1 And I was always hoping that these people would
2 call themselves. This way the call didn’t come
3 from me.”
4 What is that supposed to mean?
5 She’s staying at Jay Jackson’s. She’s in
6 hotels. She’s in shopping centers. You can call
7 9-1-1 at Neverland. She has a million different
8 places she can get a phone and call 9-1-1 if a crime
9 was being committed against she and her children.
10 The dentist’s office, the salon, you name it.
11 Nothing.
12 “Q. Do you remember telling Azja Pryor
13 that you had learned that Michael Jackson was not
14 going on the Brazil trip?
15 “A. No.
16 “Do you remember ever telling Azja Pryor
17 that once you learned Michael Jackson was not
18 going on the Brazil trip, you didn’t want to go?
19 “No.
20 “It’s your testimony you never discussed the
21 Brazil trip at any time with Azja?
22 “I’m -- like I said to different people in
23 the midst of the conversation, I tried to slip
24 something in as to what was happening.
25 “Do you recall complaining to Azja Pryor
26 that Michael Jackson was making money on the
27 Maury Povich show and your family was getting
28 nothing? 12978
1 “Never.
2 “Do you recall commenting to Miss Pryor that
3 a college fund was being set up for Gavin by
4 Michael Jackson?
5 “No.
6 “Do you remember telling Azja Pryor, ‘What
7 good will a college fund do for my son? He may
8 not be alive in ten years’? Do you remember
9 saying that?
10 “No. All of that --
11 “And did you ever discuss the rebuttal
12 video with Azja Pryor?
13 “No.”
14 All of that directly contradicted by Azja
15 Pryor, who, I repeat, was a very honest witness.
16 Are you going to believe Janet or are you
17 going to believe Azja? I think I know who you’re
18 going to believe when you put all this stuff
19 together, ladies and gentlemen.
20 She is a complete liar and fabricator. She
21 is a con artist. She’s conned people for years.
22 This is a great one:
23 “Miss Arvizo, did you ever tell anyone that
24 you were living in a stable with hay and horses
25 in Bakersfield?
26 “No.
27 “Ever say anything to that effect to
28 anyone? 12979
1 “No.
2 “Did you ever hear or learn that you were
3 quoted as saying that?
4 “Yeah, I came to find out a lot of things.
5 “When did you find out that you were quoted
6 as saying that you and your family were so poor
7 you were living in a stable with hay in
8 Bakersfield?
9 “Just recently. I’ve never lived in
10 Bakersfield.”
11 Did somebody make that up?
12 Remember, she said she was homeless to get
13 free lessons at the dance school for her kids.
14 She’ll say anything. Absolutely anything.
15 “You claim you first learned about any
16 alleged molestation in September of 2003,
17 correct?
18 “A. I don’t understand what he’s saying,
19 but I was becoming aware of things through
20 Gavin and Star little by little.
21 “Q. You claim that you learned about any
22 alleged molestation in September of 2003 from
23 Prosecutor Sneddon, Sheriff Klapakis and Sheriff
24 Robel, right?
25 “Yes.”
26 Then my question to you is, why did they go
27 to Larry Feldman? Why?
28 Moving along: 12980
1 “Okay. Did you learn at some point about
2 some fund-raisers that went on at The Laugh
3 Factory for the benefit of Gavin?
4 “A. I came to find out everything
5 afterwards.
6 “Q. Did you know those fund-raisers were
7 going on when they actually happened?
8 “A. I don’t think so. We’re talking five
9 years ago.”
10 Do you really think, based on everything you
11 know about Janet Arvizo, that she didn’t know
12 fund-raisers were going on?
13 This is under oath in front of you. Put it
14 all together.
15 “Q. So you’re not sure whether you knew
16 they were even going when they happened, right?
17 “No, I would find out afterwards.
18 “Now, were you in touch with Jamie Masada at
19 this point in time?
20 “Just a little bit.”
21 They’re trying to raise money for her son’s
22 illness. They’re going everywhere they can to raise
23 money. Do you think she doesn’t know?
24 “Q. Were you ever standing in the background
25 during a phone call that Gavin made to Jay Leno?
26 “A. No.
27 “Have you ever spoken to Jay Leno?
28 “I’ve never spoken to Jay Leno. 12981
1 “Were you aware of Gavin making any attempt
2 to contact celebrities by phone?
3 “No.”
4 Do you believe that for a second?
5 Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, it only takes
6 one lie under oath to throw this case out of court
7 by you. Just one.
8 You can’t count the number of lies under
9 oath by all of the Arvizo witnesses. You can’t
10 count them. They lie directly. They lie to your
11 face. They lie under oath. They exaggerate. They
12 give run-around answers to try to avoid the
13 question. How many does it take to let you know
14 this case is a fraud?
15 They are trying to take advantage of Michael
16 Jackson. They are trying to profit from Michael
17 Jackson. They think they’ve pulled it off. They’re
18 just waiting for one thing, and that is your
19 verdict.
20 At this point, I’d like to talk to you a
21 little bit about some jury instructions, some of the
22 instructions that were read to you yesterday.
23 Now, we’ve talked about reasonable doubt.
24 You’ve heard me mention that a lot. And as I have
25 been saying throughout my closing argument, if you
26 have a reasonable doubt about the Arvizos, the case
27 is over, because the whole case hinges on them.
28 They have come together. They have compared 12982
1 notes. They have made up stories. They’ve lied
2 under oath, like they’ve done for years, and they’ve
3 been caught at it. You have caught them at it.
4 The instruction reads as follows:
5 “A defendant in a criminal action is
6 presumed to be innocent until the contrary is
7 proved. And in a case of reasonable doubt whether
8 his guilt is satisfactorily shown, he is entitled to
9 a verdict of not guilty. This presumption places
10 upon the People the burden of proving him guilty
11 beyond a reasonable doubt.”
12 Why the standard of proof called “reasonable
13 doubt”? Why?
14 Many legal systems around the world don’t
15 have it. Many legal systems around the world don’t
16 use juries. They use judges. One, two, three, or
17 more. But our country has a philosophy, and that is
18 we cannot convict people who are innocent. We
19 cannot run the risk, because what happens to them is
20 so harmful, so brutal, so devastating.
