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.
Quote:Jackson Accuser Explains Earlier Denial
SANTA MARIA, Calif. - Michael Jackson (news)'s accuser testified Tuesday that he told a school administrator the singer didn't molest him because schoolmates were "making fun of me" and he wanted them to stop.
The 15-year-old boy offered the testimony under questioning by District Attorney Tom Sneddon after Jackson attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. concluded his lengthy cross-examination of the witness.
It was revealed during the cross-examination Monday that the boy had told Jeffrey Alpert, a dean at John Burroughs Middle School in Los Angeles, that nothing had happened to him during stays at Jackson's Neverland ranch.
The conversation was prompted by a TV documentary that showed Jackson with the boy and in which Jackson acknowledged sharing his bed with children, although he characterized the encounters as innocent and non-sexual.
The boy testified that when he returned from his last stay at Neverland in March 2003, schoolmates made fun of him, saying he had been "raped" by Jackson.
He said he got in several fights as a result and had to talk to Alpert, who asked him if he had been molested.
"I told him that it didn't happen," the boy said. "All the kids were already making fun of me at the school and I didn't want anyone to think it had really happened."
He also said he once got in a fight for refusing to join a gang.
On Monday, Mesereau questioned the boy about a history of disciplinary problems as he sought to show that the boy talked back to teachers, disrupted classes and fought with other students.
Before the boy left the stand, Sneddon asked him what he thinks of Jackson now.
"I don't really like him anymore," the boy said. "I don't really think he's deserving of the respect I was giving him as the coolest guy in the world."
Mesereau completed his cross-examination by quizzing the boy about times when he and his family left Neverland during a period that prosecutors claim they were captives.
The boy said he didn't take advantage of several opportunities to escape because he didn't want to leave.
Prosecutors contend the boy's family was held captive for more than a month because Jackson wanted to get them to make a video rebutting the damaging TV documentary about Jackson that aired on Feb. 6, 2003.
Mesereau asked him about several trips he took from Neverland to surrounding communities and asked him why he didn't try to get help on the trips.
"Those first few escapes you talked about ?- I liked being at Neverland. It was like Disneyland," the boy said.
The boy said his mother was the one who wanted to escape.
He said he didn't want to flee Neverland until the family left for good in March 2003. He said his mother was the one who wanted to leave.
"Your mother was worried but she always came back?" Mesereau asked.
"I guess so," the boy said
Mesereau noted that the boy left Neverland to go the dentist and to go shopping at Toys R Us, among other trips during February 2003.
The boy said when he went to Toys R Us his mother remained behind at Neverland "where they could keep her."
He also said that even when the family left Neverland, Jackson employees kept a close eye on them.
"They never wanted us to be in separate areas. They wanted us to be together," he said.
On Monday, Mesereau depicted the boy as vengeful and angry over being evicted from the lush life of Neverland.
The boy said he envisioned a future with Jackson as a mentor in a sort of Big Brother program. But the Neverland idyll that began when the boy had cancer ended with the family being delivered by limousine to a grandmother's house.
[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?
