permalink
      July 8, 2012 2:59 pm

      I think we all know who is that poster. I bet she is from las Vegas.

    • July 8, 2012 3:05 pm

      But she hasn’t mention any obscene references to Brett Barnes yet…

    • shellywebstere permalink
      July 8, 2012 3:11 pm

      No, but, Laciena, it will happen. I really wonder why she is so obsessed with Barnes, why not Cascio, Robson, Culkin?

    • July 8, 2012 3:22 pm

      Because of the fantasies she read about in Victor’s book that she’s obsessed with, much like Victor was….

    • shellywebstere permalink
      July 8, 2012 3:24 pm

      Or because she is a coward, they are all living in the US while Barnes is in Australia.

    • Rodrigo permalink
      July 8, 2012 3:40 pm


      But didn’t the description of Michael’s penis suddenly change? From a light blemish to a dark one? And we know the media and tabloids tried to bury Jordan’s original description. It changed to match what Michael’s penis really looked like. I think Sneddon was 90% confident at that point to have the photos admitted, if he thought he could get away with it.

  6. Rodrigo permalink
    July 7, 2012 4:26 pm

    @ nan

    I think people coming in and saying Michael would cry if he couldn’t have sleep overs is rubbish. They’re following what the Chandler’s claimed, that Michael would use emotional blackmail and act like a kid to get what he wanted. If Michael wanted something, he would tell a person straight to their face. He was the authority.

    Jordan Chandler was using half truths about Michael’s ‘crying to get what he wanted’. June said Michael cried because she told him she didn’t trust him with Jordan, which would have obviously hurt Michael.
    Then this event later turned into Michael crying to make June feel guilty so she would allow him to sleep next to Jordan. Then Jordan claimed Michael cried because he couldn’t stick his tongue in his mouth and didn’t love him as much as his other friends,
    “I guess he tried to make me feel guilty”.

    Michael never needed to cry to emotionally blackmail anyone for something. If he wanted to do something, he did it. He told people straight.

    He was emotional over things. So I believe when June told him she didn’t like him sleeping with Jordan, he cried over her thinking that about him. Not crying to guilt trip her to get what he wanted.

    So all that is a load of lies and rubbish introduced by the Chandler’s.

    • nannorris permalink
      July 8, 2012 9:45 am

      Rodrigo, I agree..MJ wasnt crying like Stacey Brown and Diane Dimond would lead you to believe , which is why I called them on it and they blocked me.
      These people know the truth and they continue to purposely mislead their readers/ viewers for their own gain.
      This amount of fame that MJ had was toxic..Why wouldnt the police , the DA look at the Bashir video like I did when I saw it.Pure BS with the salacious voice overs etc?..
      Why wouldnt they ask Bashir why he didnt report this supposed situation to the authorities instead of waiting months and putting this child on television sets all over the world?
      Bashir did that because he knew that kid was NOT being abused but he used that kid anyway to make a name for himself , just like all of them used him for their own personal gain..This whole thing makes me sick..

    • Rodrigo permalink
      July 8, 2012 11:12 am

      Absolutely. The likes of Stacy Brown and Diane Dimond gain more for promoting lies and slander. Honesty got them no where in their careers.

      I’ve seen what the tabloids do first hand in my own family. Journalists attempting to bribe my cousin to tell lies about a footballer she was dating. There wasn’t anything remotely interesting about their brief relationship, but they crafted a story for her to go with, which was sick in the details, and made calls to have her be the head of some modelling company. She didn’t go through with it, but they printed the story a few years later anyways.
      If journalists can’t find anything juicy, they’ll make it up…but they’ll do all they can to make things sound convincing on who they are lying about, and they’ll make sure to watch out for and bribe any witnesses.

      It is very sickening indeed.

