official May 3 2005 thread

Aaliyah

New member
Jackson Prosecution's Timeline Doesn't Jibe
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
By Roger Friedman

District Attorney's Jackson Timeline Doesn't Jibe

Michael Jackson was not at his Neverland Ranch on March 6, 7 and 8 in 2003, and possibly not on March 9 either. That was news yesterday that the prosecution inadvertently admitted into evidence in the Jackson child molestation trial while they were busy analyzing phone records of all the case's main players.

And those three days, and also possibly Feb. 20, 2003, continue to narrow the time Jackson allegedly committed any crimes.

Thanks to a rather boring review of phone records in yesterday's court session, we did learn a couple of small things that may have great significance later.

While Jackson was away from Neverland, his teen accuser was at the ranch with his family. The boy, now 15, has said in his grand jury testimony and in court that his molestation took place "toward the end" of his stay at Neverland on March 12, 2003.


Jackson, as we accidentally learned in court, was staying at the Beverly Hilton for several days at that time under the name Kenneth Morgan. Phone records introduced by the prosecution show that he was there and calling his assistant Evvy Tavasci night and day. The phone records from the hotel were entered as evidence by the prosecution. So were the room bills, which show that Jackson was in an $850 suite.

Phone records also indicate Jackson may have been away from Neverland on Feb. 20, 2003. That's the day the district attorney said in his indictment that Jackson began his molestation and conspiracy. But those phone records show that Jackson may have been in Miami on that date, staying at Turnberry Isle Inn, the same place where he stayed earlier that month for $3,700 a night. And you wonder why he has no money.

Since the district attorney placed all of Jackson's indictable actions between Feb. 20 and March 10, 2003, it would seem that his window of opportunity to molest is getting smaller and smaller. It's already been established that the family was away from Neverland between Feb. 25 and March 2, 2003. Scratch that week off the schedule. Now cross off those three or four days in late March plus Feb. 20 and possibly Feb. 21 and 22.

Other items in yesterday's testimony didn't jibe with what the jury has already heard. For one thing, the accuser's mother, Janet Arvizo, was vehement during her own testimony that she'd missed celebrating Valentine's Day with her then-boyfriend because of Jackson and his associates. But phone records show that she made seven calls that day to her friend, Azja Pryor, the fiancée of comedian Chris Tucker. She also had several phone conversations with Jackson associate Frank Tyson that day. The last call of the day, placed by Arvizo to Pryor, was at 11:40 p.m. The defense could say that if she missed Valentine's Day, it was Arvizo's own fault.

Santa Barbara police detective Sgt. Craig Bonner – a nice enough fellow who'd worked on getting all the phone records together for all the parties to this case – conceded during cross-examination by Robert Sanger that he had omitted calls for Feb. 4, 2003, during his presentation under direct questioning. He also said that the phone records hadn't been finalized until late Sunday night – after over a one-year run-up to the trial.

The Arvizos' records included two calls to Chris Tucker's home on Feb. 4 within minutes of each other.

Under cross-examination during what seemed like a brutally dull day in court, the defense began to set the stage for a story we reported in this column exclusively last Friday. That's the story that has the Arvizos asked to be sent to Miami to see Michael Jackson on Feb. 6, 2003. I told you that sources say Chris Tucker will relate how the Miami trip was his idea, not Jackson's.

The calls to Tucker, the defense will argue if its case ever begins, are important. They will show that after the family was made an offer by British tabloid reporters for their story, they picked up the phone and called Tucker for access to Jackson. Tucker then flew the family to Miami on a plane he had rented, on his way to Orlando, Atlanta and the NBA All Star Game.

Mother Made Friends at Neverland

The last time anyone heard the name Angel Vivanco in court was when Janet Arvizo said she didn't know him. That was on a day of cross-examination when Thomas Mesereau craftily ran off a list of Neverland workers and asked Arvizo to identify them.

"I don't know anybody except Jesus Salas and Evvy," she said refering to Jackson's assistant.

She also said she had never heard of Violet Silva, the longtime head of security at Neverland.

But now it seems that Arvizo does in fact know Vivanco and may yet again be confronting her own lies. Phone records show that she called Vivanco at home and often, especially after she "escaped" from the Neverland ranch for the third and final time. Vivanco received a call from Arvizo at home in Guadalupe, Calif., on March 12, another one on March 13, three calls on March 19, two on March 20 and another on March 21.

Vivanco's number was on phone bills subpoenaed by the prosecution, but the district attorney's office didn't bother to see whose number it was. Defense attorney Sanger revealed during cross-examination that the defense supplied the opposition with this information. It's still not clear why the district attorney wouldn't have been interested in whom Janet Arvizo might have been calling in Guadalupe, a town near Neverland but far from her own home.

Similarly, Arvizo made lots of other calls to Neverland employees after her third "escape." She made several calls to another Neverland staffer, Maria Aceves, and to Jorgen and Adele Staal, owners of a local self-storage company in nearby Santa Ynez. Aceves was on the prosecution's list of potential witnesses, but was never called. The Staals are not on any lists from either side. Vivanco and his brother Jorge are on the defense list.

Oxman Lives and Dies by the Sword

Believe it or not, attorney Brian Oxman is still representing Michael Jackson somewhere, just not in criminal court.

Oxman was spotted last week working for Jackson in his $4 million lawsuit filed by Marc Schaffel. You may recall Oxman was shouted off the child molestation case by lead defense counsel Tom Mesereau, who had had enough of his dozing in court.

Some other reports claimed that Oxman got the ax because he met with private investigator Paul Barresi to hear tapes this column reported on concerning the tabloids' payments to sources, etc., in the 1993 case. Alas, I can tell you this was not the story. Oxman and Barresi did meet, and Barresi taped the whole craziness with Oxman's permission.

But Barresi merely wanted to elaborate on how the tabs' practice of doling out dough to unsavory types created a lot of false stories back in the 1990s. That's not why Oxman was fired. I am told that Mesereau was ticked off when he discovered that papers Oxman filed in the Schaffel case may have contradicted papers and arguments in the child molestation case. That is what broke the camel's back, a source said – that and the snoozing
 

Aaliyah

New member
52752570.jpg


2005-05-03T155055Z_01_SAM01D_RTRIDSP_2_CRIME-JACKSON.jpg
 

sistahlamb

New member
Here's an old article from MJJForum that examines the timeline:

Saturday, 12 March 2005
Bridging the Gap....

March 11, 2005

As Week 2 in the Michael Jackson child molestation case draws to a close, the entertainer's accuser and the boy's siblings have already taken to the witness stand. While some continue to suggest that the three teenagers have done well under the pressure of defense cross-examination, others argue that they've done nothing but botch their own credibility, as well as that of the District Attorney.

From the moment of the raid on Jackson's Neverland Valley Ranch, it had been suggested that prosecutor Thomas Sneddon has a vendetta against the singer. This has repeatedly been dismissed as hosh-posh and "Jackson spin." However, it seems as though there may exist some level of truth within this proclamation.

Sneddon's opening statement has been publicly characterized as disorganized, overly detailed, and confusing. We at MJJForum would like to add that it was also in conflict with itself, his own case, as well as later testimony given by his key witnesses.

In his presentation, Sneddon promised jurors and observers that he intends to show that Jackson kidnapped, falsely imprisoned, and extorted the accusing family in an effort to rehabilitate his image and his finances. He also promised that he'd show that during these efforts, Jackson molested his now 15-year-old accuser.

As absurd as that may sound, Sneddon continued on, outlining what members of the boy's family would say happened. He said it was also his intention to call public relations persons to testify that the Martin Bashir documentary was so devastating to Jackson that he believed the only remedy was to kidnap and force a family into speaking kindly of him on several occasions. Not in those particular words, but that's what he and the family are alleging.

More than too much detail is given as to specifics in his case, including a timeline that would soon enough prove itself to be beyond faulty.

Sneddon told of times the boy's mother and/or the family "escaped" from Neverland more than once with the help of Jackson employees. The prosecutor also painted a sympathetic picture of the accuser as a cancer-survivor exploited by Jackson, presenting the teenager as a boy who went into Neverland innocent and unsuspecting, and came out corrupted and deviant. In his own words, "people who walk in [Neverland] with manners walk out and can be described by some of the staff as hellions, rude, obnoxious."

For all the bluster that existed in the opener, one important matter of curiosity is the timeline that has been presented by Sneddon. During testimony by the accuser and his siblings, all three of them had remained entirely vague as to specific dates during which they claim what they witnessed transpired. Not a single pinpointed day comes from any of them; not even from the boy who says he was molested. Their entire testimony is instead based relative to events, rather than solid dates.

It can be argued that it is "normal" for an abuse victim to "forget" dates, but how "normal" or common is it that they consistently mix up and alter the same details and circumstances? Real victims will tell you that forgetting anything regarding your abuse is damn near impossible. If you cannot recall the exact date, you surely would remember a lot more than what has been presented by this boy and his family.