21 And what they’re trying to do to Michael
22 Jackson is so harmful, so brutal, so potentially
23 devastating to him, that we have a very high
24 standard. It’s higher than you find in civil cases
25 where you have disputes over money or over property.
26 If you have any reasonable doubt about this
27 case, about the testimony, about the double-talk,
28 the lies, about their past, about their motives, 12983
1 it’s over. You must acquit Michael Jackson to
2 follow the law. It’s that strict.
3 And you know something? Our system still
4 isn’t perfect. You still have examples where, years
5 later, DNA exonerates people who were convicted.
6 They’ve added up like 130 people the last ten years
7 who were actually convicted, by juries who meant
8 well, wrongfully, because DNA exonerated them.
9 But nevertheless, we have to have a system.
10 It’s the best system in the world. It can’t be
11 perfect, because human beings aren’t perfect. But
12 it’s the best system in the world.
13 And ladies and gentlemen, I’m begging you to
14 honor that principle. Honor that principle of proof
15 beyond a reasonable doubt. He must be acquitted
16 under that standard, with all the problems and
17 falsehoods and issues that I have addressed.
18 They can’t overcome them. They can
19 exaggerate. They can dirty up Michael’s background.
20 They can fling dirt everywhere. They can expose the
21 fact that he’s a human being who has had his
22 problems. They can do whatever they want. But they
23 can’t prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt, and
24 they never should have brought it to begin with once
25 they learned who the Arvizos were.
26 These are what we call burdens of proof in
27 our legal system.
28 In a civil case, which is a dispute over 12984
1 money or property, if one side proves by a
2 preponderance of the evidence, that’s the standard,
3 that they should prevail, and it’s often described
4 in very simple terms. If you have a scale of
5 justice and one side is stronger, is heavier, that
6 side wins. It’s called a mere preponderance of
7 evidence.
8 That’s enough to bankrupt somebody. That’s
9 enough to take away their business. That’s enough
10 to leave them penniless. But it’s not enough to
11 convict of a crime.
12 We have a higher standard called clear and
13 convincing evidence.
14 I’ll give you an example: In some custody
15 disputes, you can take a child away from a parent
16 if you prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that
17 that parent should not have custody, that they have
18 not met the standards our legal system requires for
19 parenting.
20 Clear and convincing evidence alone is not
21 enough to convict in our system.
22 And let me ask you this: Do you think
23 you’ve seen clear and convincing evidence that the
24 Arvizos are truthful? Are believable? Are honest?
25 Are honorable? Don’t have financial motives in this
26 case? Are to be believed and trusted?
27 No. They can’t even meet that standard, let
28 alone the highest in our legal system, which is 12985
1 beyond a reasonable doubt. They’re not even close.
2 The case shouldn’t have been brought.
3 This is just an illustrative aid to further
4 explain reasonable doubt to you and what a high
5 standard it is. If you think somebody may be
6 guilty, it’s not enough. If you think perhaps
7 they’re guilty, it’s not enough. If you suspect
8 they might be guilty, it’s not enough. Possibly
9 guilty is not enough. Probably guilty, not enough.
10 Guilty likely, not enough. Guilt highly likely, not
11 enough. It’s got to be guilty beyond any reasonable
12 doubt.
13 And ladies and gentlemen, when you get in
14 the jury room, ask yourselves, “Do we have any
15 reasonable doubts about this family and this case?”
16 Any. All it takes is one.
17 The prosecutor has talked to you about
18 circumstantial evidence, okay? There’s what is
19 called direct evidence, someone actually watches
20 something. And there’s circumstantial evidence,
21 where you’re to put the circumstances together and
22 decide what you can infer from the circumstances.
23 Of course, I’m coming to you and saying the
24 same thing. Look at the circumstances of the
25 Arvizos and their past history and their lies and
26 their motives, and I’m saying put those
27 circumstances together to find a reasonable doubt in
28 this case. 12986
1 So what does the instruction say? “A
2 finding of guilt as to any crime may not be based on
3 circumstantial evidence unless the proved
4 circumstances are not only, one, consistent with the
5 theory that the defendant is guilty of the crime,
6 but, two, cannot be reconciled with any other
7 rational conclusion.”
8 Can any of you imagine, within reason, the
9 Arvizos doing what I’ve told you they’re trying to
10 do here? Does it seem rational to you? Does it
11 seem realistic? Is it plausible? Is it likely?
12 Of course it is.
13 Would it be rational to assume, based on all
14 you’ve heard, that this is a scam by them, and that
15 they are, in fact, con artists, actors and liars?
16 The answer is yes. And if you agree with what I
17 just told you, out the door.
18 “If the circumstantial evidence as to any
19 particular count permits two reasonable
20 interpretations, one of which points to the
21 defendant’s guilt and the other to his innocence,
22 you must adopt that interpretation that points to
23 the defendant’s innocence and reject that
24 interpretation that points to his guilt.”
25 This all works in tandem with the proof
26 beyond a reasonable doubt standard. It all works in
27 tandem with the proof beyond a reasonable doubt
28 objective of our system that we protect freedom and 12987
1 liberty and reputation more than we protect money,
2 more than we protect property. It’s a strict system
3 of values built into the system, and you must, under
4 this legal standard, throw this case where it
5 belongs: Out the door.
6 Now, you were instructed that these alleged
7 crimes by Michael Jackson require that they prove
8 what is called specific intent. In plain language,
9 that he specifically intended to commit certain
10 crimes. I’m going to show you some conspiracy
11 instructions where he has to specifically intend,
12 and they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
13 he specifically intended, one, to enter into a
14 conspiracy agreement, and, two, to commit false
15 imprisonment, child abduction or extortion on the
16 Arvizos. Okay? So that’s what this idea of
17 specific intent essentially means.
18 This is a similar instruction to the ones
19 you just saw: “You may not find the defendant
20 guilty of the crimes charged unless the proved
21 circumstances are not only, one, consistent with the
22 theory that the defendant had the required specific
23 intent or mental state, but, two, cannot be
24 reconciled with any other rational conclusion.”
25 It’s a protective mechanism to protect our
26 freedom and our liberty and our reputation from
27 false claims.