    • nannorris permalink
      July 8, 2012 8:38 pm

      I think that people should start referring to DD as an entertainment figure, much like a stand up comic , because she sure isnt a journalist.She is just playing the part of a journalist…..Getting up and just saying whatever she wants….Nothing she says should be taken for the truth..No wonder Mesereau called her a clown

  7. July 6, 2012 3:37 pm

    The whole trial becomes an open-and-shut case for me the moment Gavin said when he saw MJ in the nude Michael’s body was all white. Contrast that with what Jermaine reported in his book, how during the trial, when MJ went to a hospital for severe back pains, he took off his shirt and showed those present how he was spotted all over “like a cow.” Surely Gavin would have noticed it if he’d really seen MJ without his clothes on.

  8. nannorris permalink
    July 6, 2012 11:35 am

    Well the more you look into this case , the more ridiculous it gets ..They interviewed all three kids and everybody forgot to say the were forced to make a rebuttal video praising MJ
    So they turn the case into a gigantic conspiracy case to continue going forward with this case…..Sneddon is a disgrace
    ..As much as I am glad MJ had Mesereau, it was smart that Geragos got this family on tape..Pellicano should have recorded Jordan Chandler also.
    As far as the rumor JC coming out and making a statement after MJ died…DD and Stacey Brown use that to refute all knowledge regarding MJ so if it cant be verified , it shouldnt be used ..Stacey says it was Katherine who said that , he also said a bunch of people came in to say MJ would cry if he couldnt have sleepovers , so I had to respond, which got me blocked by both of is my reply to them..
    Well as I have said before , I believe Michael Jackson was the poster child for having your life destroyed by false accusations.
    2005 trial resulted in 14 not guilty verdicts , including the 4 misdemeanors the prosecutors asked for at the end of the trial..AS well as a note from the jury saying they were confident in those verdicts..This coming from a conservative jury in an area with a very high conviction rate
    The jury asked for a read back of Gavin Arviso testimony , they rejected his allegations as they should have…

    Ron Zonen, who by all accounts is a very sincere and likable person a top notch prosecutor..He was NOT out lawyered by Mesereau.
    The wheels fell off the case because it was ridiculous.The demeanor of the Sandusky victims is heart wrenching..
    The Arviso kid is making jokes during grand jury testimony.
    The prosecutors were also allowed to bring the tape of this kid talking to the police about the accusations to show demeanor , and they completely rejected his accusations..
    These kids had supported their mothers past allegations of sexual assault and being held against their will .under oath and their own lawyer came in for Jackson and said it was a fabrication..Time lines , accusations didnt add up..
    Gavin is saying he was upset because he liked Neverland , he never wanted to leave , he was upset because he felt Jackson had abandoned his family..
    That was what was the issue for him , the mother just wanted money .The atty had already decided their civil case fees , even as this family continued visiting Neverland
    So I do feel sympathy for this boy because he was the victim of cancer and the victim of adults using him for greed and ambition..But Michael Jackson wasnt one of those adults….
    As far as Jordan Chandler, I have heard Katherine Jackson say that he admitted it ,,I dont believe that is the case although I have heard Mesereau say he had witnesses who were going to come in and say he had told them his parents made him do it.But of course he refused to testify so those witnesses would not able to be brought in…
    He has never said anything under oath at all.He supposedly madea statement in his lawyers office but it wasnt under oath…Nor his father ..Nor his Uncle who would write books about it and go on tv but was fighting tooth and nail to stay out of criminal court..Chandler men could have always testified they never would..
    Stacey I read the transcripts and the only person who said MJ cried was June Chandler , prosecution witness, in cross she said he was upset because she had told him she couldnt trust men anymore because of the 2 husbands she had..They were trust issues.., between June and Jackson
    We all could go on and on but the fact remains, he was about as vindicated as you can be , once accused of such a crime..
    And he is on a billion Pepsi cans all over the world , as well as being honored , not only for his music , but his humanitarian contributions all over the world..
    Constantly honored somewhere all over the world.I would say the majority of people dont believe he ever hurt a child..much less molested one..
    By the way Diane Dimond and Stacey Brown know the truth , they has just made a career out of using MJ, same as she used Sneddon ..

