Skip to content

Janet Arvizo and the Lost Interivew

October 18, 2012

I am going to attach the Defense Reply to the District Attorney’s Motion to Admit Evidence of Prior Litigation Involving the Doe Family. This is the JC Penney Case that Janet and her family brought against JC Penney following an altercation with loss prevention personnel when Gavin shoplifted from the store in August of 1998. The Motion by the defense will summarize the information and then the documents will show the story of the security guard and Janet’s own attorney in the case.

The Motion is 50 pages long and at the end of it are copies of cards and letters sent to Louise Palanker from the Arvizo family. The motion also includes as summary of Louise Palanker’s statement to the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s detectives. Why these are so important is that it was Janet’s contention that Michael forced the family to make a rebuttal video and praise him saying he was like a father to them.

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/020405oppdamlieplidoefam.pdf

Janet Arvizo was the cause of the conspiracy charge. She said the same thing from beginning continuously adding more to the story as she went along. When Sneddon found out about the prior litigation from Mark Geragos during a meeting he went to great lengths to try to figure out how to make that explainable to the jury. During that same time period in December of 2003, was when he knew that if he took the case as it was then, to the court in a preliminary hearing there was no evidence that would bind it over to trial. To obtain his goal of getting Michael in court he did some fancy legal footwork.

The first thing that he had to do for damage control was to discredit the DCFS report and interview with the Arvizo family because it was leaked to The Smoking Gun in December after the charges were made public. Janet said from the beginning that it was Michael that had summoned them to Florida under the guise of doing a press conference and protecting them from “the killers” that were after Gavin because of the Bashir interview.

Michael’s side of the story was that they were in fact trying to get in touch with him because the Tabloids were harassing them for an interview and offering them money for their story. One of them was able to get in touch with the Arvizos and made an offer of $4000 that was accepted by Janet and they gave an interview. Roger Friedman called it the lost interview because it never made it to the United States. He said in this article that it would save Michael because it would prove that before they even called Michael and were told about killers they were singing his praises and calling him “Daddy Michael”. That interview was done at her home and no one from Michael Jackson’s side was even present during that interview which completely undermines that conspiracy story.

Jacko May Be Saved by ‘Lost’ Interview

Published March 03, 2005

FoxNews.com

Michael Jackson                         | Ann Gabriel

Jacko May Be Saved by ‘Lost’ Interview

A long forgotten newspaper interview may save Michael Jackson‘s bleached hide in his child molestation case.

The interview by reporter David Gardner in London’s Daily Mail was conducted with the mother of the boy featured in the Martin Bashir documentary “Living with Michael Jackson.” Gardner also interviewed comedy club owner Jamie Masada, who had brought the boy to Jackson’s attention three years earlier.

Because the documentary aired in Britain three days sooner that it did in the U.S., Gardner was able to catch the mother before she and her kids were whisked off to meet Jackson in Miami on Chris Tucker‘s private jet. The interview was published in London on Feb. 8 and in Sydney on Feb. 9, but never made it to our shores.

Both the mother and Masada wax enthusiastic about Jackson in the interview. This was before the mother’s claims that she was being manipulated or her comments were scripted by Jackson’s team. In fact, my sources say she received $4,000 for her story from the Daily Mail, which she turned over to her own mother.

But the statements made by the mother and Masada could come back to haunt them. At the time, people were furious that Jackson was holding hands with the boy on TV and talking about kids sleeping in his bed. Gardner, aware of the outrage, asks Masada about possible child abuse.

“[The boy] said they had fun and played games. [The boy] is not a naive kid. He would have said if something bad had happened,” he said

Here, we have very early confirmation of what many consider the boy’s abrasive and aggressive qualities. He is no wallflower, as director Brett Ratner pointed out in this column some months ago. Ratner said that when the boy visited the set of “Rush Hour 2,” he refused to vacate the director’s chair and cursed Ratner out in the process.

The boy also reportedly shot his mother in the leg with a BB gun and told the Department of Child Services she was guilty of abuse. This, the defense may argue, is not a kid who hangs back for 10 weeks and says nothing.

The mother of the boy — widely portrayed as a scheming, Machiavellian grifter looking for a payday — arguably sinks her own ship in the Daily Mail story. She boasted to Gardner about her hopes that Jackson would include her kids in his entourage “when he travels around the world.”

That comment, when probed by defense attorneys, is certainly a set up for why the Jackson team thought the mother would agree to go to Brazil for a cooling off period. Suddenly, the obtaining of passports doesn’t seem so far-fetched.

The mother also sang Jackson’s praises in the Gardner piece, unprompted or coached by anyone.

“Michael has brought something special to our lives,” the mother told Gardner.

She also underscores her own son’s grand jury testimony that he asked Jackson if he could call him “Daddy,” since his own father was gone.

“He has pet names for all my children and [my son] even calls him ‘Daddy.’ He is the father they never had. He is a saint to them,” she said.

At the time, it apparently didn’t bother her that her daughter was exempt from nicknames and that Jackson dubbed her sons “Apple Head” and “Blow Hole.”

Gardner, a respected British journalist, was first on the scene with the family, thanks to the early UK broadcast. He observed that the mother was doing all she could to encourage the relationship between Jackson and her kids. And no matter what the mother eventually told a grand jury a year later, she didn’t have any objections to the kids staying overnight with Jackson on Feb. 8, 2003.

“I am not worried about Michael at all. He has been so good to all of us. Sometimes they stay overnight. I am totally comfortable with that,” she said. “They are happy with him and have a lot of fun. I don’t need to be there all the time.”

The mother said the traveling was something Jackson actually had promised them.

“This is what he told them all will happen. It’s a dream come true for them. He is their angel,” she said.

But this column reported that after her child custody hearing for more financial support from her ex-husband was over on March 11, 2003, the mother became enraged that Jackson had not fulfilled perceived promises. My sources say she told Jackson associate Vincent Amen: “Michael promised my kids careers.”

The defense will argue that the family was eased out of Neverland and Jackson’s life after that weekend and that the mother, embittered about returning to her regular life, concocted the story of child molestation.

The mother, by the way, told Gardner that at one point she and her children were so poor they lived in a horse stable in Bakersfield, Calif. and slept on hay. But nothing about the stable has ever been mentioned again, even in grand jury testimony. She almost certainly did not tell Gardner that she had been the recipient of monies from several fundraising drives over the previous three years, including one by the Los Angeles Police Department.

Gabriel Blows Her Horn and Her Credibility

Ann Gabriel, aka Ann Kite, worked for Michael Jackson for a total of six days: Feb. 9 to Feb. 15, 2003. But yesterday she was called as a prosecution witness in the Jackson trial as an expert. If her open court testimony was at all similar to what she told a grand jury last year, Gabriel made a lot of mistakes.

In her grand jury testimony, published on the web by The Smoking Gun , Gabriel made two statements that continue to define her self-enlarged role in this story.

She claimed that Las Vegas attorney David LeGrand told her on Feb. 9, 2003, that the Jackson team had the accuser’s family on tape and that the mother would come off “like a crack whore.”

Gabriel also claimed that Jackson aide Marc Schaffel told her he was worried the family would sell their story to a British tabloid.

Each of those statements is problematic. For one thing, no videotape of the family was made until Feb. 20, one day after Gabriel had been fired. On Feb. 9, no video of them existed at all.

As for telling their story: Too late! Gabriel’s statement that Schaffel was worried could not be correct. Why? On Feb. 9, two days after the family returned to California with Jackson from Miami, the Sunday Mail in London ran an interview with the mother and with the man who introduced her to Jackson, Jamie Masada. The mother, according to my sources, asked for and received $4,000 from the reporter, David Gardner.

This was on Feb. 9. Three months later, the boy suddenly recalled that between Feb. 20 and March 10, something in appropriate did happen. The boy, knowing the whole world was watching, didn’t mention anything for about 10 weeks. Either Masada is a poor judge of character or the boy fabricated his story.

And Gabriel, insiders argue, made several other preposterous claims on the stand yesterday. One of them was that Schaffel somehow participated in “embezzling” $1 million from Jackson. The same insiders got a good laugh at this one. Schaffel is known for keeping meticulous records. He is currently suing Jackson for millions he’s owed.

“If he’d actually embezzled money, I don’t think he’d be suing for it now,” sniffed a source.

Tomorrow: Can they get a witness? Plus, an Oscar wrap up…

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149280,00.html#ixzz29hp7PR6A

There is the story according to Roger Friedman. Here is the original article as it appeared in the Daily Mail written by David Gardner.

My dad, Michael; Cancer boy’s mother tells how he looks upon Jackson as his father and wants to travel the world with him.

Daily Mail (London)

February 8, 2003 | Gardner, David

Byline: DAVID GARDNER

The mother of the 12-year-old cancer sufferer who shares Michael Jackson’s bed has revealed how the boy thinks of the singer as his father and even calls him Daddy.

As it emerged last night that Jackson will face a police investigation into his behaviour, Janet Arvizo said she was perfectly comfortable with her son Gavin and her two other children staying at the star’s Neverland ranch.

