-MyAngelMJ-
New member
Official.
Official May 23 2005 Thread
- Thread starter -MyAngelMJ-
- Start date
-MyAngelMJ-
New member
So who is gonna take the stand today??
sistahlamb
New member
Well, if what the prosecution said is true--which I still highly doubt--then I'm guessing either Jay Leno or Chris Tucker maybe???
Maybe today we'll find out for sure wiether or not the defence will rest ther case this week.
Maybe today we'll find out for sure wiether or not the defence will rest ther case this week.
Faithful MJ Lover
New member
I understand that Chris Tucker will take the stand .
Jay Leno is supposed to be called this week as well.
Some fans believe this trial may not wrap this week
as predicted.
Jay Leno is supposed to be called this week as well.
Some fans believe this trial may not wrap this week
as predicted.
EuphoricNostalgia
New member
I'm so excited about today! I hope everything goes well with the defense!
Black Loafers
New member
Is Chris Tucker going to take the stand today?
The Testimony of Michael Jackson's Former Attorney, Mark Geragos:
Why It Was Allowed to Happen, Why the Judge Was Irritated By It, and How It Undermined the DA's Conspiracy Case
By JONNA SPILBOR
user posted image
It wasn't the first time Mark Geragos had swaggered into the Santa Maria Courthouse amid a flurry of cameras and fanfare. But for this veteran defense attorney and one-time lawyer for Michael Jackson, it was no ordinary day in court. On Friday, May 13 - day fifty-two of Jackson's child molestation trial, and day seven of the defense's case-in-chief - famed attorney Mark Geragos breezed past counsel table, and took a seat on the witness stand.
Geragos had represented Jackson from February 2003 until April 2004, when Jackson replaced him with his present counsel, Thomas Mesereau Jr. In this column, I will explain why Geragos was able to testify despite having once been Jackson's attorney, and discuss as well, the effect of his testimony - including why it severely undermines the conspiracy charges here.
Why Was Geragos Allowed to Testify?
The attorney-client privilege, as readers will be aware, guards against the unauthorized dissemination of confidential communications between a client and his lawyer, during the course of the lawyer's representation of the client.
It thus serves to prevent attorneys from discussing - let alone openly testifying about - such communications. If an attorney tries to do so without a client's consent, he may be silenced or sanctioned by the court - or even worse, disbarred. If an opposing attorney tries to elicit such communications - during a deposition or at trial - the attorney may object, and the judge will typically uphold the objection.
The client holds the privilege. That means the client can force the attorney to testify, despite the privilege, even if the attorney would rather not do so, just as he can prevent the attorney from testifying even if he would prefer to do that. In legal parlance, this means the privilege is the client's to "waive" or "assert."
Here, Jackson agreed to waive the privilege - but it turned out he sought to grant only a partial waiver. In other words, Jackson wanted to allow Geragos to testify about some - but not all - of their communications.
California law permits this kind of partial waiver - and rightly so. Attorneys often represent clients for more than one case, and/or more than one purpose. It makes sense, then, to allow clients to divide up their waivers of privilege, rather than to have to find a new attorney every time they have a new issue to discuss in order to preserve their waiver rights.
Forcing a client to choose between total waiver and no waiver at all could, in some cases, be grossly unfair. Clients should not have to give up confidentiality on one issue, to waive it on another issue.
The Judge's Reaction to the Way the Partial Waiver Was Asserted Here
When Geragos began his testimony, he informed the court that he had been told that Jackson intended to waive his privilege. Geragos also noted that that the waiver had not formally been made on the record, nor had it been reduced to writing - but, he said, it would be.
To either put the waiver on the record, or memorialize it in writing (with a copy to the judge, and one to the defense) from the start would have been good practice: If Jackson one day were to claim that Geragos violated the privilege, the written or otherwise recorded waiver would be a defense to that charge. Also, it would have fully informed the judge of the extent of the waiver.
Recall that Geragos had represented Jackson from February 2003 until April 2004. Jackson, it turned out, wanted to waive the privilege only from February 2003 to his arrest date, about nine months later- not all the way through April 2004. That is, Jackson wanted to keep post-arrest-date confidential conversations off-limits, while opening up prior communications for Geragos to discuss. Again, this is clearly permitted under California law.
However, the limited scope of the waiver was not made clear during Jackson's direct examination, by his own attorney, Mesereau. Only when assistant prosecutor Ron Zonen began cross-examination, did the limited nature of Jackson's waiver become clear. That happened when Geragos (quite properly) refused to answer a question that went outside the scope of the waiver.
All this reportedly "irritated" Judge Melville. He halted Geragos's testimony, cleared the jury from the courtroom, and ordered each side to submit briefs as to the validity of the "partial" waiver.
In so doing, Judge Melville ignored an option that would have allowed him to avoid all this briefing: Because Mesereau's direct examination stayed within the strict time frame of the waiver, Judge Melville could have simply held that Zonen's questions were beyond the scope of the direct examination - as, indeed, they were. Cross-examination cannot go beyond the scope of direct examination, for its only purpose is to try to raise questions about direct examination. If an attorney feels he has not gotten - or cannot get - far enough in cross-examination with a given witness, he is always free to call that witness to the stand himself, for direct examination. And if the witness is "hostile," he will get particular leeway on direct examination.
After briefing, Judge Melville said that he believed lead defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. had misrepresented the waiver; that he felt "deceived"; and that he had even considered "sanctions of some sort" against Mesereau. (The possibility of sanctions remains open, even now).
Nevertheless, Melville permitted Geragos to continue to testify under the qualified waiver, despite prosecutors' protests. At the same time, Melville forced Geragos to assert the attorney-client privilege after each and every question he refused to answer. That elicited quizzical sneers from the jury - meaning that, unfortunately, Melville's irritation at Mesereau, so far, may have ended up hurting only Jackson.
The more appropriate course would have been to limit the prosecutor's questions to the relevant time period, and uphold a general defense objection - asserted just once - to questions ranging outside that period.
Judge Melville's forcing Geragos to repeatedly object based on attorney-client privilege not only punished the client, Jackson, unfairly, it also represented a double standard within the trial. When the accuser's mother asserted her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when she was cross-examined as to whether she committed welfare fraud, the judge did not make her assert it over and over again - as Geragos had been forced to. After she once asserted the privilege, the judge made sure defense questions were off limits.
The same approach should have been taken with Geragos: Once he objected based on the limited waiver of the privilege, the judge should have made sure the prosecutors stayed within the bounds of the waiver.
Did Geragos's Testimony End the Prosecutors' Conspiracy Case?
After all of these procedural gyrations, the substance of Geragos's testimony proved a boon to the defense. In particular, it may well have been the last nail in the coffin for the conspiracy charges in this case.
These charges have been much less publicized that the charges that Jackson molested the accuser, a then-twelve-year-old cancer patient. They are based on allegations that Jackson and five "unindicted co-conspirators" together agreed to hold the boy and his family captive at Neverland.
According to prosecutors, the reason for this conspiracy was to force the boy and his family to participate in a video designed to undue the damage caused by the pop star's unflattering portrayal in the Martin Bashir documentary. In the now-infamous documentary, "Living with Michael Jackson," Jackson admitted to sleeping in the same bed with children - an admission that has been used against him in the molestation case.
By the time Geragos testified, the prosecution's conspiracy case had already been greatly weakened. The defense had established that when the accuser's mother claimed she was "falsely imprisoned" on Neverland's sprawling grounds, she managed to get her nails done, visit the dentist, and enjoy a "full body wax" off the estate. She did, complain, however, that she was being "followed" and surveilled. Until Geragos took the stand, the defense had not yet rebutted this testimony.
Geragos's testimony weakened the case for the conspiracy even further. It suggested there was no such conspiracy by Jackson. Indeed, it suggested that if any conspiracy was brewing, it was among members of the accuser's family, and its purpose was to "shake down" Jackson!
Geragos recounted learning that the accuser's mother had alleged sexual abuse against retail giant J.C. Penney, winning a large damage award, and observing that she insisted her children call Jackson "Daddy" - even though Jackson expressed discomfort about this. Based on information such as this, Geragos testified, he began to fear that his client was about to become a target.
So he hired private investigator Bradley Miller to keep tabs on the accuser and his family. No wonder, then, that the accuser's mother testified to "being followed" and surveilled; it was happening. But its purpose was legitimate - to prevent Jackson from being victimized - not conspiratorial (i.e. to prevent her from leaving the estate.)
Only after the accuser's mother realized she was being followed, did she leave the estate (interestingly, no one stopped her from leaving). Only then, did she make her claims of a conspiracy by Jackson.
My take? She knew the jig was up - and looked for a new method to profit from Jackson.
A Spill-Over Effect: Why Weakening the Conspiracy Claims Weakens the Molestation Claims Too
Not only did Geragos's testimony make short work of the conspiracy charges, it may have raised even more reasonable doubt on the molestation charges.
The arguably credible evidence in favor of these charges boils down to the testimony of two witnesses; the accuser and his younger brother. That's because the other witnesses who testified to molestation tended, as Mesereau has noted, to self-destruct on cross-examination.
The accuser's mother's testimony was a disaster. (How much reliance could a jury ever put on the testimony of someone who had to take the Fifth Amendment?) And even apart from this issue, the mother was not credible.
Meanwhile, none of the various Jackson employees who claimed molestation provided credible, compelling testimony, free of financial self-interest. Worse, some were clearly Jackson's enemies for reasons having nothing to with alleged molestation. And others claimed molestation of victims who later either swore, testifying for the defense, that they had never been molested or failed to show up at court.
So the molestation case comes down to this: Will the jury put all the adults' disagreements' aside, and believe these two kids?
There is, at this point, plenty of reason for them not to. After all, if this family was plotting to "shake down" the pop star, the kids' credibility is all but shot.
Of course, it's highly unlikely that the jury will find the children masterminded such an elaborate plan. But they may well find that the kids' influential mother roped them into it. After all, they and their sister have admitted lying before, to say what they thought their mother, or authority figures, wanted to hear.
The outcome? Absent a rabbit in the prosecution's hat, I predict Michael Jackson will be acquitted of all charges. Not only that, he may emerge with what all those who are criminally accused hope for: Vindication.
Vindication rarely comes from a not guilty verdict alone. But when a prosecution case is a debacle, as this one is, the defendant's victory can, indeed, seem to be vindication as well. If Jackson is acquitted, it won't be because the prosecution failed by a hair's breadth; it will be because the prosecution failed by a mile.
Source: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20...23_spilbor.html
Why It Was Allowed to Happen, Why the Judge Was Irritated By It, and How It Undermined the DA's Conspiracy Case
By JONNA SPILBOR
user posted image
It wasn't the first time Mark Geragos had swaggered into the Santa Maria Courthouse amid a flurry of cameras and fanfare. But for this veteran defense attorney and one-time lawyer for Michael Jackson, it was no ordinary day in court. On Friday, May 13 - day fifty-two of Jackson's child molestation trial, and day seven of the defense's case-in-chief - famed attorney Mark Geragos breezed past counsel table, and took a seat on the witness stand.
Geragos had represented Jackson from February 2003 until April 2004, when Jackson replaced him with his present counsel, Thomas Mesereau Jr. In this column, I will explain why Geragos was able to testify despite having once been Jackson's attorney, and discuss as well, the effect of his testimony - including why it severely undermines the conspiracy charges here.
Why Was Geragos Allowed to Testify?
The attorney-client privilege, as readers will be aware, guards against the unauthorized dissemination of confidential communications between a client and his lawyer, during the course of the lawyer's representation of the client.
It thus serves to prevent attorneys from discussing - let alone openly testifying about - such communications. If an attorney tries to do so without a client's consent, he may be silenced or sanctioned by the court - or even worse, disbarred. If an opposing attorney tries to elicit such communications - during a deposition or at trial - the attorney may object, and the judge will typically uphold the objection.
The client holds the privilege. That means the client can force the attorney to testify, despite the privilege, even if the attorney would rather not do so, just as he can prevent the attorney from testifying even if he would prefer to do that. In legal parlance, this means the privilege is the client's to "waive" or "assert."
Here, Jackson agreed to waive the privilege - but it turned out he sought to grant only a partial waiver. In other words, Jackson wanted to allow Geragos to testify about some - but not all - of their communications.
California law permits this kind of partial waiver - and rightly so. Attorneys often represent clients for more than one case, and/or more than one purpose. It makes sense, then, to allow clients to divide up their waivers of privilege, rather than to have to find a new attorney every time they have a new issue to discuss in order to preserve their waiver rights.
Forcing a client to choose between total waiver and no waiver at all could, in some cases, be grossly unfair. Clients should not have to give up confidentiality on one issue, to waive it on another issue.
The Judge's Reaction to the Way the Partial Waiver Was Asserted Here
When Geragos began his testimony, he informed the court that he had been told that Jackson intended to waive his privilege. Geragos also noted that that the waiver had not formally been made on the record, nor had it been reduced to writing - but, he said, it would be.
To either put the waiver on the record, or memorialize it in writing (with a copy to the judge, and one to the defense) from the start would have been good practice: If Jackson one day were to claim that Geragos violated the privilege, the written or otherwise recorded waiver would be a defense to that charge. Also, it would have fully informed the judge of the extent of the waiver.
Recall that Geragos had represented Jackson from February 2003 until April 2004. Jackson, it turned out, wanted to waive the privilege only from February 2003 to his arrest date, about nine months later- not all the way through April 2004. That is, Jackson wanted to keep post-arrest-date confidential conversations off-limits, while opening up prior communications for Geragos to discuss. Again, this is clearly permitted under California law.
However, the limited scope of the waiver was not made clear during Jackson's direct examination, by his own attorney, Mesereau. Only when assistant prosecutor Ron Zonen began cross-examination, did the limited nature of Jackson's waiver become clear. That happened when Geragos (quite properly) refused to answer a question that went outside the scope of the waiver.
All this reportedly "irritated" Judge Melville. He halted Geragos's testimony, cleared the jury from the courtroom, and ordered each side to submit briefs as to the validity of the "partial" waiver.
In so doing, Judge Melville ignored an option that would have allowed him to avoid all this briefing: Because Mesereau's direct examination stayed within the strict time frame of the waiver, Judge Melville could have simply held that Zonen's questions were beyond the scope of the direct examination - as, indeed, they were. Cross-examination cannot go beyond the scope of direct examination, for its only purpose is to try to raise questions about direct examination. If an attorney feels he has not gotten - or cannot get - far enough in cross-examination with a given witness, he is always free to call that witness to the stand himself, for direct examination. And if the witness is "hostile," he will get particular leeway on direct examination.
After briefing, Judge Melville said that he believed lead defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. had misrepresented the waiver; that he felt "deceived"; and that he had even considered "sanctions of some sort" against Mesereau. (The possibility of sanctions remains open, even now).
Nevertheless, Melville permitted Geragos to continue to testify under the qualified waiver, despite prosecutors' protests. At the same time, Melville forced Geragos to assert the attorney-client privilege after each and every question he refused to answer. That elicited quizzical sneers from the jury - meaning that, unfortunately, Melville's irritation at Mesereau, so far, may have ended up hurting only Jackson.
The more appropriate course would have been to limit the prosecutor's questions to the relevant time period, and uphold a general defense objection - asserted just once - to questions ranging outside that period.
Judge Melville's forcing Geragos to repeatedly object based on attorney-client privilege not only punished the client, Jackson, unfairly, it also represented a double standard within the trial. When the accuser's mother asserted her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when she was cross-examined as to whether she committed welfare fraud, the judge did not make her assert it over and over again - as Geragos had been forced to. After she once asserted the privilege, the judge made sure defense questions were off limits.
The same approach should have been taken with Geragos: Once he objected based on the limited waiver of the privilege, the judge should have made sure the prosecutors stayed within the bounds of the waiver.
Did Geragos's Testimony End the Prosecutors' Conspiracy Case?
After all of these procedural gyrations, the substance of Geragos's testimony proved a boon to the defense. In particular, it may well have been the last nail in the coffin for the conspiracy charges in this case.
These charges have been much less publicized that the charges that Jackson molested the accuser, a then-twelve-year-old cancer patient. They are based on allegations that Jackson and five "unindicted co-conspirators" together agreed to hold the boy and his family captive at Neverland.
According to prosecutors, the reason for this conspiracy was to force the boy and his family to participate in a video designed to undue the damage caused by the pop star's unflattering portrayal in the Martin Bashir documentary. In the now-infamous documentary, "Living with Michael Jackson," Jackson admitted to sleeping in the same bed with children - an admission that has been used against him in the molestation case.
By the time Geragos testified, the prosecution's conspiracy case had already been greatly weakened. The defense had established that when the accuser's mother claimed she was "falsely imprisoned" on Neverland's sprawling grounds, she managed to get her nails done, visit the dentist, and enjoy a "full body wax" off the estate. She did, complain, however, that she was being "followed" and surveilled. Until Geragos took the stand, the defense had not yet rebutted this testimony.
Geragos's testimony weakened the case for the conspiracy even further. It suggested there was no such conspiracy by Jackson. Indeed, it suggested that if any conspiracy was brewing, it was among members of the accuser's family, and its purpose was to "shake down" Jackson!
Geragos recounted learning that the accuser's mother had alleged sexual abuse against retail giant J.C. Penney, winning a large damage award, and observing that she insisted her children call Jackson "Daddy" - even though Jackson expressed discomfort about this. Based on information such as this, Geragos testified, he began to fear that his client was about to become a target.
So he hired private investigator Bradley Miller to keep tabs on the accuser and his family. No wonder, then, that the accuser's mother testified to "being followed" and surveilled; it was happening. But its purpose was legitimate - to prevent Jackson from being victimized - not conspiratorial (i.e. to prevent her from leaving the estate.)
Only after the accuser's mother realized she was being followed, did she leave the estate (interestingly, no one stopped her from leaving). Only then, did she make her claims of a conspiracy by Jackson.