    I would also point out the remarks the Chandler family made after Evan blew his brains out..Not one kind word of faint praise for a man who supposedly saved his child from a predator and got him generational wealth from a insurance company? even if he did had mental health issues.., you might think if he had been acting to protect his son , they might have come up with something…
    Instead they just say they didnt have anything to do with him and he was mental and they didnt go to his burial…They are not allowed to talk about the case but they could have said something in general terms about Evan loving his son or something..The fact they said nothing , is pretty telling to me..

    • July 6, 2012 2:58 pm

      the thing about Chandlers is that they RAN as fast as they could. some might say it was because they wanted to go away from the media but they didn’t stay away. even sued Michael AGAIN. interestingly DD and co leave that fact out.

      Stacy bothers me more than Diane. i never understood why MJs own sister is friends with him… drives me crazy

  9. July 5, 2012 5:11 pm

    @Hilary i didn’t know they claimed he did it BEFORE the DCF report! what a joke! really it’s just idiotic case.

    “If you’re a skeptic, can you at least explain why? If there was even a shred of incriminating evidence against Jackson, he would be rotting in a jail cell right now, not at Forest Lawn.”
    it’s my nature, i was raised that way. i’m just speaking in general not just about Michael. regarding Michael i read stuff and since i have no one to talk to i go over and over the what ifs in my mind. in the end i always find my way. i’ve studying this case for not more than 3 years. and at times i never know the background of what i read. when i find out things becomes clear.

    to make it clear with what i know today, murrays recording and facts from this blog i TRUELY BELIEVE Michael was innocent!

    • July 5, 2012 5:26 pm

      “it’s my nature”

      I get what you mean. I was hesitant when reading a lot of things about Michael and the allegations because it came from his FANS, but then I found this site, where they’re not afraid to tackle the questions other fans would ignore. I had my doubts in the past, but they’ve all been cleared.

    • July 5, 2012 6:08 pm

      “. I was hesitant when reading a lot of things about Michael and the allegations because it came from his FANS, ” exactly! also one. might unknowingly stumble upon a hater site. if one don’t know any better lies can be taken for the truth. it’s sad that some fans hate it when you question things. instead of explaining things they call you a hater.

      also I wish people would stop claiming JC came out and said he lied. it takes away our credibility.

  10. July 5, 2012 11:35 am

    i’m a sceptic person. today i believe MJ was innocent. but i’m open to evidence from both sids. what i’m saying is until we die nothing is for sure. i’m being honest here. do i have doubts? not after hearing murrays recording. but i do sometimes wonder if i’m right. see, i don’t doubt him but myself.
    and i think many of those who advocate against him do so because they are afraid to NOT believing words of a child. i think that fear make them believe Michael was guilty. the what IF is always there. i think Sneddon and the co actually believed Jordy. but i never got why they didn’t interview his younger siblings as i recall evan claim the younger brother saw things. as for Arvizos, one lady came on tv and claimed that it made sense that Michael molested gavin after the documentary and the DCF report since he had an alibi. but i wonder, why he would hier a lawyer, distant himself from them and only THEN after years start the abuse? NOTHING in that case made any sense. NOTHING! i don’t get how it got to court!

    and while we’re at it. yes i admit i see some pararells with sandusky. and that is the charity work. but people forget NONE of Michaels THREE accusers met him through heal the world foundation. while ALL of sanduskys victims met him through second mile.

    • sanemjfan permalink
      July 5, 2012 2:47 pm

      First of all, THANK YOU for tweeting me that EXCELLENT article! I’m going to add it to the blogroll!

      Guys, this is the article that she tweeted me; someone wrote an excellent post about the lack of similarities between MJ and Sandusky, and they referenced this blog as a source! Everyone should go there and leave a comment thanking them for their excellent research!

      Second, that’s an EXCELLENT observation! You’re right, none of MJ’s accusers met him through his charitable organizations, while all of Sandusky’s were from the Second Mile! That shows the real motives that Sandusky had for starting that charity! (And this is yet another reason why MJ fans shouldn’t say that MJ was innocent because of his charities, because skepics can justifiably use Sandusky as an example of a pedophile who also “cared about children” and started a charity to help them.)

      That idiot who said that MJ it “made sense” that MJ was Wendy Murphy, who recently was on the Bill O’Reilly show and said that she STILL thought that MJ was guilty, but fortunately Aphrodite Jones was there to refute her nonsense. Me and a friend made a video about her, and here it is:

    • July 5, 2012 2:47 pm

      ” one lady came on tv and claimed that it made sense that Michael molested gavin after the documentary and the DCF report since he had an alibi”

      Michael Jackson knew this kid for 2 years. Why would he not molest him in those first two years but start only AFTER Sneddon began an investigation? And remember, Michael KNEW Sneddon had a vendetta against him, he even wrote a song about it. If he was a pedophile, he wouldn’t need to go after a cancer-stricken child from a family of grifters. There were plenty of young boys out there to suit his fancy.

      As for ‘after the DCFS report’, these people claimed Michael molested them at a point in time before that report. But when the defense showed these transcripts to the media showing they denied Michael molested them in the report, they changed their story to say it began AFTER the report. Truth is truth. It can’t change. So which is the truth?

      These people are LIARS. They are SCAMMERS. They have scammed people time and time again. How can you believe a word from their mouths? they claimed Michael Jackson was holding them hostage at Neverland ranch when there are receipts showing Janet Arvizo was out getting beauty treatments in Jackson’s Rolls Royce. If they lied about being kidnapped, they can lie about being molested.

      the Chandler case is even easier to prove as an extortion plot. All these haters claim Jordan’s description of Jackson’s genitals was accurate. So you’re telling me a 13 year old boy was able to accurately describe a 35 year old man’s genitals-the same man he is accusing of oral sex and masturbation-yet the man was not arrested NOR indicted by two independent grand juries? You’ve got to be kidding me. At the very LEAST he would have been arrested. Besides, Jackson’s autopsy proves Jordan’s description was wrong.

      Go ahead and compare Sandusky to Jackson and you’ll see why Jackson was acquitted. Sandusky had allegations coming against him for decades, like the classic pedophile does. And none of their stories changed from the police interview to the stand, the way Gavin Arvizos’s did. Jackson gets an allegation once every ten years-for ten years. In between there were other allegations, but from boys that have never even met him (the Toronto kid, Daniel Kapone). Sandusky was reported to be in a shower with a boy by Mike McQueary, and McQueary reported this to Paterno. People reportedly saw Jackson in the shower with boys, but these people sold their stories to tabloids and made media appearances. They didn’t report this to authorities. Sandusky’s OWN SON says he was a victim. Why would a son turn on his father unless it was true? All the people turning on Jackson had CLEAR motivations for lying.

      If you’re a skeptic, can you at least explain why? If there was even a shred of incriminating evidence against Jackson, he would be rotting in a jail cell right now, not at Forest Lawn.

  11. July 5, 2012 5:47 am

    Just… how would it even make sense to them that Michael would force them to say nice things about him and then he would molest them? So he hired a lawyer, held them hostage and forced them to say nice things (because up until this point even though they hadn’t been molested they would need to be forced to say nice thing) and figured this would put him in the clear to molest kids he’d had access to for years? How would the prosecution not think this ridiculous?

    That’s interesting about their raid on Miller. I think an entire segment could be done on all the different things Sneddon did in an attempt to have Michael put behind bars. This idea I always see that Michael hired expensive lawyers who got him out for things (I honestly wonder what these people think Michael’s lawyers did in the court room, magic tricks? Played the Thriller album? How do these people Michael’s expensive lawyers manage to make the jury see through so much supposedly damning evidence?) is ridiculous when you consider how biased the system was against him, simply because of who he was.


  1. March 15th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Gavin Arvizo (Cross Examination), Terry Flaa, Jeff Klapakis, and Steve Robel (Direct & Cross Examination), Part 3 of 4 « Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0

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: