Boy 'denied Jackson abused him'
Michael Jackson was taken to hospital with back pain last week
The teenage boy who has accused Michael Jackson of sex abuse has admitted telling a former teacher he had never been molested by the US singer.
Fifteen-year-old Gavin Arvizo returned to the stand for cross-examination by Mr Jackson's lawyers on Monday.
Last week the court in Santa Maria, California, heard the boy's account of how the alleged abuse took place.
The singer, who denies all charges, was in court for the first time since his late arrival last week with back pain.
During intensive cross-examination by Mr Jackson's lead lawyer, Thomas Mesereau, Gavin conceded he had told a former teacher that nothing inappropriate had happened between him and the singer.
He didn't do anything to me
Gavin Arvizo
Apparently reading from a transcript of the interview, Mr Mesereau quoted the teacher, Jeffrey Alpert, as saying: "Look at me, look at me... I can't help you unless you tell me the truth - did any of this happen?"
Gavin acknowledged from the witness stand his answer at the time - apparently just after a 2003 documentary which sparked the investigation into Mr Jackson - had been "no".
"I told Mr Alpert he [Michael Jackson] didn't do anything to me," the teenager said.
Mr Mesereau drew attention to numerous disciplinary problems the teenager had had at John Burroughs Middle School, where Mr Alpert was the dean.
Michael Jackson was threatened with arrest by the trial judge
Gavin admitted he had been disruptive, rarely did homework and regularly argued with his teachers.
The BBC's Michael Buchanan in Santa Maria says Mr Mesereau spent the day trying to highlight apparent discrepancies in Gavin's evidence.
In what were often testy exchanges, the boy denied changing his story to police about the timing of the alleged abuses, our correspondent says.
Mr Jackson arrived 15 minutes early for proceedings on Monday, wearing a red coat with a black arm band.
On Thursday, the singer triggered a threat of arrest by the judge when he arrived late, wearing pyjamas and slippers.
In a statement, Mr Jackson's defence said he had been taken to a hospital for treatment for a severe back problem after tripping and falling over while getting dressed.
Alcoholic drinks
Later on Thursday, Gavin Arvizo described how the alleged abuse took place in the singer's bedroom at his Neverland ranch in 2003.
The teenager said he and Mr Jackson were in bed together and that, after asking the boy lots of questions about sex, Mr Jackson had put his hand down Gavin's pyjama bottoms and touched him.
He also described consuming various kinds of alcoholic drinks - including vodka, wine and brandy - with the star.
On Friday, the court heard legal arguments in which prosecutors sought access to Mr Jackson's financial records, claiming he has debts of $300m (£156m) and faces liabilities of $400m (£208m) by the end of the year.
Mr Jackson denies 10 charges including child abuse and false imprisonment. If found guilty, he could face a 21-year prison sentence.
Didn't MJ show up to court in his pajama bottoms the other day? Yes, he is a completely normal, well-adjusted guy. That is exactly the appropriate outfit to wear for your child molestation case.
I say he should be convicted just on the basis of that alone. What a f*ck-up.
Jackson's lawyers are way ahead. It is another "If the glove don't fit you must acquit" situation. Jacko as wacko as he is will probably get off. This case is not about Jackson's mental competence.
In a situation such as this one, credibility is everthing. Jackson's attorney is chipping away at the accuser's credibility. Can the jury believe the accusations are true . . . beyond a reasonable doubt? If there are reasons to disbelieve the accuser's testimony, then a reasonable doubt exists.
kickycan wrote:Didn't MJ show up to court in his pajama bottoms the other day? Yes, he is a completely normal, well-adjusted guy. That is exactly the appropriate outfit to wear for your child molestation case.
I say he should be convicted just on the basis of that alone. What a f*ck-up.
...and that is the attitude of a lot of people - making Jackson's weirdness a crime in itself. I don't know, but I think that's pretty f-ed up, as well.
I think the dude is indeed weird, I also think he is entitled to a fair hearing on the merits of the case against him no matter how weird he is.
snood wrote:kickycan wrote:Didn't MJ show up to court in his pajama bottoms the other day? Yes, he is a completely normal, well-adjusted guy. That is exactly the appropriate outfit to wear for your child molestation case.
I say he should be convicted just on the basis of that alone. What a f*ck-up.
...and that is the attitude of a lot of people - making Jackson's weirdness a crime in itself. I don't know, but I think that's pretty f-ed up, as well.
Obviously I was being facetious. Oh wait, I guess it wasn't obvious, since you thought I was serious.
I think kicky also deserves a fair hearing. And then we hang him.
He is guilty...what a sicko!
I think we can all agree that he is guilty of being a "sicko," but did he molest this particular child?
We can speculate that he did the alleged acts based upon his lack of adult common sense, but it's merely speculation. I wasn't in Jackson's bedroom when he allegedly showed the teenager how to masturbate. There were only two people there, Jackson and his accuser, and a conviction will depend upon the accuser's credibility.
I think Jackson was absolutely the most stupid person on earth to have allowed himself to be alone with a child given previous allegations of molestation . . . but stupidity is not a crime.
Can we say it's MORE LIKELY THAN NOT that Michael Jackson abused this child? Even if we can say that, it's not enough. To obtain a criminal conviction, a jury has to find more than a preponderance of the evidence; a jury has to find more than clear and convincing evidence; a jury must find him guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
This is an extremely high burden and one that can't be met if the accuser's credibility can be reasonably questioned.
And the accuser's credibility is in question when he told that teacher Jackson did not molest him.
[Some of the kids taunted him by saying he had been "booty-busted" by Jackson]
kickycan wrote:snood wrote:kickycan wrote:Didn't MJ show up to court in his pajama bottoms the other day? Yes, he is a completely normal, well-adjusted guy. That is exactly the appropriate outfit to wear for your child molestation case.
I say he should be convicted just on the basis of that alone. What a f*ck-up.
...and that is the attitude of a lot of people - making Jackson's weirdness a crime in itself. I don't know, but I think that's pretty f-ed up, as well.
Obviously I was being facetious. Oh wait, I guess it wasn't obvious, since you thought I was serious.
I'm sure you didn't literally want him thrown into maximum security because he's nutty, but who can deny that the "Wacko Jacko" press machine hasn't gotten ugly enough in recent years that one could easily miss the joke?
With all the baggage this kid and his mother has is a big hurdle to overcome in any trial - I would think.
<Hey, Dys, check it out, someone used and understood the word 'facetious'!!!>
osso, are you being facetious?
