I Ain’t Scared Of No Sheets
I Ain’t Scare of Nobody
Black or White, Michael Jackson
June 13, 2019 is the anniversary of Michael Jackson’s vindication day. Every year, this day has been celebrated by the fans, friends and family.
Mr. Tom Mesereau, the lawyer who defended Jackson in 2005, was on King Jordan radio on February 13, 2015 and said these words:
“People who got anywhere near Michael Jackson thought they could profit in one way or another. People wanted money from him from the earliest times  Even in his darkest hours, people were suing him, even in the most troubling time imaginable, people were after his money. The pressure on this poor soul was just enormous.  I will defend Michael Jackson to my last breath. I know he was innocent, I know he was targeted because he was wealthy and famous and perceived as very vulnerable and that made him a target for all kinds of people  He was a brilliant genius and a kind, gentle soul who was tortured, exploited, punished for things he hadn’t done. I will always feel honored to have defended him” .
Here you are several excerpts from Mr. Mesereau’s closing argument on June 2 and 3, 2005. There are many similarities between the Arvizos & Co. and Safechuck & Robson & Co. – all of them the Chandlers’ copycats:
Ladies and gentlemen, I just heard a prosecutor get up, start his closing argument with an attack on me. And whenever a prosecutor does that, you know they’re in trouble…
I submit, based upon the testimony you’ve heard, the witnesses you’ve seen, the issues you’ve seen addressed, there is no way in the world you can find that the Arvizos are trustworthy beyond a reasonable doubt. And if you can’t do that, if anything they said to you, if anything they presented to you causes you to pause and wonder or suspect what really happened, Mr. Jackson must be acquitted under our legal system.
You have heard so much testimony about the scams of Mrs. Arvizo. The prosecutor gets up and tries to prop her up, justify her actions, explain her as a nice person, tell you you can trust her, tell you everyone should trust her. And he especially looks at you in the eye and says, “She never asked for money.”
Well, I have some questions for the jury. When she took her children to The Laugh Factory, placed them on stage, had them do skits and plays about their poverty, about how poor they were, about the part of town they came from in front of George Lopez; when she told George Lopez a story about how her children used to dive for coins in a fountain; when the fund-raisers took place and money was raised, and Janet Arvizo called George Lopez and wanted to give him a gift to thank him, was she asking for money?
When Janet Arvizo and Davellin kept hounding Chris Tucker, “When are we getting the truck? When are we getting the truck? When are we getting the truck?” was she asking for money?
When Janet Arvizo went to Miss Kennedy, who owned the dance class and said, “You know, we settled the J.C. Penney case. We got some money out of it, but all we ended up with were two bicycles. Please continue to give my children free lessons,” was she asking for money?
When Janet Arvizo concocted the J.C. Penney fraud, when her lawyer was shocked, after 25 meetings with her, to hear her say at a deposition how she’d been fondled 25 times by J.C. Penney security guards, was she asking for money?
When Janet Arvizo had her children call celebrities, constantly hounding celebrities, trying to get money, with her in the background scripting them and coaching them, do you think she was asking for money? When Janet Arvizo went to the editor of the local newspaper in El Monte and said, “We have no insurance. Chemotherapy costs $12,000 per injection. Please put the bank account number in your article. Please do an article. I know it’s against your policy to do things like this, but please do it for us, because we can’t pay our medical bills,” was she asking anyone for money?
When the calls went to Jay Leno, repeated messages, “You’re my favorite comedian,” messages he thought were awfully effusive, sounded scripted, sounded contrived, didn’t sound like the appropriate message from a child of that age, when he called the hospital and a woman was in the background telling her son to be effusive, to be wordy, to continue to tell him, “You’re my favorite comedian,” when he thought they might be asking for money but they actually didn’t, what was Janet Arvizo doing?
Ask yourself, “Do I have any problem believing what Janet Arvizo says?” Because if you have the slightest problem that’s a reasonable one, the slightest doubt that’s a reasonable one, the slightest suspicion, Mr. Jackson must go home and he must be free.
Now, the list of people she hustled is endless. You know that ten days after the J.C. Penney settlement — the prosecutor wants you to think she just got $32,000. The fact of the matter is, she put 25,000 in an account for Gavin, she put 8,000 in an account for Star, and she set that up so that she can’t touch it, which I commend her for. She got much more than $32,000, and yes, she had to pay legal fees and costs, and that’s what you normally do when you file a lawsuit and take it to settlement. But when she filed for emergency welfare ten days after getting that money, was she asking for money?
In the J.C. Penney case, in her deposition when she admitted that she had filed a state disability claim because she was depressed, and when she was asked, “Why are you depressed?” she said, “Because I’m a nobody,” was Janet Arvizo asking for money?
When she fraudulently sought food stamps, when she fraudulently sought disability, when she fraudulently sought every state benefit she could get her hands on by perjuring herself and perjuring herself and perjuring herself through constant welfare applications, where she disguised settlements, disguised bank accounts, disguised benefits, was Janet Arvizo seeking money? Because if you think she was, the prosecution falls. Now, ladies and gentlemen, the issue is very, very simple. If you do not believe the Arvizos beyond a reasonable doubt, Michael Jackson must be acquitted. That’s the law.
And these claims are completely based upon your having to believe the Arvizos every which way but Sunday. You’ve got to believe them. Now, I submit that the witnesses we have called and the cross-examination we have elicited in this case proves the Arvizos are con artists, actors and liars. What do I mean?
Janet Arvizo is a very interesting individual in some ways. Janet Arvizo sometimes directly asks for money. She directly asked her lawyer, Mr. Ranieri, for a contribution. He said no. More often than not, Janet Arvizo does not directly ask for money. But she’s so skilled at what she does in articulating her tales of woe, her family’s poverty, her abuse, all the problems, that invariably the person she’s talking to decides on their own to write her a check.
See, Janet Arvizo is much smarter than her ex-husband David. David was like a bull in a china shop. He would just come out and say, “Give us money,” or he’d send Gavin out to say, “Give us money.” Janet develops a relationship first. She hardly knows you and she’s hugging you. She’s
loving you. She’s saying, “You’re our family. You’re my brother. You’re my father. We’re all part of your family and you’re part of ours.” She starts sending letters to Michael Jackson in 2002, when Mr. Zonen told you there was no contact. Every letter, “Daddy Michael, you’re our family. We love you. We can’t live without you,” words to that effect.
You know that Gavin Arvizo, at a very young age, made a false claim of abuse against his mother in the 1990s to the Department of Children & Family Services. He then withdrew the claim. He was very young. He was very street smart. He’d been schooled by his parents, David and Janet. You note in the middle of Janet’s spousal abuse case with her ex-husband David, suddenly the claim that David had molested Davellin surfaced.
Janet Arvizo and lawyers.
Have any of you tried to count how many lawyers she’s seen in her short life? I’ll give you some ideas. She said she had a lawyer in her civil divorce action with David and her criminal proceedings with David for all these years named Manning. She had lawyers represent her in the J.C. Penney case against J.C. Penney and Tower Records.
She had a criminal defense attorney represent her when they were arrested at J.C. Penney. She went to Bill Dickerman while she allegedly was being falsely imprisoned.
And by the way, she first went to Bill Dickerman on the 21st of February, 2003. Two days after that, they were continuing to go after their visas and passports at various federal buildings. And the prosecution tells you she was not trying to develop a lawsuit against Michael Jackson? You have in evidence the visa applications. You have the passport applications. You have documents showing they’re going to the Brazilian consulate, they’re going to the federal building in Los Angeles. She’s already been to Bill Dickerman. What do you think is going on?
Bill Dickerman represents her for a period of time and then shuttles her off to Larry Feldman, who is a very well-known attorney in Los Angeles who had represented the Chandlers against Mr. Jackson in 1993. Why do you think he sends her to Larry Feldman? Why do you think he has a profit-sharing arrangement with Larry Feldman? Why do you think Mr. Feldman gets ahold of Stanley Katz, a psychologist he used against Mr. Jackson in the early ’90s? Why do you think Mr. Masada is bringing her to all these meetings? Doesn’t it suggest everybody’s looking for a big payday against Michael Jackson? There’s only one thing they need. A conviction, by you.
There’s going to be great celebration in Los Angeles among this group if he is convicted of one single count in this case. You heard Mr. Feldman testify. He spent an enormous amount of money in the early ’90s litigating and getting a settlement against Mr. Jackson. He didn’t want to do it again. He told the grand jury in Santa Barbara he didn’t want to spend that money again. He grudgingly admitted that if Mr. Jackson is convicted in this courtroom, he will not have to spend huge sums of money establishing liability in a civil courtroom. It will be established.
Aren’t they all after millions from Mr. Jackson? Haven’t you seen one witness after another come into this courtroom having sued Mr. Jackson, having tried to get a settlement out of Mr. Jackson? Every one, Ralph Chacon, McManus, Abdool, Cindy Montgomery. They’re all lined up.
He has a reputation for being a very childlike person, very naive, very idealistic, a musical genius. A person who likes to sit in trees and compose. A person who likes to spend time in the studio. A person who, from an early age, was such a genius at what he did that he attracted millions of dollars before he even knew what it meant. A person who has not managed his money terribly well. Has allowed people to use his signature. Has trusted the wrong people. They’ve emptied out accounts. They’ve diverted funds.
But think about this, ladies and gentlemen: How absurd is it to say molestation by Michael Jackson occurred on Gavin Arvizo between February 20th and March 12th? What’s going on at that point in time? And I will show you a timeline as well.
You’ve got international media scrutiny of Michael Jackson. He’s under a microscope, the Arvizos are under a microscope, because of the Bashir documentary. Everyone’s talking about it. All sorts of media are buzzing around. They’re following the Arvizos. They’re trying to follow Michael Jackson. There’s ample evidence to suggest that. The Arvizos don’t like it. Mr. Jackson, of course, is used to it. He seems to have generated publicity his whole career. But to make a long story short, there is no question you have a media frenzy going on internationally. You have a Department of Children & Family Services investigation going on as well. Mr. Jackson knows it, Janet Arvizo knows it, everyone knows it. Remember the evidence of leaks from DCFS that the prosecution didn’t care for? Everyone knows about the investigation.  Put all this together, what does it say to you about the dates the so-called molestation occurred? It’s absurd. It’s unrealistic. And it makes no sense. Because the whole case makes no sense. You know, these molestation counts and this attempted molestation count, they are completely based on the testimony of Gavin and Star Arvizo. There is no independent witness who allegedly sees any of this
There is a piece of evidence lacking in the prosecution’s case that is very significant, particularly with allegations like this. And let me explain what I’m talking about.
Typically, in a sex-crimes-type investigation — and let’s face it, in this case, you’ve had at least 70 officers running everywhere trying to find anything they can on Michael Jackson because he’s a mega celebrity. But typically in this kind of investigation, you have what is called a pretext phone call.
Typically, the police will get the alleged victim, they will sit with the alleged victim, and they will talk about making a phone call to the person who’s suspected of committing the crime. And I’m sure you’re familiar with this from television. They will make the phone call. The so-called victim makes the call, and the so-called victim is told to ask certain questions that are incriminating in nature.
For example, Gavin could have called Michael Jackson and said, “Why did you improperly touch me? Why did you do that to me in bed? Why did you touch me that day we were together? Why, when we were in the wine cellar drinking, did you do this or do that?” And typically the police are listening in, and they’re recording it, and that becomes their primary evidence.
Now, particularly in a case like this, where you have no independent witnesses, with credibility, watching the alleged molestation, and you have no forensic evidence to support it, you would think, if they did anything, it would have been a phone call like that.
You know why they didn’t do it? Look at that police interview. Gavin refuses. Doesn’t want to make a call to Michael Jackson. And Gavin is someone who has been schooled by his parents to very effortlessly call celebrities, one after another, after another, after another. He’s not shy about phone calls. He’s not shy about contacting Jay Leno, Chris Tucker, Michael Jackson, Suli McCullough, you name it.
Why no recorded phone conversation with an incriminating statement from Michael Jackson? Because he knew if he did that, he wouldn’t get an incriminating statement, because it didn’t happen. Now, they’ll probably tell you he was terrified, he was scared, he was traumatized to be on the phone. That’s a bunch of baloney.
I’m going to show you Gavin testified on the witness stand that Michael is a nice person, even in this courtroom. He’s not afraid of Michael. He’s angry that Michael abandoned his family and didn’t take care of them for the rest of their life. And as I said yesterday, they put demeanor in issue. The only time you ever saw him get angry was when we talked about what Michael really had done for he and his family and what had happened. And his anger came out when he made the false statement that Michael had done nothing for his family.
Remember, he started using this scripted phrase, “In my 11-year-old mind, I believed George Lopez had done more, because he went to the hospital and bought me clothes. In my 11-year-old mind, I thought others had done more because they were at the hospital. In my 11-year-old mind, Michael Jackson hadn’t done much for me at all.”
Ladies and gentlemen, the prosecution would like the defense to focus only on Janet Arvizo. That is their dream. Their dream is that we will focus on her and somehow the children will look clean and honest and truthful. And I want to make sure that’s not what our thrust is. You may recall that Gavin Arvizo met Chris Tucker at his home and lied. He told him, “We made no money at the fund-raiser,” and that’s when Chris Tucker wrote a check. Chris Tucker described him as cunning, smart. He didn’t trust him. Even at a young age, Star Arvizo told Louise Palanker, “All we got was love for Christmas,” and she began to write the $10,000 checks. Davellin kept hassling Azja Pryor for Chris Tucker’s truck. It was relentless. She finally had to stop talking to Davellin, and she actually liked Davellin. I don’t want to suggest, in any shape or form, this is just a target of Janet. The whole family has difficulties with the truth, difficulties with honesty, difficulties with money, and the children have been raised this way.
You find Mr. Mesereau’s closing argument here at 12853 and here