Besides, what's the excuse for the accuser's siblings not recalling specific dates? Amnesia? Absolutely not! You see, what had happened was Jackson kept the entire family away from the numerous clocks in his house and those displayed all over his property, so as to confuse them as to what day it was. Or was it that Jackson didn't exactly keep them away from clocks, but the timekeepers were all intentionally set wrong to throw the family off from knowing actual dates and times?

If only we were making this up.

Direct examination of the witnesses by Sneddon had the three relate all allegations of misconduct by Jackson to several events: their trip to Miami; their return to Neverland after Miami; their return to their grandparents place by Jackson's then house manager Jesus Salas; the filming of the rebuttal and interview with Los Angeles Department of Child and Family Services; their stay at a Calabasas hotel; and the period between their return to Neverland from Calabasas and their eventual departure.

Some would say that that's good enough to establish a timeline. However, in a case of this caliber, there's got to be more. There's no space for vagueness and uncertainty. It's necessary to know whether the alleged perpetrator was present on the scene during a specified period in order to determine possibilities of a crime's committal.

Regardless of the abundance of sketchy information, the prosecutor has continued forth with star witnesses practicing convenient amnesia and timeline acrobatics. Sneddon revealed in his presentation that he determined Jackson's presence or absence at his home from logs kept at Neverland. Those dates were given in the opener and they will be discussed in a minute.

While being directly examined by Sneddon, the accuser's brother testified to several things that allegedly occurred between the family's arrival at Neverland from Miami and their departure from the ranch with Salas. He testified that Jackson was present during this time period; that he and his brother spent their nights in Jackson's bedroom; that they drank alcohol "a lot of times" with Jackson at various locations in the home; and that he saw Jackson intoxicated.

Logs from Neverland and future "testimony from individuals involved," according to Sneddon's opener, places Jackson and the family simultaneously at his ranch from March 2-5, 2003, and again from March 9-12, 2003. These are the dates for which the prosecution has determined that the pop star was at home at the same time that the accusing family was present.

The time period within which the family stayed at Neverland and then departed with Salas is February 7-12, 2003. With the prosecutor offering the dates that Jackson and his house guests were together present at his ranch to be early March 2003, how then could the accuser's brother's allegations of boozing every day have occurred in early February 2003?

Brother confused about the dates? How could he be when he offers none? This is a problem that Sneddon and his team have created on their own. Jackson was liquoring it up with these children in February, yet, by the District Attorney's own admission, Jackson wasn't even present together with the family until March!

The mind boggles. Certainly this isn't enough to suggest that prosecutor Sneddon is out to get Jackson, but it sure is enough to have you scratching your head.

http://www.mjjforum.com/main/content/view/2175/
 
Jackson Prosecution's Timeline Doesn't Jibe
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
By Roger Friedman

At last, someone if beginging to pick up on the importance of the timeline in which the alleged molestation took place. The timeline is probably the most relevent piece of evidence which will ascert to be a vital component in proving Michael's innocence. Not one reporter has been able to display the intelligence and report extensively on the significance of the timeline (with the exception of Roger Friedman, and lets just say he's not the most reliable reporter when regarding the case against, Michael)
 

alfredo

New member
Originally posted by koprulestheworld
Sometimes it depents how the day goes in court. DD at times spins stuff like any other days but there are time when she shock me saying proMJ stuff.


That's a setup! She does that to cover her a&&. She only agrees to things that every other moronic reporter has already conceded. She's a liar. Period end of story. Save that sentiment for moderate reporters. DD is a huzzy out for fame. :bustbubbl
 

Tiger Lilly

New member
Phone records also indicate Jackson may have been away from Neverland on Feb. 20, 2003. That's the day the district attorney said in his indictment that Jackson began his molestation and conspiracy. But those phone records show that Jackson may have been in Miami on that date, staying at Turnberry Isle Inn, the same place where he stayed earlier that month for $3,700 a night.
Booya! :D Like you said Jamie this timeline is very important because it's all over the place.

Also, it sounds like the defense will definately be hitting it off with a bang! I can't wait for Wade, Mac and Brett to take the stand! I knew Mike wouldn't be first! And I'm glad he isn't either. The denfese can bide their time.

Michael looks as gorgeous as ever. I love you Michael! :inlove
 

sistahlamb

New member
Will that financial expert testify today at all??? I'm still not sure because the defence argued about her/his testimony about things that are not relevant to this case.

Agian, if she does testify she'll/he'll very likely only be on the stand for an hour or so, maybe less if the judge puts some restrictions on her/his testimony.
 

Tiger Lilly

New member
I think the financial expert is definately coming in. I hope it's limited though. How does the amount of money Michael has link to so-called "molestation" and "false imprisonment"?! Sneddumb's just dragging his feet now. He's terrified of what the defense has coming up. :D
 
Top