She hopes Jackson will include the children in his entourage when he travels around the world. ‘Michael has brought something special into our lives,’ Mrs Arvizo told the Daily Mail in an exclusive interview. ‘He has pet names for all of my children and Gavin even calls him Daddy. He is the father they never had. He is a saint to them.’ Gavin, who was given only two weeks to live when he was diagnosed with kidney cancer two years ago, tells his mother: ‘I am living for my Daddy, Michael.’ The family has suffered so much hardship that it is perhaps not surprising that they see Jackson as a guardian angel.

Struggling to scrape together enough welfare cash to feed and clothe Gavin, his 11-year-old brother Star and sister Davelin, 16, Mrs Arvizo was once so poor that she was forced to take the children to live in a stable.

Courtesy of Jackson, they now have a car, numerous other gifts and live in a small but comfortable flat.

Mrs Arvizo, 34, is clearly doing all she can to encourage the connection with their celebrity friend. ‘The children are hoping to spend a lot more time with him in the future,’ she said. ‘It is not just Gavin – all of my kids have stayed over with Michael. They have spent a lot of quality time with him on their own.

‘Sometimes they stay overnight. I am totally comfortable with that. They are happy with him and have a lot of fun. I don’t need to be there all the time.

I am not worried about Michael at all. He has been so good to all of us.’ Her voice brimming with excitement, Mrs Arvizo added: ‘So far, they have only been with him at Neverland, but they are hoping to travel the world with him.

That is what he has told them will happen. It’s a dream come true for them.

He is their angel.

‘Whenever they feel sad, Michael sends them a card and invites them over to see him. They really look forward to that.’ The revelations about Jackson’s relationship with Gavin were one of the main talking points from Martin Bashir’s documentary about the singer, which was screened to 15million viewers by ITV on Monday.

Many have since questioned the motivation of a man sleeping with children who are not related to him and last night a criminal investigation was launched into the documentary’s revelations.

Santa Barbara County District Attorney Thomas Sneddon said: ‘It is anticipated that it (a videotape of the programme) will be reviewed.

‘The conduct of any adult under these circumstances sleeping with a child is certainly calculated to raise concerns and be considered by most reasonable people as unusual, at best. For this reason, all local departments having responsibility in this are taking this matter seriously.’ Before meeting 44-year-old Jackson two years ago, Gavin was unquestionably at the very lowest point in his difficult upbringing in a rundown district of Los Angeles.

While Jackson would not blink at spending millions in a morning shopping spree on Beverly Hills’ Rodeo Drive, just a few miles away Gavin’s mother was struggling to keep the family together.

Preoccupied with her daily struggle for survival, Mrs Arvizo had paid no attention to the child molesting allegations ten years earlier that resulted in Jackson paying pound sterling10million to settle a civil suit brought by Jordy Chandler, his 13-year-old alleged victim. It was not that she knew nothing of abusive men. Friends say she was forced to take out a restraining order against her husband, David, 36, claiming he abused her and the children.

Trying to bring up the youngsters alone, she constantly struggled to find a decent home.

‘They were living in a stable with the hay and horses in Bakersfield, California, for a long time,’ said family friend Jamie Masada.

‘I went to visit them another time to see just how bad things were and they were all living in a tiny room in Compton that wasn’t even big enough for one person to live in.

‘They couldn’t afford to buy clothes or food. It was heartbreaking to see people living like that in Los Angeles. It made me cry.

‘It is hard to believe there could be this kind of poverty in a country like America.’ Ironically, it was Gavin’s battle with kidney cancer that turned his life around.

The first two occasions his mother took him to a community hospital complaining of stomach pains, he was turned away because he did not have insurance.

On the insistence of Mr Masada, the owner of the Laugh Factory comedy club, Mrs Arvizo took Gavin back again. Doctors found a tumour the size of a football.

Surgeons at Kaiser Hospital in Los Angeles operated to remove the cancer and were forced to take out one of Gavin’s kidneys and his spleen.

Exhausting chemotherapy sessions made all his hair fall out and sapped his spirit. All the time, the medical bills were mounting.

Gavin, Star and Davelin had earlier attended a comedy camp that Mr Masada holds each summer for underprivileged children.

He kept in touch with the family and, after Gavin became ill, asked the boy for a wish-list of the celebrities he wanted to meet.

After Adam Sandler, a comedian who appears on the American show Saturday Night Live, and Chris Tucker, from the Rush Hour movies, the third name on the list was Jackson’s.

‘Gavin said he’d seen him dance on TV and wanted to meet him,’ said Mr Masada. ‘It was like meeting these people was giving him something to live for.