28 You’ve been instructed by Judge Melville. 12988
1 You must follow this to the T. You cannot run
2 roughshod over these instructions. You cannot treat
3 them lightly. If you have another rational
4 explanation for what these people are doing based on
5 their past and their behavior, it’s out, all of it.
6 Michael Jackson goes home - where he belongs. Not
7 here.
8 “Evidence as to any specific intent or
9 mental state, if it permits two reasonable
10 interpretations, one of which points to the
11 existence of a specific intent or mental state and
12 the other to its absence, you must adopt that
13 interpretation which points to its absence.”
14 And as I said to you yesterday, show me any
15 evidence anywhere that Michael Jackson wanted to be
16 in a conspiracy with other alleged felons, none of
17 whom have been charged. None. With all they tell
18 you about Schaffel, Konitzer, Dieter, Geragos,
19 whatever it is, have any of them been charged with
20 anything? Even a misdemeanor? If not, why did they
21 bring this case against him? Why? Where is the
22 justice? Where is the fairness? Where is it?
23 With these instructions that you’re bound to
24 follow, with the instruction that you have another
25 rational explanation, another rational conclusion as
26 to why someone acted a certain way that goes against
27 the concept of guilt, the concept of convicting
28 someone of a crime, with these instructions, which 12989
1 they know about - they know about them - why did
2 they bring this case against Michael Jackson?
3 Because he’s a mega celebrity, and they hope
4 they can get away with it. They only have one
5 obstacle left: You. They’re hoping you won’t
6 follow these instructions, you won’t understand
7 these instructions, they won’t have any meaning in
8 the jury room, you just won’t get it. I don’t know
9 what they’re thinking.
10 How, with these instructions on the table,
11 in your hands -- you’ve already gotten packets of
12 them. How, if you look at these carefully and look
13 at this evidence, can you convict Michael Jackson of
14 anything?
15 Ladies and gentlemen, you can’t. You just
16 can’t. The witnesses are preposterous. The perjury
17 is everywhere. The claims are preposterous. None
18 of it works. The only thing they have left is
19 throwing dirt all over the place to see if something
20 sticks.
21 Girlie magazines. He’s had problems in his
22 personal life. He’s been immature, and naive,
23 childlike. But remember, their basic claims are
24 that he’s akin to a monster, that he would take a
25 cancer-stricken child and look at that person as a
26 target and ply him with alcohol so he can molest
27 him.
28 From what you’ve seen about Michael Jackson 12990
1 in this trial, does that make sense? If you look
2 deep into your heart, do you think it’s even
3 remotely possible that Michael Jackson is
4 constructed that way, is evil in that particular
5 way? Has no conscience? Has no feeling for
6 children? Has no idealism? Isn’t childlike? He’s
7 really just -- it’s all -- Neverland’s a ruse for
8 criminal activity? Does what you’ve seen in this
9 trial reflect that? Is it even possible?
10 It’s not. It really is not.
11 And no matter what Mr. Zonen throws around
12 the courtroom, you know what I’m saying is true.
13 And I’m sure it will be a real topic of discussion
14 in the jury room. What is Neverland? Why the
15 music? Why the Disney-like environment? Why the
16 animals? Why do children come from the inner city?
17 Why do sick children come by bus? What goes on?
18 What are his goals? What did he want to accomplish?
19 Is it all just a lure for criminal conduct, a
20 veneer, a big fantasy to lure people in because he’s
21 a monster?
22 No. Not even close.
23 Might be a good time to stop, Your Honor.
24 Is that all right?
25 THE COURT: All right. We’ll a break.
26 (Recess taken.)
27 THE COURT: Mr. Mesereau?
28 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor. 12991
1 Ladies and gentlemen, I have two more
2 instructions to show you. I can’t show you every
3 one, they’re pretty voluminous, but I’d like you to
4 just give careful consideration to these particular
5 instructions, particularly this “Witness Willfully
6 False” instruction:
7 It says, “A witness who is willfully false
8 in one material part of his or her testimony is to
9 be distrusted in others. You may reject the whole
10 testimony of a witness who willfully has testified
11 falsely as to a material point unless, from all the
12 evidence, you believe the probability of truth
13 favors his or her testimony in other particulars.”
14 And when you go into the jury room and talk
15 about the Arvizos, please give careful consideration
16 to this instruction.
17 This is the last one I’m going to point out:
18 It says, “Association alone does not prove
19 membership in a conspiracy. Evidence that a person
20 was in the company of, or associated with, one or
21 more other persons alleged or proved to have been
22 members of a conspiracy is not, in itself,
23 sufficient to prove that person was a member of the
24 alleged conspiracy.”
25 So when the prosecutor gets up and tries to
26 tell you that somehow knowing Marc Schaffel or
27 knowing Konitzer or Dieter is proof that Michael
28 Jackson engineered -- remember, they’re saying he 12992
1 engineered a criminal conspiracy as a response to
2 the Bashir documentary. If they try and suggest
3 that through documents showing people are in
4 business together, or associated together, or might
5 be seen together, that’s not proof.
6 They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
7 that Michael Jackson, one, specifically intended to
8 form an agreement to conspire, and, two, wanted to
9 falsely prison, abduct kids, or commit extortion.
10 And it’s nonsense.
11 Now, ladies and gentlemen, the prosecution
12 claims that Mr. Jackson had a response to the Bashir
13 documentary, and the response was to commit crimes.
14 And the prosecutor wants you to think that after
15 February 20th, through all those interviews, that
16 somehow molestation began. And now I want to show
17 you what was available at the time.
18 MR. SANGER: “Input 4,” please, Your Honor.
19 (Whereupon, portions of DVDs, People’s
20 Exhibit 2 and Defendant’s Exhibits 5000-A, B and C,
21 were played for the Court and jury.)
22 MR. MESEREAU: Ladies and gentlemen, this
23 has been a nightmare for Mr. Jackson. He has been
24 lax with his money. He has let the wrong people
25 sometimes associate around him. He was naive to
26 allow the Arvizos anywhere near him. But under the
27 law and the facts in this courtroom, you must return
28 a verdict of not guilty on all counts. It’s the 12993
1 only right verdict.
2 Thank you.
3 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Mesereau.
4 Mr. Zonen, did you need a couple of minutes
5 to set up?
6 MR. ZONEN: Just a minute, Your Honor.
7 Yes, please.
8 Leslie? I’m going to use that one.
9 THE BAILIFF: I don’t need a minute.
10 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, an hour and 14
11 minutes?
12 THE CLERK: 1/14.
13 MR. ZONEN: 1/14, thank you.
14 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Can we go back to “Input 1,”
15 Your Honor?
16 MR. ZONEN: Ladies and gentlemen, good
17 morning.
18 This responding argument is going to be in
19 response to the argument delivered by Mr. Mesereau
20 over the last four hours of court time and it will
21 be limited to those issues that he has presented.
22 I would like to begin by talking to you
23 about a statement that had been projected up on the
24 board by Mr. Mesereau yesterday, and that statement
25 that had been projected up on the board referred to
26 this comment: He said, “Prosecutor” -- he was
27 quoting a prosecutor. He said, “A prosecutor said
28 that it was like a band-aid for a bad case.” What 12994
1 he was referring to, of course, was the propensity
2 evidence that had been presented by the prosecution.
3 The propensity evidence was the evidence of all of
4 the witnesses who testified to the 1993
5 investigation. That, of course, included the
6 testimony of June Chandler, and Jason Francia, and
7 Jason Francia’s mother, and the other people who had
8 previously been employed at Neverland.
9 That statement -- prosecutor said, “like a
10 band-aid for a bad case.”
11 Let me suggest that that probably was not
12 said. Let me suggest that that’s not the first time
13 that Mr. Mesereau has referred to a prosecutor who
14 has made a quote improperly.
15 Let me remind you of the time that Mr. --
16 that Mr. Mesereau was cross-examining Dr. Katz and
17 kept referring to a statement from a prosecutor in a
18 book that Mr. Katz had written, until we finally
19 asked to see the book and discovered that the real
20 word was “lawyer.”
21 Now, that statement would make more sense if
22 it was in fact “lawyer,” “A lawyer said that this is
23 like a band-aid for a bad case,” because no
24 prosecutor will ever stand up here and tell you that
25 giving too much information to a jury is bad. In
26 fact, in this particular case, it’s highly
27 appropriate. The information about the use of
28 propensity evidence is what gives you a clear and 12995
1 concise understanding about the type of people who
2 commit these -- about the type of people who commit
3 these types of crimes.
4 Let me read something to you: “By their
5 very nature, sex crimes are usually committed in
6 seclusion, without third-party witnesses or
7 substantial corroborating evidence. The need for
8 this evidence is critical, given the serious and
9 secretive nature of sex crimes, and the often
10 resulting credibility contest at trial. The
11 willingness to commit sexual offenses is not common
12 to most individuals, thus, evidence of any prior
13 sexual offense is particularly probative and
14 necessary for determining the credibility of the
15 witness.”
16 What I’ve been quoting to you is the
17 legislative text that accompanied the enactment of
18 that statute that allows us to be able to bring in
19 evidence of prior sexual misconduct by the defendant
20 charged with a child molestation. Why? Because
21 these types of crimes take place in private. They
22 don’t take place in public.
23 And in this particular case, we’re talking
24 about the privacy of literally a fortress, behind
25 multiple locked doors, and multiple alarm systems,
26 where the defendant, after much effort, after much
27 seduction, after much grooming, has the advantage of
28 having a child in his room, and not the first one, 12996
1 in this case for long periods of time, subject to
2 the intimacy that he dictates. And that’s why it’s
3 so important so that a jury is not left with the
4 belief, why, at age 45, does this man suddenly act
5 out with a 13-year-old child? And when you see the
6 total picture, you realize it was anything but
7 suddenly acting out with a 13-year-old child.
8 Now, look at the evidence that was presented
9 even by the defense in the course of this case.
10 Think about the testimony of Mr. Barnes, Brett
11 Barnes, who, while on the witness stand, was
12 extraordinarily evasive on the question of, “Tell me
13 how much time you actually spent with Michael
14 Jackson. Was it one night? Was it two nights? Was
15 it a week?”
16 And his answer was, “I, you know, really
17 don’t recall. I can’t recall when it was. Some
18 nights it was here; some nights it was there. I
19 was” -- he just did not answer the question.
20 And when his mother was on the witness
21 stand, she wouldn’t answer that question either.
22 “Sometimes he stayed with us. Sometimes we were
23 traveling. Sometimes he would be with Mr. Jackson.”
24 And again, very evasive in terms of committing to
25 any kind of detail about Brett Barnes’ relationship
26 with Michael Jackson.
27 Not until his sister was on the witness
28 stand, and not until cross-examination by Mr. 12997
1 Auchincloss, when all of a sudden he started asking
2 her, in all her jubilance -- I mean, she was an
3 excited witness up there, very happy, filled with
4 glee and a big smile, and very happy to be here on
5 behalf of Mr. Jackson, until Mr. Auchincloss started
6 asking questions, “Tell us how long we’re talking
7 about. What period of time exactly was it that your
8 brother was in the accompaniment of Mr. Jackson and
9 specifically in his room.”
10 And suddenly it came out. She says, “A
11 year.” She said it in terms of, “Well, there was a
12 six-month tour, and another six-month tour.” It was
13 the entirety of those two combined tours, which
14 meant over one year.
15 And it was like a ton of bricks landed in
16 the middle of the floor. All of a sudden, everybody
17 got it. All of a sudden everybody is sitting and
18 thinking, one year, one continuous year this child,
19 who at the time was either 11 to 12, or 12 to 13
20 years old, was sleeping in Mr. Jackson’s bedroom
21 continuously.
22 This man has never had adult companionship
23 to that extent that any of us have heard of at any
24 stage during the testimony in this case. One
25 consecutive year. This man went to bed every night
26 with a 12-year-old boy the entire time. As they
27 traveled from one European capital to another, as
28 they traveled from one South American capital to 12998
1 another, as they ventured even into Africa.
2 And it was confirmed by a second witness
3 called by the defense, when James -- James Van
4 Norman, the security chief at that time, was called
5 as a witness and testified entirely on direct
6 examination without any reference whatsoever to
7 Brett Barnes.
8 And then on cross-examination by Mr. Sneddon
9 was asked exactly the same question. And he also
10 acknowledged exactly the same thing.
