Mike getting in ready to kill someone.....

....taking a gun out...


....mission completed

Larry King is scheduled for Thursday.

Gary Dunlap might testify.

Those clothes rock! Great colours.

Jackson Chef Says Family Didn't Complain
By TIM MOLLOY, AP Special Correspondent
10 minutes ago

SANTA MARIA, Calif. - A former Neverland chef's assistant testified Tuesday that the sister of Michael Jackson's accuser talked to him over about two weeks after the family left the pop star's estate and never complained of being treated badly or held against their will.

Angel Vivanco said he spent time with the sister after work about five or six times while the family was at the ranch in February and March 2003, the period in which prosecutors say Jackson molested the girl's brother and conspired to hold the family captive.

Vivanco said the sister continued to call him on the phone for about two weeks after they left but never said Jackson or anyone else had mistreated them.

Before Vivanco took the stand for a second day, Judge Rodney S. Melville reaffirmed his ruling Monday that barred the defense from asking Vivanco about several statements the sister allegedly made during their conversations, including a reference to her mother as "psycho mom."

Defense attorneys had hoped to use Vivanco's testimony to try to show that the accuser's family fabricated the allegations in an attempt to get money from Jackson.

They said in a motion last week that Vivanco would testify that the girl told him her mother and her mother's then-boyfriend were planning "something big" involving Jackson.

The "something big" statement was not among those barred but defense attorney Robert Sanger opted not to ask about it before ending his questioning of Vivanco.

On Monday, Vivanco testified that the accuser's younger brother once demanded that he make him a milkshake with liquor and had also held a kitchen knife to his throat. Vivanco also said the accuser once used a curse word while demanding food.

Under cross-examination by prosecutor Ron Zonen, Vivanco acknowledged he did not report those incidents when he was first interviewed by law enforcement authorities.

Vivanco said that when he was asked about the family he did not recognize their last name. He said, however, that he reported the incidents to two supervisors.

Prosecutors said in a motion last week that Vivanco, an adult, had a "quasi-sexual" relationship with the then-16-year-old sister, making her "a victim of felonious sexual misconduct by a defense witness employed by the defendant." The issue was not raised in testimony.

Vivanco was one of several witnesses called to the stand Monday in a defense challenge to prosecution claims that Jackson exposed the children to alcohol and adult materials as a precursor to molestation. The defense suggested instead that the boys found the items on their own.

Vivanco was also among witnesses portraying the boys as wild and rude.

In the milkshake incident, he said, the accuser's brother threatened to report him to Jackson if he didn't put the liquor in.

"He told me if I didn't do it he would tell Michael and I would get fired," Vivanco said.

Of the knife incident, he said it ended when someone else scolded the brother.

And he quoted the accuser as once demanding, "Give me the (expletive) Cheetos."

In other testimony Monday, Neverland security guard Shane Meredith testified that he caught Jackson's accuser and his brother with a half-empty bottle of wine, and maid Maria Gomez told the jury that she once saw adult magazines in the brother's backpack.

The defense attacked the family's claims of being held against their will, calling witnesses who said there was no hint of captivity when the mother went to a spa for a body waxing or when her children went to an orthodontist to have their braces removed.

Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting a 13-year-old former cancer patient in February or March 2003 and plying him with wine. He is also accused of conspiring to hold the boy's family captive to get them to rebut a TV documentary in which the boy appeared with Jackson, who said let children sleep in his bed but it was non-sexual.

Outside court Monday, Jackson spokeswoman Raymone K. Bain said the defense expects to call CNN's Larry King to testify Thursday. The defense is expected to asked whether attorney Larry Feldman once said the accuser's mother made up the molestation story.

Feldman, who has denied that story, was contacted by the family after they left Neverland and he referred them to a psychologist who reported molestation suspicions to authorities.

___

AP Special Correspondent Linda Deutsch contributed to this report.

Social worker says accuser's family praised Jackson, denied misconduct
By Quintin Cushner/Staff Writer



A social worker testified in Superior Court in Santa Maria today that the family accusing Michael Jackson of false imprisonment and child molestation praised the entertainer during a 2003 interview with child-welfare officials.

Irene Peters testified that she and other representatives from the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services interviewed the family on Feb. 20, 2003, at the Los Angeles apartment of the accuser's mother's boyfriend.

The interview was set up after the agency received several complaints of child neglect following the debut of "Living With Michael Jackson," a controversial documentary in which Jackson appears holding hands with his accuser and describes his practice of sharing his bed with children as innocent and non-sexual.

Peters said that during the interview with social workers, the family was questioned on their relationship with Jackson and asked if they had ever been mistreated by the entertainer.

Each of the family members denied mistreatment, Peters said, and the mother of the accuser referred to Jackson as a "father figure." Her only complaint was that the documentary depicted her children without her permission.

Peters testified that the mother also was asked if her children spent time in Jackson's bedroom. She said they did but did not sleep in his bed, Peters testified.

"She told me, 'No that never happened,'" Peters said, referring to her children sleeping in Jackson's bed.

The accuser also denied any misconduct by Jackson.

"Everybody thinks that Michael Jackson sexually abused me; he's never touched me," Peters quoted the boy as saying.

Prosecutors allege that Jackson molested the boy on four occasions in late February and early March 2003, in the weeks following the family's interview with social workers. This also is the time frame during which Jackson and several others allegedly were conspiring to hold the family against their will.

Peters noted in her testimony that the family seemed to give their answers spontaneously. Although a member of Jackson's security team and a friend of the accuser's mother were present when Peters and two other social workers arrived at the home, they left before the interview began.

Jackson, 46, has pleaded not guilty to four counts of molesting the 13-year-old boy and four counts of administering alcohol to help him with the alleged lewd acts. He also has pleaded not guilty to the conspiracy charge involving abduction, false imprisonment and extortion and a count of attempted child molestation.

The Santa Maria Times, following its established policy, is not identifying those who allege they were abused by Jackson, even though they are being named in court.

Luv4oneanotha said:

I disagree . . . E!'s trial coverage and trial analysts are decidedly pro-Jackson. In a sense, I can understand that. Child molestation is an explosive topic and the state's case should be scrutinized carefully. And when you get a bunch of defense attorneys together, then of course they're gonna prick holes in the state's case.

FINALLY an MSNBC update!!

Jennifer London reported :

- the social worker said that 7 days after the interview she said in her report that the allegations of "general niglectance (sp?)" and "sexual abuse" by MJ were not founded.

- the prosecution said that the molestaion accured AFTER the interview so that's why the acuser denied that the molestation accured.

- the defense pointed out that the mother contacted the social worker AFTER Feb 20th and again the mother didn't complaine of being held against her will.







good points by someone on that site

GIMME DA FUCKIN'CHEETOS!!

lilgish said:

Can anyone provide good reason for this trial to progress? Even if i hated the guy, this case is a complete dud, anyone can see that for crying out loud.

I'm not just seeing this through MJ-tinted glasses am i?

I mean, Is it usual for trials in the U.S. to have such farcical witnesses and have so much testimony from said witnesses that just merely points to the innocence of the Defendant?

It's laughable this is ongoing. Except i'm not laughing.

Marrk said:

Yes, unfortunately, this is how the judicial system goes in the U.S. It's a joke really. This is hand in hand as to why all the damn reality shows took off ad infinitum: drama. That, and the whole lot of political motives from people in various positions influence the system.



Clarification edit...
[Edited 5/17/05 14:12pm]

I think that E!'s coverage has been very balanced comapred to Court TV's coverage. I find myself yelling at the tv alot when I watch Court TV's coverage, much like I do whenever I find myself watching the FoxNews channel.

ah, Mickey is in BLUE!!! My favourite colour of all time!!!


He looks great and the case is getting better and better!!!

Your favorite colour of "all time"? Like they're inventing some new every year.

Now that this case is wrapping up and Jackson will be most likely found innocent
I still Michael Jackson's biggest crime was to toss that magic dime into that homeless guy's cup in the "Billie Jean" video. I mean, he had on perfectly good hobo's outfit - warm and casual - instead he ends up dressed up in the most ridiculous, faggety white suit with a red bowtie! Yes, he's sure to survive in the ghetto dressed up like that. Geez. Have some decency - and you call this man a humanitarian.

Novabreaker said:

Jacko Gets Some Help
rOGER AT FOX

Two seasoned civil servants came to Michael Jackson's aid in court yesterday.

The two women, Irene Lavern Peters and Karen Walker, were from the Department of Children and Family Services.

The former has 30 years on the job investigating child abuse cases, the latter 13. Of course, the younger woman is the older's supervisor, but that's another story.

Peters, who with her high forehead and Hollywood sunglasses looked like a Pointer Sister on the stand, pretty much stole the show. She toughed it out through grueling direct questioning and cross-examination as she defended her department, career and judgment.

Mostly, though, what she did was bring the trial into perspective.

She and Walker interviewed Janet Arvizo, the accuser's mother, and her three children back on Feb. 20, 2003.

The interview was the result of a call made to their office's hotline from someone who didn't like what she saw of the Arvizos and Michael Jackson on the Martin Bashir televised documentary.

The caller is said to have been legendary California attorney Gloria Allred, who was apparently encouraged to phone in by a West Coast journalist.

And what did Peters find? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

She determined that there had been no abuse of any of the three Arvizo children. As of Feb. 20, 2003, they were in good shape. Their only complaint, Peters said, was that they hadn't signed releases for the Bashir documentary.

What was interesting about Peters' and Walker's testimony was the revelation that they had stayed in touch with Janet Arvizo for some time after that — at least through the end of the following March.

At no time in their many phone conversations did Janet Arvizo mention to either woman that she and her family had been held against their will by Jackson and his associates.

And then there was this: On April 1, two and a half weeks after the Arvizos' Neverland adventure had ended, Peters and Walker ran into the family at a Fat Burger restaurant on Wilshire Boulevard.

It was lunchtime. Janet Arvizo was taking her kids to a tutoring center above the Fat Burger in a strip mall. There was much chatting catching up.

Again, the mother made no mention of "kidnapping" or child molestation. She did tell the women that "Michael wanted to send us to 'that dump', Brazil," and that the family's time at Neverland had been "horrible."

Peters managed to get through all her testimony yesterday like a champ, never once letting the District Attorney Tom Sneddon bait her.

"If I thought there was any abuse going on," she said, "we'd be in children's court."

When Sneddon implied that despite three decades' experience, Peters was no expert on sexual abuse, she countered that she was not a therapist and had never claimed to be one.

She simply knew what the signs of sexual abuse of children were, and weren't.

"There are indications," Peters said. "If they're withdrawn or reluctant. [The boy] appeared very open, eager to talk. He didn't seem uncomfortable. My observation at the time was he showed no indication of sexual abuse."

What Peters did not know at the time was that in the Arvizo family, accusations of child abuse filed with the authorities were commonplace.

The Arvizos' daughter had made the charge against her father, and one of the sons against his mother.

The defense will likely conclude that the Arvizos were sufficiently well-versed in child abuse charges to fabricate the ones against Jackson.

lilgish said:

Ridiculous.

Did comedian/confidante Chris Tucker ever testify?

CinisterCee said:

next week

I'm Michael Jackson, you Tito

Cloudbuster said:

. . . but predictable for a cat who likes to sleep with children.

Sorry, I can't say this enough. Even assuming every single one of these accusers is lying, I think we need to constantly remind ourselves through this thing that Michael Jackson brought a lot of this mess on himself.

namepeace said:

Man, everytime I log into the org there's someone around to remind me.

And I can't say this enough, either. I don't have a problem with Mike's behaviour as long as he's doing no wrong, despite the fact that some folk will try and take advantage of his fame and wealth.

More important is how he survives this mess. What's done is done. It's time to move on and get the focus back on the work. That's what is needed. No matter the outcome of the trial, he's always gonna be tagged Michael Jackson/paedophile.

Such is the way of the world.

namepeace said:

you forgot to add the "...and even if he's found not guilty , he needs to get some sirius help"

LightOfArt said:

Yeah! Help with his satellite radio . . .

AND help with his issues.

Good lookin' out!!!!

namepeace said:

Let me put this question out here...cuz it has stumped me...as lately I have been tooting his innocence.

OK even though most of us feel that in this trial MJ is probably being hoodwinked, bamboozled...took. But do you guys feel he has done absolutly nothing to other kids..even the ones (well they are adults) that are denying stuff.

I seriously have my doubts about his past. And I'm sorry, I don't believe really anyone in this trial. I think it's whomever is gonna present the best case that will win.

superspaceboy said:

I'll take the bait, but you have to be specific about which boy..

you know that I believe in MJ´s innocence and I always will. He may be weird, but I don´t think he´s sick.

Plus I don´t understand why after everything that has happened so far you still WANT question his innocence. I mean do you WANT him to be guilty or what? Cause the evidence is pointing to MJ´s innocence, but I guess it´s the way he looks that makes you think he did it. If not, than I don´t know what else to think.

I don´t know, but I think the last thing MJ seems to be is a violent predator. I mean he seems to be quite the opposite and I think the proof of that is in how many ppl are using him, cause they think they´ll get away with it. I am sure that ppl around Eminem or other tough rapper for example would be more afraid to do him wrong, cause they would fear that he would kick their ass, but with MJ they´re not as woried I guess. Not even a child is afraid to make him go through what he´s been through.

And as for your question, whether I think he really did nothing to the other "wictims". NO I don´t think so. I don´t understand why Culkin for example would want to be still his friend after all that.

Cloudbuster said:

But that's the problem....Michael IS doing wrong! A grown man having young boys sleep in his bed? That is wrong.I know you approve of this behavior,but the majority believes (rightfully so) that there is something wrong with it.I predict that,regardless of how this case turns out,they will come up with a new law that forbids ANYBODY from having a young child in their bed with them.See what Michael started? ;

They make me think of the Margareth's family in the Million Dollar Baby movie.