My take? She knew the jig was up - and looked for a new method to profit from Jackson.
A Spill-Over Effect: Why Weakening the Conspiracy Claims Weakens the Molestation Claims Too
Not only did Geragos's testimony make short work of the conspiracy charges, it may have raised even more reasonable doubt on the molestation charges.
The arguably credible evidence in favor of these charges boils down to the testimony of two witnesses; the accuser and his younger brother. That's because the other witnesses who testified to molestation tended, as Mesereau has noted, to self-destruct on cross-examination.
The accuser's mother's testimony was a disaster. (How much reliance could a jury ever put on the testimony of someone who had to take the Fifth Amendment?) And even apart from this issue, the mother was not credible.
Meanwhile, none of the various Jackson employees who claimed molestation provided credible, compelling testimony, free of financial self-interest. Worse, some were clearly Jackson's enemies for reasons having nothing to with alleged molestation. And others claimed molestation of victims who later either swore, testifying for the defense, that they had never been molested or failed to show up at court.
So the molestation case comes down to this: Will the jury put all the adults' disagreements' aside, and believe these two kids?
There is, at this point, plenty of reason for them not to. After all, if this family was plotting to "shake down" the pop star, the kids' credibility is all but shot.
Of course, it's highly unlikely that the jury will find the children masterminded such an elaborate plan. But they may well find that the kids' influential mother roped them into it. After all, they and their sister have admitted lying before, to say what they thought their mother, or authority figures, wanted to hear.
The outcome? Absent a rabbit in the prosecution's hat, I predict Michael Jackson will be acquitted of all charges. Not only that, he may emerge with what all those who are criminally accused hope for: Vindication.
Vindication rarely comes from a not guilty verdict alone. But when a prosecution case is a debacle, as this one is, the defendant's victory can, indeed, seem to be vindication as well. If Jackson is acquitted, it won't be because the prosecution failed by a hair's breadth; it will be because the prosecution failed by a mile.
Source: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20...23_spilbor.html
Great article, Whisper.
R. Friedman has a new article out. It's one of his most sane 411 posts. He said something that I been thinking for a while. He suggested that Janut's lawyers sent her back to NL to try set the frame for later charges.
He also has copies of additional receipts that show some really compelling information. I only wish that there was a way for MJ/Mez to get Tyson/Amen on the stand. This plainly shows that these folks were named co-conspirators to force them off the defense witness list.
I'll post the article in a minute.
Alfredo
R. Friedman has a new article out. It's one of his most sane 411 posts. He said something that I been thinking for a while. He suggested that Janut's lawyers sent her back to NL to try set the frame for later charges.
He also has copies of additional receipts that show some really compelling information. I only wish that there was a way for MJ/Mez to get Tyson/Amen on the stand. This plainly shows that these folks were named co-conspirators to force them off the defense witness list.
I'll post the article in a minute.
Alfredo
Here's something sane from Friedman
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157331,00.html
Jack(s)o
's Receipts Could Exonerate Him
Monday, May 23, 2005
By Roger Friedman
Jack(s)o's Receipts | Accuser's Lawyers
Jack(s)o's Receipts Could Exonerate Him
The "captors" of Janet Arvizo's kids, whom Arvizo called "The Killers" on the stand, not only bought them books but also paid to replace their lost schoolbooks as well. And they did this during what turned out to be the Arvizo family's last week at Michael Jackson's Neverland Valley Ranch in March 2003.
I can tell you this because I have copies of the receipts. I can also tell you that on her last full day of "captivity," Arvizo sat down to lunch with her "captor" Vincent Amen at the Outback Steak House in Los Angeles. This was after she'd won a judgment in family court against her ex-husband and knew that her adventure at Neverland was hours from being over. After six long weeks, Jackson wanted her and her kids gone.
On March 11, 2003, Arvizo hunkered down to a meal of prime rib. Amen had roast beef. The time stamp on the check was 12:53 p.m.
I have more receipts from Arvizo's stay with Jackson, some of which I've written about, others that have just been uncovered. They certainly add to the testimony given by many witnesses: The conspiracy case against Jackson is not credible. But will the jury hear about these receipts? Will they hear about the schoolbooks?
This could be a big issue, since Arvizo's captors wouldn't have been buying schoolbooks for kids they were getting ready to ship off to Brazil. Few kidnappers plan on making sure their charges have accelerated high school degrees.
To wit: Barnes & Noble receipt on March 4, $32.37, notation "Books for [the accuser's sister]." Barnes & Noble receipt, March 6, $29.79, notation "Books for [Arvizo boys]." Also March 6, $123.50 to John Burroughs Middle School, receipt for replaced textbooks.
The boys' books? Two copies of Ernest Hemingway's "The Old Man and the Sea" and one "Vocabulary Workshop." The girl's? "Roadmap to the California High School Exit Exam" and "How to Prepare for the California High School Proficiency Exam." Perhaps bolstered by her relationship with 22-year-old Neverland chef Angel Vivanco, the girl was planning a future even her mother didn't know about.
The receipts, entered into evidence last week but not shown yet to the jury or public, are a detailed accounting of money spent on the Arvizos, mostly by Amen and reimbursed by Marc Schaffel. Countering Arvizo's testimony that the family was allowed "one meal a day," the receipts are a black and white roadmap of several meals and snacks every day.
The Arvizos had quite a taste for fast food, dining frequently at Hot Dog on a Stick and similar franchises. It's enough to give the makers of "Super Size Me" indigestion.
Tomorrow: As the defense plans to rest its case, we still have a lot of questions. And what about the witnesses who never showed up? Why did we never see phone records from Neverland indicating who the family called while they stayed there?
Plus: Why well-executed graphics displays will be needed to show the jury a timeline not only for the Arvizos pre-Jackson activities, but a day-to-day schedule for February and March 2003.
Did Dickerman Dicker With Accuser's Mom?
So much testimony, so little time to analyze it. But let's ask ourselves: Why didn't attorney William Dickerman tell the mother of Michael Jackson's accuser to leave Neverland right away when she went to see him on Feb. 21 and again on Feb. 25, 2003? Maybe he didn't want her to.
On Feb. 21, Janet Arvizo told Vinnie Amen, Jackson's assistant, that she had to stop by the Laugh Factory in Hollywood and see owner Jamie Masada. What Amen didn't know is that Arvizo and Masada had set up for Masada's lawyer, Dickerman, to be there. It was the first of two meetings Dickerman would have with Arvizo in a period of four days.
The second meeting on Feb. 25 was held in Dickerman's Century City office. Arvizo attended that meeting even though she was on her way to a hotel in the suburb of Calabasas for five days of shopping with her kids and Amen.
Later, she claimed in her testimony that she was held against her will in Calabasas from Feb. 25 to March 2. But she didn't mention in the meeting, which her boyfriend also attended, that she was in the middle of being "kidnapped."
In other words: Arvizo would have us believe that she met with her lawyer to discuss her rights in a video broadcast two weeks earlier, but not about Jackson holding her hostage at that moment.
More important: Why didn't Dickerman call the police if the Arvizo family was being held hostage or feeling threatened on the 21st or the 25th? Certainly when Arvizo was in Dickerman's office en route to Calabasas on the 25th, he could have put an end to her "misery." He didn't. And that's where the head scratching begins.
And when did Dickerman decide to call Larry Feldman, the attorney who negotiated a $20 million settlement for Jackson's 1993 accuser? Some people theorize that Dickerman called Feldman immediately after his meeting with Arvizo on the 21st. He says he did it later.
Dickerman was never really asked any of these questions during cross-examination. He claimed that his main task after meeting Arvizo on the 21st and 25th was to determine her rights concerning her kids' appearance in the Martin Bashir documentary.
In other words: Arvizo, feeling her family was threatened and she was being held against their will, met with a lawyer, told him nothing about the situation and returned to it willingly. Dickerman, knowing that Arvizo was meeting with him on the sly, apparently felt no duty as an officer of the court to intervene.
On March 26, two weeks after the Arvizos were ejected from Neverland, Dickerman said he wrote to attorney Mark Geragos about retrieving Arvizo's possessions. He didn't mention in those letters that the family had been kidnapped or that the kids had been drinking at Neverland. He only wanted their passports and inexpensive furniture returned. It simply does not make sense.
To complicate the situation a bit more: On Feb. 16, Arvizo was driven to her apartment by Amen. Amen found a business card slipped under the door from Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon there, who'd seen the TV special in which Arvizo's son held hands with Jackson, according to sources. This column reported this little known fact almost a year ago. Yet, no one has ever brought this up in court. No one has ever asked: When did Sneddon first contact Arvizo? When did Arvizo first speak to him? Was it concurrent with her Dickerman meetings? And if so, why didn't Sneddon spring her from her kidnapping?
Here's a theory, and one that for some reason the defense has not tried out: Dickerman could have told Arvizo to return to Neverland and continue gathering "evidence" with an eye toward a civil suit. It's the only thing that makes sense. Once the rebuttal footage had been shot and the family services interview had taken place, Jackson's camp had no reason to keep the Arvizos around.
If the counter argument is that they planned to send them to Brazil, even that doesn't make sense. No one bothered to ask in court about the dates, but the Arvizos were in Calabasas for three days before they even applied for visas on Feb. 28, 2003. If the Jackson camp was so keen to get the family out of the country, wouldn't they have started the paperwork immediately?
Instead, Amen and Frank Tyson took the Arvizos shopping, fed them fast food and took them to the movies – something else the defense never asked Arvizo about on the stand – before even bothering to apply for passports and visas.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157331,00.html
Jack(s)o
's Receipts Could Exonerate HimMonday, May 23, 2005
By Roger Friedman
Jack(s)o
's Receipts | Accuser's LawyersJack(s)o
's Receipts Could Exonerate HimThe "captors" of Janet Arvizo's kids, whom Arvizo called "The Killers" on the stand, not only bought them books but also paid to replace their lost schoolbooks as well. And they did this during what turned out to be the Arvizo family's last week at Michael Jackson's Neverland Valley Ranch in March 2003.
I can tell you this because I have copies of the receipts. I can also tell you that on her last full day of "captivity," Arvizo sat down to lunch with her "captor" Vincent Amen at the Outback Steak House in Los Angeles. This was after she'd won a judgment in family court against her ex-husband and knew that her adventure at Neverland was hours from being over. After six long weeks, Jackson wanted her and her kids gone.
On March 11, 2003, Arvizo hunkered down to a meal of prime rib. Amen had roast beef. The time stamp on the check was 12:53 p.m.
I have more receipts from Arvizo's stay with Jackson, some of which I've written about, others that have just been uncovered. They certainly add to the testimony given by many witnesses: The conspiracy case against Jackson is not credible. But will the jury hear about these receipts? Will they hear about the schoolbooks?
This could be a big issue, since Arvizo's captors wouldn't have been buying schoolbooks for kids they were getting ready to ship off to Brazil. Few kidnappers plan on making sure their charges have accelerated high school degrees.
To wit: Barnes & Noble receipt on March 4, $32.37, notation "Books for [the accuser's sister]." Barnes & Noble receipt, March 6, $29.79, notation "Books for [Arvizo boys]." Also March 6, $123.50 to John Burroughs Middle School, receipt for replaced textbooks.
The boys' books? Two copies of Ernest Hemingway's "The Old Man and the Sea" and one "Vocabulary Workshop." The girl's? "Roadmap to the California High School Exit Exam" and "How to Prepare for the California High School Proficiency Exam." Perhaps bolstered by her relationship with 22-year-old Neverland chef Angel Vivanco, the girl was planning a future even her mother didn't know about.
The receipts, entered into evidence last week but not shown yet to the jury or public, are a detailed accounting of money spent on the Arvizos, mostly by Amen and reimbursed by Marc Schaffel. Countering Arvizo's testimony that the family was allowed "one meal a day," the receipts are a black and white roadmap of several meals and snacks every day.
The Arvizos had quite a taste for fast food, dining frequently at Hot Dog on a Stick and similar franchises. It's enough to give the makers of "Super Size Me" indigestion.
Tomorrow: As the defense plans to rest its case, we still have a lot of questions. And what about the witnesses who never showed up? Why did we never see phone records from Neverland indicating who the family called while they stayed there?
Plus: Why well-executed graphics displays will be needed to show the jury a timeline not only for the Arvizos pre-Jackson activities, but a day-to-day schedule for February and March 2003.
Did Dickerman Dicker With Accuser's Mom?
So much testimony, so little time to analyze it. But let's ask ourselves: Why didn't attorney William Dickerman tell the mother of Michael Jackson's accuser to leave Neverland right away when she went to see him on Feb. 21 and again on Feb. 25, 2003? Maybe he didn't want her to.
On Feb. 21, Janet Arvizo told Vinnie Amen, Jackson's assistant, that she had to stop by the Laugh Factory in Hollywood and see owner Jamie Masada. What Amen didn't know is that Arvizo and Masada had set up for Masada's lawyer, Dickerman, to be there. It was the first of two meetings Dickerman would have with Arvizo in a period of four days.
The second meeting on Feb. 25 was held in Dickerman's Century City office. Arvizo attended that meeting even though she was on her way to a hotel in the suburb of Calabasas for five days of shopping with her kids and Amen.
Later, she claimed in her testimony that she was held against her will in Calabasas from Feb. 25 to March 2. But she didn't mention in the meeting, which her boyfriend also attended, that she was in the middle of being "kidnapped."
In other words: Arvizo would have us believe that she met with her lawyer to discuss her rights in a video broadcast two weeks earlier, but not about Jackson holding her hostage at that moment.
More important: Why didn't Dickerman call the police if the Arvizo family was being held hostage or feeling threatened on the 21st or the 25th? Certainly when Arvizo was in Dickerman's office en route to Calabasas on the 25th, he could have put an end to her "misery." He didn't. And that's where the head scratching begins.
And when did Dickerman decide to call Larry Feldman, the attorney who negotiated a $20 million settlement for Jackson's 1993 accuser? Some people theorize that Dickerman called Feldman immediately after his meeting with Arvizo on the 21st. He says he did it later.
Dickerman was never really asked any of these questions during cross-examination. He claimed that his main task after meeting Arvizo on the 21st and 25th was to determine her rights concerning her kids' appearance in the Martin Bashir documentary.
In other words: Arvizo, feeling her family was threatened and she was being held against their will, met with a lawyer, told him nothing about the situation and returned to it willingly. Dickerman, knowing that Arvizo was meeting with him on the sly, apparently felt no duty as an officer of the court to intervene.
On March 26, two weeks after the Arvizos were ejected from Neverland, Dickerman said he wrote to attorney Mark Geragos about retrieving Arvizo's possessions. He didn't mention in those letters that the family had been kidnapped or that the kids had been drinking at Neverland. He only wanted their passports and inexpensive furniture returned. It simply does not make sense.
To complicate the situation a bit more: On Feb. 16, Arvizo was driven to her apartment by Amen. Amen found a business card slipped under the door from Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon there, who'd seen the TV special in which Arvizo's son held hands with Jackson, according to sources. This column reported this little known fact almost a year ago. Yet, no one has ever brought this up in court. No one has ever asked: When did Sneddon first contact Arvizo? When did Arvizo first speak to him? Was it concurrent with her Dickerman meetings? And if so, why didn't Sneddon spring her from her kidnapping?
Here's a theory, and one that for some reason the defense has not tried out: Dickerman could have told Arvizo to return to Neverland and continue gathering "evidence" with an eye toward a civil suit. It's the only thing that makes sense. Once the rebuttal footage had been shot and the family services interview had taken place, Jackson's camp had no reason to keep the Arvizos around.
If the counter argument is that they planned to send them to Brazil, even that doesn't make sense. No one bothered to ask in court about the dates, but the Arvizos were in Calabasas for three days before they even applied for visas on Feb. 28, 2003. If the Jackson camp was so keen to get the family out of the country, wouldn't they have started the paperwork immediately?
Instead, Amen and Frank Tyson took the Arvizos shopping, fed them fast food and took them to the movies – something else the defense never asked Arvizo about on the stand – before even bothering to apply for passports and visas.
sistahlamb
New member
Good lord........
Please tell me the defence knows about this and it can come out in court.
sistahlamb
New member
I don't know you'd think the defence would be aware of this and would bring these things up the first chance they got but they haven't when they have had oppurtunities to do so.
Can they ask to re-cross the Dickerman attorney guy during the rebuttal stage of the trial???
Can they ask to re-cross the Dickerman attorney guy during the rebuttal stage of the trial???
sistahlamb
New member
I have a thoery:
Maybe the defence knew all about this stuff when Dickerman was on the stand but decided to wait until the rebuttal(when both sides have completed presenting thier case and the jury has all of this info) to bring this up????
Maybe the defence is just beginning to set thier trap for the prosecution to kick them in the ass when they least expect it???
I hope Chis Tucker(aka: hot body) takes the stand today.
senecajackson
New member
OMG pleez let Chris take the stand today!!!
I'm so excited and hope it is a good day today!!! :tooexcite
I'm so excited and hope it is a good day today!!! :tooexcite
got2makeitright
New member
Well i hope today mez will shock us with some bombshells!!! omg Chirs is there!
got2makeitright
New member
Well sorry i keep saying bombshells but its that we needs some you know GMA does not talk about the case anymore like it use to when the DA was doing his thing you know what iam saying?
Friedman's been reading the MJ boards again...
But while he's playing Mr. Know-it-all, he needs to realize that he doesn't know what the defense plans or planned to do. They could have planned to introduce the receipts through Vincent Amen. So while Friedman's second-guessing may be entertaining to those who don't know any better, we've always known this stuff.
But while he's playing Mr. Know-it-all, he needs to realize that he doesn't know what the defense plans or planned to do. They could have planned to introduce the receipts through Vincent Amen. So while Friedman's second-guessing may be entertaining to those who don't know any better, we've always known this stuff.