‘I contacted Quincy Jones who talked to Michael and he came to the club but Gavin wasn’t there.

‘Then Michael spoke to Gavin on the telephone and called him a couple more times before he asked him if he wanted to visit Neverland.

‘Gavin and his brother, Star, went to Neverland and they stayed for two days. Janet would drop them off and pick them up after the weekend.

‘No matter what people may say about Michael Jackson, he came in and helped this boy to survive. That’s the most important thing to me.

‘Gavin said Michael was like a kid. They had fun and played games. Gavin is not a naive kid.

He would have said something if something bad had happened.’ Mrs Arvizo’s ex-husband refused to comment on his son’s relationship with Jackson.

He lives in an eastern suburb of Los Angeles with his mother, Marleen, who said: ‘He has not been able to see Gavin for about a year. I don’t even know where they are living now.’

Gardner, David

COPYRIGHT 2007 Daily Mail

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-97368387.html

<hr< div=””>HighBeam Research is operated by Cengage Learning. © Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.www.highbeam.com

Here is a link to the original online statement put out by Sneddon on February 6th in response to questions put to their office that they would tape the interview and review it.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030726212829/http://www.countyofsb.org/da/documents/PR-Michael%20Jackson.pdf

Yes, I know that stable story is pretty crazy when you consider that they were living in East LA. My next question is where on earth did they manage to find a stable in East LA? The best part is that they contacted David Arvizo’s mother so we know they tried to talk to everyone in the family. There is also the fact that he interviewed Jamie Masada who told him the same story so you know that Janet and he had compared this story from the beginning.

Next comes another Defense Motion to Traverse warrants. This one is 261 pages long. On page 246 will be the excerpt from Stan Katz telephone statement with Paul Zellis you will see that contrary to what she said the Arvizos were fully aware of the 1993 case because Gavin is quoted as saying  “ Jordy Chandler couldn’t stop him” in reference to Michael. So this was also against Janet’s assertion that they knew nothing about the 1993 case.

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/062904mottravaff.pdf

I will write another using the documents showing everyone just what it is that Sneddon did to get the case to trial.

Advertisements
15 Comments leave one →
  1. nannorris permalink
    October 22, 2012 12:53 am

    Reading these motions is so disheartening..The family is scum, but the police and prosecutors are no better.
    If Katz is telling Zelis that MJ is not a criminal in that sense, and Zelis is agreeing, then it would follow that Katz never believed JC either, and yet he gets on the stand and says he has never heard a teenager make false accusations..
    And Zelis doesnt pipe up and ask him what about JC and older accusations..
    It is sickening how these people went about shoving this ridiculous case through the court system, when it seems they didnt believe it themselves..
    I am also pretty surprised that in a case as big as this , that no one in Mark Geragos office returned the call of the guy from JC Penny case who had such valuable information regarding the Arvizo..
    It is like MJ was in free fall, because they are attacking him and no one seemed to be looking out for him , in his own camp..

  2. lynande51 permalink*
    October 19, 2012 8:23 pm

    Which Andersen book Shelly because the only one I know about is the one written by Christopher ANdersen in 1994 so unless he was one of the countless authors that reprinted his book after MJ died and added more to the story then I missed that book.

    • shellywebstere permalink
      October 19, 2012 9:43 pm

      I am talking about the 1994 book. The part about Sutherland is in chapter 22 p392

  3. shellywebstere permalink
    October 19, 2012 8:14 pm

    It’s funny, I just reread Andersen book, and the threats from the Arvizo’s story are in it. He even had a story about threats against Francia who never testified to that. Now I’d like to know if we have info on Sandra Sutherland, according to Andersen, she said she talked to people who were in mental health hospital because of what he allegedly did to them. I know that Sneddon had her files and her husband’s files and they both testified but I’d like tout know if she really said that.

  4. lynande51 permalink*
    October 19, 2012 8:44 am

    And here is the part of Sneddon Press Release where he is talking about victims testifying.

    5. California Law and a Child/Victim’s Right to Refuse to Testify and Cooperate in Investigations. Under California law a child/victim must voluntarily cooperate with law enforcement. Neither testimony nor an appearance in court can be mandated. Therefore, an investigation without a cooperative victim or a percipient witness to establish the corpus for a crime is not prosecutable. While it may seem strange that even if a person made an admission or a confession, under California law without a witness or other evidence to establish the corpus there is no case. See CALJIC Instruction 2.72.

    This is the part of the law that tells us that Sneddon helped Chacon lie on the stand.That is a crime and it is called subornation of perjury.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subornation_of_perjury

    To establish that a crime has been committed authorities need something called a corpus delicti or “the body of the crime” as material evidence. Without that (it is an either or situation) they could use a percipient witness, a witness who testifies about things she or he actually perceived, for example, an eyewitness.