11 That witness had the nerve to sit on the
12 witness stand and tell you that nothing improper
13 happened at Neverland while he was head of security
14 there. And then on cross-examination acknowledged
15 to you that at the end of each day, this child,
16 maybe 12 years old, went into Mr. Jackson’s hotel
17 room, each hotel room throughout Europe and South
18 America, went into his bedroom and stayed there. He
19 was his constant and continuous companion for the
20 better part of 12 months.
21 That is not a friendship. That’s a
22 relationship.
23 Mr. Jackson loved that child not as one
24 loves a child, but as one loves a companion, an
25 adult, a sexual relationship. It’s the only
26 explanation for that. In your entire lifetime, you
27 have never heard of another middle-aged man doing
28 that with a child. In your entire lifetime you 12999
1 never will hear of another middle-aged man doing
2 that with a child. You would be outraged if you
3 were to find out that there was somebody who lived
4 in your neighborhood who was taking young boys into
5 his bedroom amidst a sea of pornography and alcohol.
6 You’d be on the phone with the police in a second.
7 And yet in this case, we’re expected to say
8 that that is normal. It is loving, it is kind, it
9 is nurturing, and it is nonsexual.
10 Why is that? How exactly was he nonsexual
11 with this child in his bed for over a year? Over a
12 year. Are we expected to believe that he’s simply
13 nonsexual?
14 When we look at the collection of materials
15 that he has in his house, in his own home, and the
16 distinction between the thousands of books that Mr.
17 Mesereau was talking about is the fact that -- which
18 was a million books in his opening statement. It’s
19 now down to thousands of books, and, it’s probably
20 substantially less than that, and frankly, probably
21 came with the house. Most of the books depicted in
22 the video that he showed you looked like they’ve
23 never been opened.
24 But as to those books, they’re in a library.
25 As to the books that we seized, they’re in his
26 bedroom. And that included the entire collection of
27 homoerotic material, some of which was so extreme in
28 its nature we simply couldn’t open that book in this 13000
1 courtroom.
2 But what, then, do we say about him? How do
3 you explain that? How do you explain child after
4 child after child, Mr. Robson for an extended period
5 of time as a child, was in his bed going back to age
6 seven. Seven.
7 Think about your children when they were
8 seven years old, what they looked like and how big
9 they were. Eight years old.
10 He was in his bedroom. Not just bedroom,
11 but in his bed.
12 Macaulay Culkin, he flew across the country
13 to spend a week with Macaulay Culkin alone.
14 Where is the adult companionship in this
15 case? Where has he ever had that kind of trip to be
16 with an adult, a special relationship? No words
17 about that at all in the course of this trial.
18 Nothing.
19 It is because we have heard that testimony
20 that we have an understanding of Michael Jackson
21 that we never would have had had that testimony not
22 been presented to you in the first place.
23 So let me suggest to you that the testimony
24 of Brett Barnes, particularly his sister, Wade
25 Robson, Robson, Macaulay Culkin, who spent an entire
26 vacation with Michael Jackson, who invited himself
27 so he could be there with an 11-year-old boy. And
28 then June Chandler. 13001
1 June Chandler, who was described by -- in
2 Mr. Mesereau’s closing argument as a gold digger,
3 and of course was a quote from Joy Robson. Joy
4 Robson, who received over $20,000 from Mr. Jackson,
5 a car, immigration to the United States, and a job,
6 as well as an apartment, describes her, June
7 Chandler, as a gold digger.
8 June Chandler said in her testimony, about
9 an event that took place in New York, that Mr.
10 Jackson was so upset and so angry during the course
11 of their being in New York, because she was
12 protesting the fact that Jordie Chandler was
13 spending all of his time with her, a statement that
14 was shared with Joy Robson in her deposition ten
15 years ago in the -- in the Jordie Chandler lawsuit -
16 he simply grabs up the time of whichever child he is
17 with - he broke a lamp. He tried to get Lily to say
18 that it was broken by accident. He was crying. He
19 was upset. He was pleading with her to allow him to
20 have access to her son, Jordie Chandler.
21 He slept with Jordie Chandler for well over
22 a month, closer to two, and particularly -- and this
23 was in his own home, in his own bedroom, in his own
24 room, between the times that he would come from
25 school and go to school during that period of time.
26 What kind of answer is there to that? How
27 do you possibly come to grasp with that kind of
28 information except to conclude that they had a 13002
1 relationship? He was in love with that child. In
2 love with that child the way that an adult would
3 fall in love with another person, and it wasn’t the
4 only child.
5 And it was happening with Gavin during this
6 period of time. Gavin went right into it. It began
7 with long phone calls, long periods of conversations
8 in the middle of the night. They’d go for hours.
9 It began with him coming to Neverland. It was the
10 same kind of run-around-and-do-anything-you-want on
11 Neverland and end up in his room from the very
12 beginning.
13 Understand something about Mr. Jackson and
14 his relationship with his family and his
15 relationship with Gavin Arvizo.
16 On the 2nd of March, while he was there, on
17 the 2nd of March while he was in Florida with his
18 family, he came back to Santa Barbara, leaving the
19 family behind. And who happened to be back at
20 Neverland on the 2nd of March? Was exactly the day
21 that Gavin and his brother and sister and mother
22 returned back to Neverland.
23 And at that point the boys returned back
24 into his room, and eventually Star left that room.
25 And during that period of time they stayed there
26 forever, until they finally left at Janet Arvizo’s
27 behest on the 12th of March.
28 Exactly the same kind of relationship that 13003
1 he had with Jordie Chandler. Exactly the same kind
2 of relationship he had with Brett Barnes. It simply
3 didn’t go long enough because his mother had the
4 sense and foresight to get them out of there.
5 A couple issues dealing with the jury
6 instructions.
7 There was an instruction that was read to
8 you. It was the very, very first instruction that
9 was read to you, and it’s one that’s probably worth
10 reading again. I’m not going to read it to you, I’m
11 just going to tell you.
12 It is an instruction that says that you are
13 not to consider sympathy, pity, punishment or
14 consequences of the crime in your deliberations in
15 this case. You cannot consider what will happen,
16 what won’t happen, and you can’t sit back and say,
17 “I feel sympathy for or against the defendant in
18 this case.” You can’t be sympathetic on behalf of
19 the victims. You can’t be sympathetic on behalf of
20 the defendant. You simply have to judge the
21 evidence dispassionately and impartially.
22 Counsel has talked repeatedly about the
23 question of why aren’t the co-defendants, the
24 unindicted co-defendants, included in here? There
25 is an instruction that was read to you, you are not
26 to consider that either.
27 Those are two instructions that Mr. Mesereau
28 violated within the first half hour of his 13004
1 opening -- of his closing argument.
2 You cannot consider the question of whether
3 others were included or not included, will be
4 included, won’t be included. That is simply not
5 part of your deliberation process. You’re to decide
6 this case singularly. I would think Mr. Mesereau
7 would be happy after four months of trial, over four
8 months of trial, not to have to have dealt with five
9 more lawyers in this courtroom, frankly.
10 The J.C. Penney litigation that took place,
11 let me suggest -- I’m not going to go over this at
12 length, but let me suggest to you that that was a
13 case that was in no way fraudulent based on the
14 evidence that’s before you and reasonably resolved
15 by everybody.
16 Janet Arvizo was never in that store. She
17 had nothing to do with that theft. She went out and
18 she came from a different place where she was
19 applying for a job. She saw an altercation
20 involving her husband. She went to his rescue. She
21 got beat up. Not horribly, but got beat up. Had
22 bruises up and down her legs, up and down her arms.
23 Those photographs were not taken weeks
24 later. Those were taken days later, as black and
25 blue marks do tend to surface days later. Those
26 injuries that she had were reflective of the kinds
27 of restraint that she was subjected to with her
28 being down on the ground and people on top of her 13005
1 legs, people on top of her arms, so that both -- the
2 arms on both sides and legs on both sides were
3 subjected to those kinds of contusions.
4 She did go to jail. She was there for less
5 than two hours. She did not make a claim of
6 injuries at that time. Those are not the kind of
7 injuries that would surface initially. They’re
8 black and blue contusions. They would come up
9 later. She had no interest in staying in jail, as
10 would anybody have any interest in staying in jail.
11 Did not make any claims. Was out of jail in an hour
12 and 45 minutes. And within one hour and six minutes
13 after her husband was released from jail, she went
14 into the clinic.
15 Now, we’re supposed to believe that it was
16 during that period of time that her husband beat her
17 up. That he would beat her up on the front of her
18 legs, the front of her arms, the back of her legs,
19 the back of her arms in that period of time, and
20 then take her to a clinic.
21 Let me suggest to you that in the history of
22 the world, no batterer has ever beat up his wife and
23 then rushed her to a clinic. That is a one-way
24 ticket to jail. Because the first thing they do is
25 ask what happened and how did it happen. And those
26 injuries were not that bad that he would have been
27 compelled to take her during that time.
28 Mary Holzer not only said that Janet Arvizo 13006
1 said that that’s what happened, but Mary Holzer said
2 that the kids were there, and the kids were injured
3 in like fashion. We know that didn’t happen.
4 Excuse me.
5 We know that both children stayed at the
6 scene at the time of the arrest of the father, in
7 the presence of the mother, until the grandmother
8 got there, Maria Ventura. When she got there, the
9 father was already in custody and had been taken
10 away. The police were there and had been there for
11 the entire time.
12 She took the children and took them home.
13 The kids complained of pain. Star complained of
14 pain to his head, and in fact he had a concussion.
15 Gavin complained of pain to his arm, and in fact he
16 had a fracture in his elbow. They had not had any
17 contact with their father at all. It wasn’t until
18 the next day that they went to the hospital by the
19 parents, were taken, and the injuries were
20 diagnosed.
21 Mr. Mesereau said that Janet Arvizo
22 complained that the cyst that was discovered in
23 Gavin’s (sic) head she credited to the beating that
24 was -- occurred at J.C. Penney’s. No, she never
25 did. She never said that at all.
26 What she said was it was discovered at that
27 time when they were trying to determine the cause of
28 the headaches that he had. They discovered he had a 13007
1 cyst, benign, benign, and hopefully will remain that
2 way.
3 There was a lawsuit at that time. There was
4 a deposition that was taken at that time. She did
5 lie in that deposition. About what? She said she
6 was not a victim of violence at home.
7 She was still living with him. What is she
8 going to do? Say otherwise? The kids also were
9 asked that question. Mr. Mesereau is mystified that
10 they would say that they were not coached to lie.
11 No, they weren’t coached to lie. They don’t have to
12 do that. Children in a violent household
13 intuitively know not to discuss that sort of thing.
14 That is just not discussed. There was no lying in
15 that regard.
16 Yes, it’s true, she said she was not a
17 victim of domestic violence. That’s pretty
18 understandable under the circumstances. She said
19 she had asked the law firm to change it later.
20 Now, the question of whether or not, given
21 that period of time, could her husband have
22 inflicted those injuries on her, and on the
23 children, who were not even in his presence, does
24 that necessarily mean, then, that there was a
25 fraudulent lawsuit? And the answer is, there was no
26 fraudulent lawsuit, notwithstanding Mary Holzer’s
27 desire to be a witness in this case.
28 And as evidence of that is the fact that the 13008
1 lawyers that she works for have kept the money that
2 they got, all $85,000 of it. They’ve known about
3 her accusations for some time, and they haven’t seen
4 fit to return that money. Nor has J.C. Penney’s
5 seen fit to go after it. So everybody seems to
6 think that this was an entirely reasonable
7 resolution of this case, for being beaten up and for
8 being falsely arrested and falsely charged, until
9 ultimately the charges were dismissed.
10 She got $32,000. That is not unreasonable.
11 Gavin had a fractured arm, and he got $25,000. It’s
12 sitting in a bank account. Star had a concussion.
13 He got $5,000. It’s sitting in a bank account for
14 when he turns 18. And the father, David, got
15 $5,000, approximately. I don’t know what he did
16 with his, nor do I care. That comes to about
17 $65,000 total. The balance of $85,000 went to the
18 law firm. They’ve kept it.
19 The resolution of that case was fair. It
20 was appropriate. The disposition was appropriate.
21 Lawyers.
22 There was a lot of discussion about Janet
23 Arvizo going to lawyers and having had many lawyers.
24 She had a lawyer who represented her in J.C.
25 Penney’s. She had a lawyer who represented her in
26 the J.C. Penney’s case. She had a lawyer who
27 represented her in her divorce and family law
28 matter. 13009
1 And after she was -- she stayed at Neverland
2 for that period of time and finally got out, she
3 went to see a lawyer by the name of Mr. Dickerman.
4 She went to see Bill Dickerman after being
5 told by two different people, “You need to go see a
6 lawyer.” One of them was Azja Pryor, who testified
7 to that in court during the course of this trial.
8 The other one was Jamie Masada, and he was the one
9 who suggested Bill Dickerman, who was his personal
10 lawyer.
11 She went to Bill Dickerman. And what did he
12 do? He made demands for the return of all of her
13 property, two and a half months of demands, without
14 being told where the property was and without having
15 any of it returned. And he made demands that the
16 kids be taken off television through Granada
17 Productions. In other words, his pursuit was in two
18 directions, and he at no time filed any kind of a
19 lawsuit against Michael Jackson.
20 How did he get to -- how did the family get
21 to Larry Feldman, was the question was Mr. Mesereau
22 asked.
23 Well, the answer to that question is Bill
24 Dickerman took them to Larry Feldman, because he
25 knew that Michael Jackson was involved in all of
26 this, and he was not about to take on Michael
27 Jackson and his minion of lawyers. As you recall,
28 Michael Jackson pays four million dollars a year in 13010
1 legal fees. He has plenty of lawyers.
2 Bill Dickerman, who was a sole practitioner,
3 was not about to take on Michael Jackson by himself.
4 He knew that Larry Feldman had taken on Michael
5 Jackson in the past, and he went to Larry Feldman.
6 Larry Feldman is senior counsel in a 600-lawyer law
7 firm. Six hundred lawyers is exactly the opposite
8 of Bill Dickerman as a sole practitioner.
9 Larry Feldman sees this family walk in the
10 door, and he looks at Jordie Chandler -- excuse me,
11 he looks at Gavin Arvizo, who is literally a Jordie
12 Chandler clone, like these other boys, and he takes
13 a look at him, and he immediately sends the family
14 to Stan Katz, Dr. Katz.
15 Mr. Mesereau described Katz as Larry
16 Feldman’s good friend, Dr. Katz. In fact, the
17 evidence is exactly the opposite. Stan Katz has
18 worked with Mr. Feldman on one other case, and that
19 was the Chandler case and that was ten years
20 earlier. And in his 25-plus years has never worked
21 on any other matter with Larry Feldman, has never
22 been to his home. Feldman’s never been to Katz’s
23 home. They know to say hello to one another when
24 they meet one another in court or in other places.
25 But they certainly are not close friends or even
26 friends at all. They are simply acquaintances and
27 associates in terms of professional associates.
28 That statement was designed to cast some 13011
1 aspersion upon the both of them that they’re in
2 league together. And in fact, there’s no evidence
3 of either one of those.
4 Stan Katz interviewed the children,
5 interviewed the mother, interviewed the sister, and
6 decided that this matter needed to be reported to
7 Child Protective Services, and did so. From there,
8 it went to the sheriff’s office in Santa Barbara.
9 There was no disclosure by Gavin at any time
10 to anybody until he did so to the police, when he
11 sat in an interview. And you watched that
12 interview, and you’re going to watch a portion of it
13 before we leave.
14 That disclosure did not -- or at any time
15 has Gavin varied in the contents of the description
16 of what happened to him. And the only extent of the
17 variance that Mr. Mesereau was able to talk about is
18 the timing. And now we’re going to talk about the
19 timing a little bit, because I think that is
20 appropriate for you to understand.
21 The question posed by Mr. Mesereau is, why
22 would he do it then? Why would he begin a
23 molestation just after this child has been
24 interviewed about exactly that? Why would he do it
25 after the publication of this thing on television?
26 Why would he do it after he spends time in this
27 video presentation?
28 The answer simply is: Because he could. 13012
1 It’s really not much more complicated than
2 that. Because he has no restraints on his impulses.
3 Because he had been working with this child for some
4 time. Because this child had been in his bed for
5 some time.
6 And it may not have begun after the video
7 was produced. Gavin testified to you that he had a
8 recollection of two specific events. He believed it
9 happened after the video was produced, and that
10 would mean after the interview with the Department
11 of Child & Family Services simply because they are
12 closely aligned. He went from one to the next. And
13 at some time after that, which would have been on
14 the 20th of February and sometime thereafter, before
15 the time he left.
16 He also said, and has consistently said, he
17 thought it was closer to the time when he actually
18 left. And that would be consistent, too.
19 Why would Mr. Jackson do it? Because he
20 could. Because he had this child in his room.
21 Because he had been working with this child for some
22 time. Because this child was in love with him.
23 Because this child would do anything that he wanted
24 him to do. Because this child was already in his
25 bed and already sharing the intimacies of his
26 affection. Because this child already was viewing
27 the pornographic materials that were there. Because
28 this child was already freely drinking. Because 13013
1 Star had started leaving the room and was no longer
2 there at that particular time. And his opportunity
3 was there and the child was ripe.
4 And Mr. Jackson frankly was completely
5 indifferent to the question of whether or not this
6 was in close proximity to a televised production of
7 one nature or another. In fact, he was more
8 confident because he knew that by virtue of the fact
9 that this child had gone on tape saying nothing had
10 happened, that he was probably pretty safe at
11 exactly that moment.
12 When did the molestations begin? We don’t
13 know. We don’t know. The best estimate was at some
14 time after the meeting with the Department of Child
15 & Family Services. Certainly could have been
16 before.
17 Gavin initially said he had been molested
18 five times. By the time he got before the grand
19 jury, which was some number of months later, his
20 testimony was, “I remember two in specific
21 particularly I can give you details of. There may
22 have been more. There probably were more. I just
23 can’t give you the kinds of details. We were
24 drinking a lot during that period of time.” A
25 13-year-old boy.
26 Now, Dr. -- Dr. Esplin was quoted yesterday
27 in one of the displays by Mr. Mesereau as saying
28 something to the effect that there are many 13014
1 allegations, false allegations, that are motivated
2 or spurred by profit.
3 I didn’t remember Dr. Esplin saying that.
4 And I can -- and certainly Dr. Katz did not say
5 that. And Dr. Urquiza did not say that. In fact,
6 both of them said that there was no recollection
7 whatsoever of any event. They just were unfamiliar
8 with any occasion at all involving an adolescent boy
9 who had been molested and that -- or, rather, an
10 adolescent boy making a false accusation of
11 molestation for purposes of financial gain. Neither
12 one of them had any recollection of any case like
13 that at all.
14 So when I hear or when I see Dr. Esplin
15 being quoted as saying, “Yes, that’s a common
16 feature,” I went back to his testimony to see
17 exactly what it was.
18 This is a question by Mr. Sanger: “And
19 would financial gain be a potential motive for --
20 on the part of the influential adult?”
21 And his answer was, “Could be.”
22 “Could be.”
23 Suddenly, being told, “Could be,” that there
24 could be a financial motive on the part of the
25 influential parent, has translated to multiple
26 accusations of child -- false accusations of child
27 molest motivated by finances. As you can see, his
28 testimony in this regard was nothing akin to what 13015
1 was presented to you yesterday.
2 None of these doctors who testified, three
3 of them, two for the prosecution, one for the
4 defense, not one of them stood up and told you that
5 this is a common occurrence at all. And in fact,
6 all three of them told you that adolescent boys
7 making accusations of being molested at the hands of
8 an adult male is probably the single most difficult
9 accusation for a child to make in terms of
10 disclosure of molestation. That is the toughest,
11 because no other victim endures the hardships of
12 wondering whether they’re going to be tormented at
13 any particular time.
14 Now, one of the pieces of information that
15 was said to you by Mr. Mesereau in his closing
16 argument was the fact that Gavin had twice been
17 interviewed by Dean Alpert and had not disclosed the
18 molestation to him.
19 Keep in mind that all of the experts who had
20 testified, including the defense expert, Dr. Esplin,
21 said, “These are very difficult disclosures, and
22 piecemeal disclosures are not unusual and in no way
23 bear on the validity or integrity of the disclosure
24 in any way.”
25 But let’s look particularly at that
26 statement of not disclosing to Dean Alpert.
27 Gavin Arvizo was in Dean Alpert’s office
28 because he was acting out. Okay? He was acting out 13016
1 because he was being tormented by other kids in the
2 school, and he was being tormented because they were
3 accusing him of having had some kind of sexual
4 connection with Michael Jackson. He was a
5 13-year-old boy in middle school. And he was
6 getting in fights because of those accusations. And
7 kids were teasing him about it.
8 And suddenly he finds himself in a
9 principal’s office or a dean’s office, someone with
10 no ability whatsoever to be able to deal with this
11 kind of situation, who simply says, “Is it true?”
12 And he says, “No, it’s not true.”
13 Would any 13-year-old boy that you know say
14 anything other than that under those circumstances?
15 That, my friends, is not a reflection of his
16 integrity in any way whatsoever. Nor is it a
17 reflection on whether or not his ultimate testimony
18 here is anything but completely truthful.
19 It’s a 13-year-old boy out there alone, by
20 himself, harboring this horrible secret about what
21 had happened to him, having been outed, effectively,
22 by this nationally televised production, who is now
23 trying to protect himself as best he can. You can’t
24 conclude anything from that at all.
25 Dr. Katz said, “In addition to all the cases
26 that I’ve seen, I’ve supervised numerous interns and
27 other professionals. I don’t recall seeing any
28 adolescents or preadolescents who are making 13017
1 allegations to profit.”
2 Mr. Mesereau told you yesterday that he said
3 that Mr. Katz, Dr. Katz, had said to you that he had
4 never seen a false accusation of sexual assault, of
5 child molestation.
6 In fact, Dr. Katz said nothing of the kind.
7 He said that there are many false accusations when
8 children are very, very young, often pre-verbal, and
9 those accusations are usually in conjunction with a
10 divorce proceeding where one parent wants to keep
11 the child away from the other parent. He says, as
12 children get older, those instances reduce
13 substantially. He says he had some familiarity with
14 teenagers who made false accusations. He said they
15 were all girls attempting to get out of a household
16 situation. In other words, a parent that they did
17 not want to be living with. Those circumstances
18 that he believed to be false.
19 He said he had no familiarity at all
20 involving an adolescent boy who had made a false
21 accusation. And particularly an adolescent boy who
22 had made a false accusation motivated by profit.
23 The suggestion that you can tell a
24 13-year-old boy, “You need to humiliate yourself,
25 you need to stand up and give testimony that’s going
26 to be demeaning, it’s going to be tormenting, you’re
27 going to be in front of a roomful of people, you’re
28 going to be harassed by your friends, you’re going 13018
1 to be tormented by a defense attorney, you’re going
2 to be cross-examined at length, but don’t worry, we
3 will be rich some years down the line,” a
4 13-year-old boy? Not likely. And not given what we
5 know about Mr. Jackson and what we know about his
6 history.
7 Excuse me.
8 Mr. Mesereau said that Gavin Arvizo had told
9 you that he was touched right after the Miami trip.
10 No, he didn’t. He never said that at all.
11 That is not part of the testimony. And you will not
12 be able to find that in the transcript anyway. He
13 never said that. His statements about when this
14 happened were all fairly consistent in terms of
15 being toward the end of his stay at Neverland, which
16 covered about a five-week period of time.
17 There was a lot of commentary by Mr.
18 Mesereau about the bad conduct of the children while
19 they were -- not just while they were at Neverland,
20 but also Gavin’s conduct while he was a child at
21 John Burroughs Middle School, and it was documented
22 and there was a lot of evidence and the teacher
23 talked of that. It went on for hours in terms of,
24 you know, “Were you acting out? Were you getting in
25 fights? Were you talking in class? Were you
26 singing in class?”
27 There’s really not anything that’s all that
28 bad. It showed a child who was disrespectful to a 13019
Subject: June 3, 2005 
Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:08 am
