Closing arguments in the Michael Jackson child molestation and conspiracy trial — a trial which commenced with opening statements on February 28 — began this morning in Santa Maria with Senior Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen speaking for the prosecution.
Zonen opened, "This case is about the exploitation and sexual abuse of a 13-year-old cancer survivor by an international celebrity. Michael Jackson molested Gavin Arviso and many other boys."
Jackson would "seduce boys into his confidence, into his bedroom, into his bed."
"They rode rides, went to the zoo, ate whatever they wanted, which for kids meant candy, ice cream and soda pop," Zonen said. "There was no discipline, there was only fun ... And at night they entered into the world of the forbidden."
"Michael Jackson inserted himself into the life of (the accuser's) family, not the other way round," he said.
Zonen said the defense case was "entirely limited" to attacks on the credibility of the boy's mother.
Zonen quoted Jackson defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr: '"I think an opening statement is a contract,'" then reminded jurors that Mesereau had invited them to judge him on the basis of whether he kept the promises when the testimony was presented.
Zonen next listed a series of alleged inconsistencies between Mesereau's opening statement and the trial testimony, including allegations that the Arviso family — and in particular the mother Janet — had asked celebrities George Lopez, Jay Leno, Mike Tyson, Adam Sandler and Jim Carrey for money.
But Lopez criticized the boy's now-estranged father, not the mother, in his testimony, and Leno said he was not asked for money.
Tyson, Sandler and Carrey never appeared in court. "Did you see any of them come in here?" Zonen said. "There's no evidence she received anything from the three of them."
He said Arviso, "to this day, has never asked for one penny from Michael Jackson, has never asked anything of him, has never desired anything from him."
The prosecutor acknowledged that Janet Arviso had fraudulently underreported income on an application for welfare. "That was a mistake. It was fraud. She shouldn't have done it. It was a bad mistake on her part, and she may well have to deal with the consequences. That was the only thing she's done in her life that she clearly shouldn't have done."
Zonen's closing continues, followed by Mesereau's closing on behalf of Jackson. Zonen will also make a rebuttal argument after the defense finishes limited only to issues raised by the defense's wrap-up. The jury will get the case tomorrow.
Article comments
1 - SFC SKI
As a man forced to have a TV on throughout my shift, I can only hope that whatever the outcome ofthis trial is, it will finally get the subject out of the way and maybe I will here about real news and in-depth analysis of important issues. Of course, Britany's pregnant, and so many other important things need to be examined, like Paris Hilton's engagement, and Angelina and Brad.
2 - Eric Olsen
"Juicy" almost always trumps "important," I fear. That's why election time is so aberrant because for a while "important" get sequal time.
3 - p
Interesting article on each attorney's closing arguements:
"Zealous Zonen; Mesmerizing Mesereau
You don't often get to see the advanced level of lawyering we were witness to yesterday in the Michael Jackson trial. The two attorneys who gave closing arguments in the case, for the prosecution and the defense, were well beyond the standards of a county courthouse.
For that reason alone, it was worth getting to court by 6:30 a.m. and going through the public lottery foc a ticket. It was also worth seeing Randy and Jermaine Jackson, ex-husbands of the same woman, sitting separated by brother Tito in the family section. No Janet or LaToya, however.
Inside the court there were many new faces in the press area, including several "showboaters" or "daytrippers" who'd waited until the end proceedings to pay us all a visit. It's a little like Jack Nicholson waltzing in at the end of "Broadcast News." Very amusing.
Assistant District Attorney Ron Zonen, with his mother sitting in the front row, did the closing for the prosecution. This was a wise move by the District Attorney's office. Tom Sneddon is not nearly as gifted in presentation and oratory. Zonen was not always accurate with his facts in the conspiracy part of the case, but he was masterful in trying to paint Jackson as a child molester and devotee of pornography. He makes just the idea of opening a homoerotic magazine seem contemptuous, evil, and downright scary.
Zonen perhaps spent too much time trying to rehabilitate Janet Arvizo as an upstanding citizen. There is little reason for the jury to find her sympathetic. He gets points for trying.
Zonen had more luck on the alcohol and child molestation counts, recounting all the prior acts allegations against Jackson and quoting, quite graphically, testimony from former Neverland employees who once unsuccessfully sued Jackson. Zonen's hallmark is to repeat terrible things in his sweetly soothing voice. It always gets the jury's attention.
He also leaned hard on attorney Mark Geragos and Jackson associate Frank Tyson, almost as if he were laying the groundwork for a future legal action against each. He called Geragos "incompetent and uninformed," noting that Jackson's famed former counsel received $180,000 in fees from the singer for a little bit of work.
Zonen also said, "Mark Geragos's testimony was not true." Whether that was an allusion to some kind of forthcoming perjury charge is unknown. There seems to be no penalty for perjury in this neck of the woods so far.
Zonen gets an A.
And then came Tom Mesereau. Here is the difference between a great solid all-star player (Zonen as Rod Carew) and a superstar (think Reggie Jackson, no relation). Of course, Mesereau has better material to work with. He can have fun with the Arvizos, especially Janet. It's much easier to tear down someone's playhouse than to defend it, especially when you know the foundation is bad.
Mesereau came on full force, attacking every one of the counts for which Jackson was indicted. He addressed pedophilia, child pornography, excessive drinking and all of the conspiracy charges.
This columnist was especially pleased to see very clear, spelled out graphics to help Mesereau make his points. And one of those points -- that Arvizo saw her attorney, Bill Dickerman, twice in four days while applying for passports for her trip to Brazil, which she now calls a kidnapping -- was driven home nicely by Mesereau. It certainly can't be said enough.
Mesereau gets an A+ because he also delineated the unworkable timeline in this case, putting up graphics and then hammering home his point. The timeline doesn't work and, he said, the case makes no sense. Regardless of Michael Jackson's possible past behavior, this case does not stand up on its own. I wrote in this space on April 28, 2004, the day Jackson was arraigned and the dates of his alleged illegal activities were changed in his indictment:
"In the revised filing, Sneddon has changed the dates considerably. Now he says Jackson did whatever he's alleged to have done between Feb. 20 and March 12, 2003. What? This means there was a two-week mistake in the first filing. Is anyone paying attention to this? And the new final date -- March 12 -- seems impossible too by all accounts."
Mesereau, using a hyped-up but folksy appeal, shook the jury up a little, I think. They paid close attention to his remarks -- he spoke fast and repeated himself on purpose in case someone missed a point. You could feel the adrenaline rush in the room, and the sense that finally someone was enthusiastically supporting and defending Jackson. Will it work? Mesereau will finish up this morning, Zonen will have an hour to rebut him, and then the jury will be given the case for deliberations."
Hopefully the Jury has sense enought to acquit this man. What do you think EO?
4 - Eric Olsen
I think it was very likely that he was heading toward acquittal until the video of Gavin's original interview was shown.
Now I would not be surprised about conviction on one or more of the molestation and/or alcohol charges. I would be quite surprised about onviction on the kidnapping and conspiracy charges.
5 - Eric Berlin
It's hard to imagine MJ actually doing hard time, isn't it? After all the years, weirdness, payouts, controversy... very difficult to picture him in the slammer.
But I felt the same way about M Stewart, so...
By the way: I remember hearing that child molesters don't get treated very well in prison...
6 - Eric Olsen
he would doubtless be "isolated" for his own protection
7 - Kim-Mar
This entire case is a "Sham". As one of Court TV's guest stated...The case is about "money and revenge". Sneddon is supposedly retiring therefore, he felt he had to take one more strike at MJ prior to leaving office. If there was a viable case in existence, there would be no need for "Alledged Prior Bad Acts" evidence. I have a problem with this because anyone {Especially a rich celebrity} can be accused of whatever. If MJ had been previously charged and found guilty {Remember innocent until proven guilty?} of child molestation I could understand the 1108 material being brought in and looked at by the jury but, this was not the case. In fact, Sneddon needed this so call 1108 material to bolster his weak non existing case. A blind man can see what is going on here. The alledged molested boy and his family are a group of lying grifters and the mother is the worse of them all. She taught her children to lie as well as steal and she used her child's illness for financial gain. MJ is a victim here and all who have heard the facts know it whether they admit or not.
Kim-Mar
8 - james mclafferty
Kim hi:-),i tottally agree with you that is how i feel about it all,but i won't allow myself to be blinkered if i can help it(it's admitedly hard not be biased for him),i so want him to be innocent and think he will be acquitted,but i might just be wrong,let's hope not hey:(.
9 - Kim-Mar
This is an additional comment to be added to my previous comments referencing the MJ case. In reading the above information pertaining to the closing arguments delivered by Tom Mesereau and Ron Zonen...just as it has been through out this case, Court TV reporters/so called experts {for example Diann Diamond}have reported the majority of the prejudicial/negative information which came out in the court room {the lies}, and very little of the information which pointed to MJ possibly being innocent. One has to go on line to get the full story {the truth}and/or anything positive referencing this case...so what about the portion of the public that don't have computer access? They have no other recourse except to believe what is being reported. I hope that people truly recognize what is happening here. I also hope that the jury is smart enough to see what is going on and find MJ innocent of the crimes for which he's been accused. I'm the first to admit that MJ is a strange acting individual but being strange or different does not make you a pedofile!!!
10 - Michele
Diane Dimond should go straight to hell.
Free Michael!
11 - DrPat
What will you do if the jury (having heard both sides of the case, not just the negatives from Dimond or the positives from MJ fandom), decide Michael is guilty?
Ask yourself now, how will I cope? Because I read comments here from people who are so invested in this trial, they scarcely seem to breathe otherwise.
That level of obsession is not healthy. It's even, well, Jackson-esque...
12 - Kim
I don't think that Jackson did anything. so people need to keep their mouths shut. and forget it.