    Now in 1994 when Sneddon flew to Australia to interrogate Brett and his parents again ( they had already been questioned once at Neverland and Brett went on CNN) they went because of the story that Chacon told them about seeing Brett being abused by MJ. That is obvious otherwise they would not have been able to justify the expense of flying to Australia.
    Then 10 years later Chacon is in court and he says that it is Jordan. If it had been Jordan and he had testified that it was Jordan to the LA grand jury in 1994 they would have been able to take Michael to court without Jordan because Chacon could have testified.
    Then fast forward to 2004 and you get Sneddon meeting with Chacon before his testimony and tells him that Brett is going to testify for Michael and deny that anything like that occurred. That is when the two of them concoct the story about the two boys looking alike.

  5. lynande51 permalink*
    October 19, 2012 8:16 am

    Yes most 10 year old boys do know what their bodies do all by themselves.

    • shellywebstere permalink
      October 19, 2012 9:50 am

      Katz agrees with every defense attorney and made the same point as Mesereau about what kids do.

  6. lynande51 permalink*
    October 19, 2012 8:04 am

    And then there is his little “holler out” to Jordan in that paragraph too.

    Furthermore, while Section 803(g) allows prosecution of offenses which occurred beyond the statute of limitations, it requires as a prerequisite that the victim initiate the request to investigate by reporting the allegations to law enforcement.

    This shows exactly what his intentions were once the Bashir interview was taped. He was going after him no matter what. In that press release is where he does what Tom Mesereau called an “open casting call for victims”. That Piece of paper is priceless in showing what Sneddons intention was.

  7. shellywebstere permalink
    October 19, 2012 5:41 am

    I love the comments made by Katz about MJ.

    • lynande51 permalink*
      October 19, 2012 7:59 am

      You mean the part where he says he isn’t a pedophile? And he is an “expert” so where did the cops come up with all that? Well I’m going to tell you why.
      In the press release that I gave a link to Sneddon is explaining the law as it pertains to sleeping with children. It is not against the law UNLESS there is a touching AND the mental state that accompanies and touching that may occur.

      3. California Law Relative to Adults Sleeping with a Child. The relevant California Penal Code
      sections dealing with misconduct by an adult with a child are found in Penal Code sections 288,
      647.6 and 314.1 and 803(g). A review of these sections reveals that the act of an adult sleeping with a child without more is insufficient to warrant a filing or support a conviction. I direct your attention to these sections. If you read them you will notice that in each instance they require affirmative, offensive conduct on the part of the perpetrator and a mental state that accompanies any touching that may occur. The mere act of sleeping in the same bed with a child alone without either a touching and the required mental state would not satisfy the statutory requirements. Furthermore, while Section 803(g) allows prosecution of offenses which occurred beyond the statute of limitations, it requires as a prerequisite that the victim initiate the request to investigate by reporting the allegations to law enforcement.

      You can tell from this press release just exactly where Sneddon was going to go with this. Because the law requires thatwould that be? No, grooming starts out slow, but not that slow, and escalates just like all other crimes, these criminals are progressive in their acts and their disease.
      That is why they went after MJ’s magazines and books. First NOT EVEN the Arvizo boys said anything about books. No they went straight to the internet story on Gavin’s new computer. Then it was the girlie magazines when they got back there but it was never those books.
      What is so funny about that is that if Michael had those books for “grooming” they would have been the first thing he showed them because they are innocuous and contain children not naked women. Then he would have been around them all the time. He would not have started this and then basically move to the other side of the country for the next two years. He would not have kept changing his telephone number to avoid talking to him because supposedly he had met his next victim and he would have become obssessed with making him his next victim.
      Pedophiles are not that patient when they find a victim. If this had happeded at all to either of his accusers he would have done it when he was first visiting the ranch not two years later when he was already being investigated by the Santa Barbara DA.

      • shellywebstere permalink
        October 19, 2012 8:06 am

        It was the part where he said what 10 years old do. It just said that a typical 10 years old boy already knows all that stuff.

  8. stacy permalink
    October 19, 2012 4:12 am

    What a sick family..No morals whatsoever.

Trackbacks

  1. April 13th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Jay Jackson (Cross Examination) and Janet Arvizo (Direct Examination), Part 1 of 5 « Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0
  2. April 12th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Jay Jackson (Direct and Cross Examination), Part 2 of 3 « Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0
  3. April 12th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Jay Jackson (Direct and Cross Examination), Part 1 of 3 « Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: